Gun debate tilts toward easier access
Several states consider loosening concealed weapon laws
The Associated Press
April 9, 2005

With more than four out of five states allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, that argument is finished. Now, the nation s long-running argument over guns turns on how much to loosen the rules should guns be allowed in judge s chambers? Bars? In workplace parking lots?

The work in state legislatures following the latest spate of fatal shootings shows how much the debate has changed. The 1999 Columbine school shootings sent moms marching into the streets for tougher gun laws, but this year, many state legislators are looking at ways to broaden access to weapons and ease training and other requirements.

Where do you stand on self-defense? said New Mexico state Rep. Thomas Anderson, a Republican who said local judges asked him to change the law to let judges carry weapons into their court chambers. I believe in it.

His bill died in committee, but it will be back next year. New Mexico this year already broadened its concealed-weapons law, passed just two years ago, to drop the age requirement to 21 and allow the state to reach agreements with other states so gun-carriers can cross borders without worry.

Shootings fuel debate

The push for concealed weapons began in the late 1980s, when all but 10 states refused to allow residents to do so, or only allowed it in special circumstances. But starting in 1989, those barriers fell. Now it s up to 46, with 35 states allowing just about anyone who is not a felon to get a permit.

The late 1990s saw a rise in gun control legislation. In 1999, after 15 were killed, including the gunmen, at the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, gun control gained a sharp edge and legislators attention.

Violence hasn t subsided this year, from courthouse shootings in Atlanta and Tyler, Texas, to the school killings at Red Lake, Minn., the most deadly since Columbine.

But the reaction has spurred something far different, drawing on the idea that if the victims had weapons they might not be victims.

At the scene of these crimes, despite all the good intentions of the police, the prosecutors, the courts, the judges they re all coming in later, said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. The country as a whole is taking another look, across the board, at the idea that maybe it makes good sense to allow people to protect themselves in as many situations as possible.

Legislative wave

Current legislation in some cases is a direct response to the recent shootings, though often predates it. In recent weeks:

Florida legislators passed a measure allowing people to meet force with force to defend themselves without fear of prosecution, extending the right from their homes to anywhere they re legally allowed to be. Gov. Jeb Bush said he intends to sign it.

Arizona s Senate approved letting people carry guns into bars and restaurants, as long as they re not drinking. The House has yet to act.

North Dakota legislators approved removing the shooting test needed for a concealed-weapon permit, though the bill awaits final approval from the governor.

Push for fewer restrictions

Even schools and workplaces, the scene of some of the most horrific violence, saw restrictions fall. A new Virginia law lets people with concealed handguns onto school grounds, as long as they and the gun remain in their car. A 2004 Oklahoma law lets employees with permits keep guns in cars in job parking lots.

Employers have a responsibility to make their workplace a safe place. For them to let workers with guns onto the premises is insane, said Brian Seibel, senior counsel at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. And bars? Hello? Do you want to mix alcohol and guns?

The shift in opinion and legislation comes directly from the election outcomes of 2000 and 2004, and the national focus on security after Sept. 11, both sides agree.

There s an ebb and flow, Seibel said. There s no question that the NRA is on the offensive trying to roll back the gun laws on the books. ... Their vision of society is everyone ought to have a gun. That s not our view of a safe society. I don t think it s Americans view of a safe society.

Still, the struggle hasn't all been one-sided.

Advances for gun-control advocates
Missouri, where legislators approved a concealed-weapon law even though a statewide referendum rejected it in 1999, gave cities the right to restrict weapons on city-owned property. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor John Street, both Democrats, are studying sweeping changes.

Illinois, one of the significant battlegrounds, saw legislation that seeks to ban .50-caliber ammunition, close a loophole that allows sales at gun shows without background checks, and require guns to be sold with trigger lock safety devices. Gun-rights interests scored a victory last week by killing a bill that would allow lawsuits against gun dealers.

Anderson, in New Mexico, said restrictions are outlawing the way he grew up, when he learned about guns before he was a teenager. In his view, restrictions make crime more likely, and his view seems on the rise.

There should be the possibility that any house on the street should have a weapon, he said. Do I think every house should have one? No. But the bad guy should think so.

I am in favor of the 2nd ammendment along with gun control.

Guns don't kill people, but people with guns DO kill people.  I agree with the 2nd amendment, but I also agree with gun control. 

Uh, can we focus a bit more on elevating the social and economic life of the U.S. so that as few people in as few places as possible feel the need to carry a  weapon?  I'm coming to the conclusion the rightwing wants a Dodge City civic life and a pre-mass-literacy, medieval, ecclesiastical-absolutist government.  I mean...for crying out loud!
>:(

Why are we the only country with legislators kicking up a fuss for more citizens  to walk around armed to the teeth?

Uh, can we focus a bit more on elevating the social and economic life of the U.S. so that as few people in as few places as possible feel the need to carry a  weapon? 


Uhhh, excuse me *knock-knock-knock*

We have always had crime in the US.  This is because we will always have sociopathic people that find it easier to steal what you and I have then to earn it themselves.  Just as we will always have drunks-druggies that do not care about anything but their next high.

I have never carried a weapon because of anything other then fear of getting robbed.  When somebody has a .38 special pointed at you because he wants what is in your cash register, you could not give a damn about what "Social-Economic Pressure" he is living under.  When you answer the door and 3 guys barge in to do a "Home Invasion Robbery", I know that none of us feel sorry because he is underclassed.

How about this:  We give people who do strong-arm robbery job training, and job placement when they leave prison.  If somebody performs an armed robbery, we perform a summary execution.  Then I might feel safe enough to go back to the "big city" and not have to be armed.

^ :o Thats..extreme.

But I do see your overall point, Mushroom. I'd say I'm in the middle between you and Maxwell. I think poverty and other socioeconomic cercumstances are a BIG contributor to crime..BUT, it would be there without them. Perhaps not as widespread, but it'd still have a visible and active prescence in our society. It always will(unless we were to become a mind-controlled totalitarian society or something). Some people DO prefer to be criminals, even if they COULD go legit and do well. There are true criminals out there. And trust me, if anyone would know, it'd be me. I've grown up around a LOT of criminal types.

^ :o Thats..extreme.

But I do see your overall point, Mushroom. I'd say I'm in the middle between you and Maxwell. I think poverty and other socioeconomic cercumstances are a BIG contributor to crime..BUT, it would be there without them.


I really do not agree with that.  And trust me, I have had some REALLY bad luck in that area.

I have been homeless 4 times in my life.  Those range from 3 to 9 months at a time.  I have been jobless and have had less then 5 dollars to my name.  Yet, I did not commit any crimes.  I simply picked myself up, got a jog, and worked my way out of poverty.

To me, it is simply wrong to take poverty as an excuse for crime.  It is an insult and offensive to all those that are able to get themselves out of that situation through legal, legitimate means.  Poverty does not excuse crime.  And a lot of wealthy people commit crimes too.  Look at the Menendez brothers, Mark Morze, Martha Stewart, and Michael Milkin.  Look at OJ Simpson.  Not all crimes are even commited by guns.

Well, than lets agree to disagree. Because there are people out there who would not committ crimes if they were in a better economic position.

Hmm, funny. I see to be the moderate on this position for once. ;D

I mean, Maxwell takes a more traditional left-wing position, and you take a more traditional right-wing position and I'm in the middle.

Hmm, funny. I see to be the moderate on this position for once. ;D

I mean, Maxwell takes a more traditional left-wing position, and you take a more traditional right-wing position and I'm in the middle.


Actually, you might be surprised.  :)  I was answering to a specific point, not to the topic in general.

Myself, I believe in both Gun Control, and free access to firearms.

I believe that every law abiding citizen has the right to bear arms.  I also believe that they should have the right to carry them, either openly or concealed.  I believe they should be allowed in public places, but at the same time a public place has the right to forbid entry if the person is under arms.

I also believe that criminal use of guns should be punished harshly.  I believe that somebody who lets a child gain unsupervised access to a weapon should be heald as an accessory to whatever crime (or accident) the child performs with said firearm.  If the child shoots somebody, hold them for accessory to murder.

I believe strongly in background checks.  They should be done, to help keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.  I believe that somebody who does not follow the law by selling a gun without a background check should also suffer the same sentence as an accessory to the original crime.

I agree in reasonable waiting periods, as long as that time is used for a background check.  The Federal mandated 3 days is fine.  The California 21 day period is insane.  I also dissagree with a lot of the recent "Saturday Night Special" laws.  It sets an arbitrary limit on guns, based on price.  And a $300 gun is just as deadly as an $500 gun.

To show how insane those laws are, a gun manufacturer named Lorcin in California has for decades made inexpensive firearms.  Most sold from $150-200.  But then California passed a "Saturday Night Special" law, making any gun that sells new under $300 illegal.  Instantly, a California company has most of it's inventory made illegal in it's own state.  And having owned a Lorcin, they make some very good guns.  The one I got (.380 single stack) was one of the few my late fiancee was able to hold.  This is because most pistols use the "Double Stack" to fit in more rounds, but at the same time making the handgrip larger in diameter.  For a small female, that makes finding a gun that fits comfortably in the hand very difficult.

Every time the issue of guns in public comes up, I remember the 1984 San Ysidro McDonald's shooting which left 20 dead, and the Killeen Luby's shooting in 1991 which left 24 dead.  1 person at the Luby's even had a legal handgun in their car, but did not bring it inside.  I am sure that if somebody in either of those had a firearm, a lot less people would have died.

As for conceal carry, I think these people should go through the same POST test that armed security guards and police officers have to go through.  And they should have annual (or biannual - every 2 years) refresher training.  Part of the training should be gun laws, weapons safety, and actual target practice.  And maybe even a psychological review, to ensure that the person granted the license is not a psychopath that has simply not gone on a rampage yet.

Being a former Marine, I take firearms very seriously.  They are the ultimate in power, as well as personal responsibility.  Those that are proven to be irresponsible should not be trusted with them.

I agree with all of your points, Mushroom.

I think privately-owned firearms are fine, and even beneficial up to a certain point. Switzerland I think has the highest percentage of gun ownership in private homes in the Western world, and also has one of the lowest violent crime rates(I don't have access to statistics so if i am wrong, sorry).

But I don't want some psycho or Billy Bob Irresponsibleclod getting a hold of a .44 magnum anytime soon. ;)

Switzerland I think has the highest percentage of gun ownership in private homes in the Western world, and also has one of the lowest violent crime rates(I don't have access to statistics so if i am wrong, sorry).



No, you're right.  I've heard that before too.

Uhhh, excuse me *knock-knock-knock*

We have always had crime in the US.  This is because we will always have sociopathic people that find it easier to steal what you and I have then to earn it themselves.  Just as we will always have drunks-druggies that do not care about anything but their next high.

I have never carried a weapon because of anything other then fear of getting robbed.  When somebody has a .38 special pointed at you because he wants what is in your cash register, you could not give a darn about what "Social-Economic Pressure" he is living under.  When you answer the door and 3 guys barge in to do a "Home Invasion Robbery", I know that none of us feel sorry because he is underclassed.

How about this:  We give people who do strong-arm robbery job training, and job placement when they leave prison.  If somebody performs an armed robbery, we perform a summary execution.  Then I might feel safe enough to go back to the "big city" and not have to be armed.

That's the usual specious hogwash from the Right.  Of course there are always going to be sociopaths.  The successful ones are all on Wall Street, on the boards of our corporations, and big boys in the Fascist Party (Republican).  The worst *criminals* of this world are those in the prisons, but those who steal the wealth of the world from the people. 
I didn't say guns ought to be kept out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and I didn't imply there would be no crime if we lived in a state of social and economic justice.
I did say there would be less crime, fear, and misery if we set our national priorities in favor economic justice and civility, instead of socialism for the financial elite and social darwinism for the rest of us.  The Spartan scramble for your very life is bad for morale.
Incidentally, the notion that concealed weapons make for more civility and respect is a steaming heap!  That isn't civility or respect, it's fear, and fear is not one in the same with civility or respect.
Furthermore, if you are going to the "big city" armed, you are much more likely to be reduced to a lifeless and bloody heap on the sidewalk.  I would explain why, but the Right seems cerebrally incapable of understanding it.

Maxwell, I'd like you to explain why(I'm not Rightist). I cannot think of why you'd be more likely to come to harm if you were carrying in an urban area.

Someone with a gun might want to make sure you can't use your gun to shoot them. 

I really do not agree with that. And trust me, I have had some REALLY bad luck in that area.

I have been homeless 4 times in my life. Those range from 3 to 9 months at a time. I have been jobless and have had less then 5 dollars to my name. Yet, I did not commit any crimes. I simply picked myself up, got a jog, and worked my way out of poverty.

To me, it is simply wrong to take poverty as an excuse for crime. It is an insult and offensive to all those that are able to get themselves out of that situation through legal, legitimate means. Poverty does not excuse crime. And a lot of wealthy people commit crimes too. Look at the Menendez brothers, Mark Morze, Martha Stewart, and Michael Milkin. Look at OJ Simpson. Not all crimes are even commited by guns.
Don't forget Andrew Luster,one-time heir to the Max Factor fortune...his crime...rape with GHB(yep the date-rape drug)as one of his weapons...and spoiled Conneticut rich kid Alex Kelly,also a rapist,whose parents covered for him when he hid out in Europe...

If you have a gun...the perp can get it away from you and shoot YOU with it...scary!!

That's the usual specious hogwash from the Right.  Of course there are always going to be sociopaths.  The successful ones are all on Wall Street, on the boards of our corporations, and big boys in the Fascist Party (Republican).  The worst *criminals* of this world are those in the prisons, but those who steal the wealth of the world from the people. 


OK, beautiful speech.  Now, do you have any facts?  I notice you give a lot of impassioned speeches, but rarely back them up with anything but feelings, or attacks on "the Right".

How about this fact?  Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, and the lowest crime rates in Europe.

Kennesaw Gerogia also has mandatory gun ownership.  This simple fact should prove a lot of the blather from anti-gun people is just plain nonsense.

Kennesaw Georgia has not had a murder since 1986!  That's right, 1986.  19 years, without a single murder.  And one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.  Here is a link to the Kennesaw Police Department:

http://www.kennesawpolice.com/crimestats.aspx

If you see, frime there is roughly half the national average, with a marked decrease since the gun law there went into effect.  So muce for "more guns means more crime" falacy.

Now, do you have any facts to dispute this, or just "feelings"?

mandatory gun ownership in Switzerland? Can i see some evidence to back this up?

mandatory gun ownership in Switzerland? Can i see some evidence to back this up?


http://www.handguncontrol.net/Gunlaws%20around%20the%20world.htm

Just like Israel, Switzerland has a mandatory conscription law.  All males 18 and over go through at least 1 year of military duty.  Even those that are exempted are members of their "National Guard".

In fact, not only is gun ownership mandatory, assault rifle ownership is mandatory!  That's right, the STGW 90 (which is illegal in many areas of the US) is mandatory to own in Switzerland.

Kennesaw Gerogia also has mandatory gun ownership. 

Yeah, I wrote that in another thread.  I live a stone throw away from Kennesaw, and almost got in trouble from the local police force for NOT having a gun while just driving through!

Admittedly, we in Vermont have a very low crime rate, and especially a very low violent crime rate.  Nonetheless, the idea of people "tooting heat" really scares me.  Seems to me that most violent crimes occure in the heat of passion.  People armed with heat in that situation are more likely to inflict deadly force than those armed with just their fists, or whatever blunt (or sharp) instrument they can lay hands on.  On the other hand, if you live in the South Bronx...

Seems to me that most violent crimes occure in the heat of passion. 


That may well be true.  And under current gun laws, people like that are not eligble to legally own guns in the first place.

Must gun deaths in this country occur from criminals with guns.  Once you remove that factor, the losses are even lower then being struck by lightning.  (I forgot where I read that statistic, it was in a "Hard To Believe" article).  In fact, don't forget that most organizations like Handgun Control International use every gun death in their statistics.  That means that a criminal shot by a cop is included as a "gun homocide".

Again, for Rosiel and all the do good Hollywierd whiners...IF we outlaw guns, the outlaws will rule. They aren't going away. I think definately that people need to be responsible but geez, if we don't have guns who does....the criminals! Oh, and you gotta love rosie for kicking Tom Selleck off her show a few years back, because he "Dared" to disagree with her on this issue! BTW, her bodyguards have guns so I think she's nothing...but a hypocrite :P

I am not totally against guns...as long as legitimate owners use them responsibly!

I honestly think NEWARK(NJ) should make owning a gun MANDATORY for citizens who have a clean record and can use a gun correctly...there's so much crap that goes on there...

Same for Camden, NJ...I would not walk around there without some kind of protection...