This country is going nuts: Georgia’s governor Nathan Deal signed a really, really dumb gun bill today. From The Hill (you can see the bill at the link; my emphasis):
Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) signed sweeping gun legislation on Wednesday that some have described as unprecedented.
Licensed gun owners will be able to carry their firearms into public places including bars, schools, churches and government buildings, among other areas.
The NRA called House Bill 60, The Safe Carry Protection Act, “the most comprehensive pro-gun bill in state history.”
Georgia’s legislature passed it at the end of this year’s session, and Deal told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that it had support from both Republicans and Democrats.
ADVERTISEMENT“There are always opportunities for people to use any piece of legislation as a political tool if they don’t like it. But there was bipartisan support for the bill,” he said.
State Sen. Jason Carter (D), grandson of former President Jimmy Carter and his party’s gubernatorial nominee, voted for the bill and told MSNBC last week he believes he helped “make the bill better than it was when it first started.”
Two proposals that did not make it into the bill include a provision that would have legalized the carrying of guns on college campuses, and one that would have required houses of worship to allow guns unless leaders ban them.
Bars, schools, and government buildings (which presumably include courthouses): that’s just where you want a bunch of people with guns.
And, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, it gets worse: the cops aren’t allowed to stop anyone carrying a weapon to see if they have a permit. (Apparently they can ask the person to show up later in court to show the permit, but that won’t keep someone without a license to wreak some havoc before their presumed court appearance.)
I don’t understand the mentality that can favor something like this—guns in bars and schools, for crying out loud—and am deeply disappointed that Carter’s grandson favored this insane legislation.
Carrying guns at all seems odd but putting that aside, carrying them pretty much everywhere borders on the insane and then to have rules that cripple the rules put in place to control who can carry these lethal weapons? Now we’re walking into some sort of bizarre comic-book-like realm. It is baffling that gun owners themselves would be in favour of legislation that prevents police from asking to see a permit to carry. Exactly who are these rules designed for anyway? It really makes no sense at all.
The NRA’s putative mission is to protect second amendment rights. Licensing laws are a limit on the right to bear arms, so they are against them – and when they can’t prevent a licensing law from existing, they will be against any attempt to enforce it.
You are correct of course, but it seems the NRA’s position is just crazy. Even if it a front for gun companies, it doesn’t make sense. I don’t see car companies frantically campaigning against car licenses, drivers tests, parking meters or traffic lights.
Ah, but you do see cigarette companies arguing vociferously against warning labels, and one can probably find all sorts of analogous cases if you care to look. I suspect the reason you don’t see Ford arguing against drivers’ licenses is not out of Ford’s benevolent social empathy, but because car sales are not greatly impacted by the requirement that one have a license to drive.
Insanity – thy name is Georgia !
As I recall, King George III (named after one of the Georges, did go insane.
George III was only insane by the standards and medical knowledge of the day. It is likely that he suffered from the genetic disease porphyria, although this has been questioned.
40, 50, 60 years ago, gun owners and the Right in general were not screaming about their 2nd Amendment rights being taken away. They were not, even back in those days, allowed to take guns into bars and schools. They survived just fine with reasonable laws that restricted where one could have a gun. Suddenly it’s important to them they be able to present themselves in public like Wyatt Earp or, worse, Billy The Kid or Jesse James. Do we not know from history what society was like when everyone walked around with a pistol hanging on their hip? This is what we want to go back to? Really?
And even the Wild West had gun restrictions with some places requiring you to leave your piece outside the town borders. It seems to be worse than that relatively uncivilized time even.
Got to love state-sponsored workplace violence opportunities in America.
What about the CDC or other federal buildings in GA; do they get to have guns too?
Don’t forget the post offices!
Exactly what is this law supposed to solve? I feel like an observer from Mars watching Jerry Springer for the first time
My question as well especially where police cannot ask to see your permit. I don’t get why you would cripple a control like that.
If you’re the sort of organization that doesn’t want any licensing process in the first place, it makes sense to try and water down the process’ effectiveness when you can’t get rid of it.
Imagine you are opposed to speed limits, but you are smart enough to realize that you don’t have a legal chance in hell of getting them removed. A way to de facto get what you want while leaving speed limits on the books is to pass a law that says police can’t check people’s speed.
Hmmmm seems the root cause issue is the tail wagging the dog and we’ll funded lobbies that have powers they shouldn’t have.
These are the same people who think it laudable for the police to stop (Brown) people to check whether they are committing the misdemeanor crime of being here legally.
And probably other same people who hate “big government” but want control over women’s reproduction. They want small government to stay out of their business but require it to get into everyone else’s.
That’s really the whole story in one line, isn’t it? And, it very closely parallels the “thought” processes of the religious who, as Mark Twain or HL Mencken or someone so concisely (and approximately) put it: “Most people think the bible is full of excellent commands that their neighbor should be following.”
I believe the line of reasoning goes something like:
Crazy person starts shooting up the mall/bank/etc. Responsible, combat-trained citizens can put them down before the cops even need to be called and before the crazy can kill too many people, if any. Also, presumably if criminals know that a certain number of people will also have guns it should help deter crime – I am not going to mug you for your wallet when there is a good chance you have a gun on you and other similar situations.
Yes that is the reasoning. As is so common there is no good evidence to suppose that any of it comports with reality. Every bit of it can be easily refuted with just as reasonable sounding just-so counter-reasons.
For example. If criminals have to worry that anyone they might try to mug or rob is carrying a weapon then they will be much more likely to resort to lethal force right from the get go, and violent death outcomes for muggings will increase.
We do know that almost all mass shooting take place in gun free zones. Why is that do you think? Could it be that these killers select gun free zones because the chances are that law abiding people won’t be armed there? Maybe.
You don’t see mass shootings in police stations, gun stores and gun ranges. I wonder why that is.
The gun issues is complex, but creating so called gun free zones is in reality creating state sanctioned killing zones.
Is a military base a gun free zone?
Yes.
This must be the “No Spin Zone.”
Even if we granted your interpretation on this, for several other reasons military bases are not a good example to support your claims.
Reality doesn’t quite fit your claims. Except for the complicated part. It is complicated, but anything involving the behavior of large groups of humans is complicated.
Next I might mention how other countries have much more strict gun control laws and that deaths from violent crimes are lower per capita in those countries than the good ole USA, and then you’ll start telling us about how the US is different somehow, and therefore the methods those other countries use won’t work here. I’ll laugh, or maybe snort. Maybe even cry.
Next, maybe you’ll say something like, “If you make guns illegal then only criminals will have guns.” And I’ll shake my head and give up because if you really believe that trite little bit of wisdom (and I’m not saying you do, I’m just hypothesizing), which is wrong in at least 3 or 4 different directions, there is no point in discussing the issue.
The UK has a higher rate of violent crime. Reality supports my claims.
I don’t know if you are lying or just drinking the koolaid. If you are aware of certain facts it is plain to see that this particular talking point relies on people being ignorant of some key facts in order to deliberately mislead them. Deliberate cherry picking combined with deliberate omissions, AKA lying.
For example. Both the definition of “Violent Crimes” and the methods used to derive the statistics by those organizations in each country that perform those tasks, the FBI in the US and The British Home Office in the UK, are quite different. In short,
And there is much more being swept under the rug there, but let’s get to the really significant statistics here. Let’s look at something simpler that isn’t complicated by different methodologies or different definitions. Something that well represents what this issue is all about. Let’s compare murder rates. Not just gun related, but all murders. The 2010 numbers are USA, 4.8 per 100,000, and the UK, 1.2 per 100,000.
A couple of other facts directly related to your claims. Violent crimes in the UK, by the UK’s much more inclusive definition, have been steadily declining since the mid 1990’s and continue to do so. Despite the 1997 Firearms Amendment.
And for an even more interesting correlation, at the same time that violent crimes in the US have also been on the decline, so to has gun ownership in the US.
In other words, no, reality does not support any of the claims you have made here.
First there was ‘lying for jeebus’…
..now here’s ‘lying for guns’.
The Uk has a higher violent crime rate than the US.
“You don’t see mass shootings in police stations, gun stores and gun ranges. I wonder why that is.”
I could post the links to the stories of people committing mass murder with firearms in the places you claim it doesn’t happen, but I’m sure you can find them on your own if you were so inclined to check your facts.
Oh, the heck with it. I’ll post the third one I found in the first search I did.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/blog/article/death-at-the-gun-range-five-firearm-deaths-in-firearm-friendly-environments/index.html
I’m never surprised by firearms supporters spreading misleading or just plain wrong propaganda. They never seem to check their own facts. Their websites and those commenting on them are a blinding example of confirmation bias and incestuous amplification. They accept any argument that boosts their view and stomp into silence any opinion that differs from the NRA official line. I’ve seen many crushed by their brethren who misunderstood their comment to be on the anti gun side. They then whine, cajole and beg to be brought back into the fold.
Why aren’t there more spree shootings in police stations? Because the vast majority of police don’t let armed citizens into their police stations which usually have controlled entries.
The USA has so many shootings and so many spree shootings because the USA has so many guns. Making them even more available is not going to help the problem.
Why do spree shootings occur mostly in schools? Two reasons. Because that’s where the targets are. In many cases the shooters go to the school they themselves attend because the people they want to kill are there. Not because it’s a gun free zone. They go to schools because that’s where unknown lunatics go to make a name for themselves and get it in the history books. They have learned that school shootings make the biggest splash in the media, so that is where they go. These people aren’t trying to escape, they are committing suicide and trying to make a name for themselves.
Note that Rhetoric said “Responsible, combat-trained citizens…”.
If only that actually was a requirement for carrying a firearm. The law this article is based on prevents police from determining if the citizen is “responsible”, ie, not a law breaker by forbidding police from checking to see if he or she is following the law.
Most police are required to actually take firearms training and to practice regularly so they can get past the the effects of the adrenalin rush, shaking limbs, tunnel vision and other side effects that occur during fire fights that make it extremely difficult to hit the target, never mind avoid hitting innocent bystanders. Even then years of training doesn’t overcome the problem. Trained officers, even extremely well trained military men make mistakes during fire fights, sometimes shooting civilians and even their own soldiers.
Yet so many firearm enthusiasts think their going to be there to take down the terrorist and save the world, if only they’re allowed to take their weapon into the bank, bar or courthouse.
And what happened to the business owners rights? What about the rights of employee’s to not be confronted by angry customers who are packing heat? Will the employee’s be allowed to pack a pistol when he asks for a raise from his boss? Will government employee’s be allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves against all the armed people?
How will anyone be able to tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy when the shooting starts? Especially when you don’t even need the shooting to start in many states, only a suspicion that your life may be in danger. The new stand your ground laws have made it so all you need is to be afraid.
It’s quite clear that many of these people who are always carrying firearms are constantly afraid.
I also don’t think the people have thought through the mass shooting scenario very well. What about the Colorado theatre shootings? Somehow, most people would recognize that even if there isn’t a fire, yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre could cause a panic. Who would really want to be in a dark movie theatre with 200 people, every one of which was carrying a firearm, when someone yelled “Watch out! They’ve got a gun and are going to shoot!”
I never have had a gun enthusiast explain the Rules of Engagement to me very well.
I don’t know if readers here are aware of it but a few months ago in Florida, a man was killed and his wife was injured by a fellow movie-goer, over an argument about texting. What a horrid way to die.
I do not remember seeing JAC post about it. It made headlines; just google ‘Florida movie theater shooting’.
This will happen more and more.
I just cannot believe Georgia did this.
I have no trouble believing it at all. Remember that Georgians voted in Paul Broun, who thinks the earth is 9,000 years old, and that “evolution is a lie from the pit of hell.”
Focus on the obvious: these people are uneducated, fearful (mostly of blacks), and see their cultural power slipping away. There is no reason *not* to think that they are going to respond with violence.
‘yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre’
In Georgia, that could well be taken as a command.
This logic is always insane, but seems to be the main defence for “guns everywhere”. If you have 500 people in a large mall food court, and 1 crazy person pulls out his gun and starts shooting, followed by 499 other “non-crazy” people pulling out and waving their guns around, how does anyone know who is the “bad guy”? I think the logic of the situation dictates that if you are one of those 499 people, *everyone* else is a lethal threat, and you should shoot them. Maybe the first guy wasn’t so crazy and just pre-emptively defending himself against everyone else.
It truly is the war of all against all.
Georgia has a stand-your-ground law, so in the scenario you describe, the mass killing of everyone by everyone could in prinicple be entirely legal. One guy pulls out a gun because he feels his life is in jeopardy, and everyone starts firing because they feel their lives are in jeopardy from the first guy or each other.
You want to know how insane GA is about this? Last month they passed a law that said, very specifically, that convicted felons such as murderers can legally shoot people while ‘standing their ground’ – even though it is illegal for such people to own or carry a gun. Evidently, the good citizens of GA think you should maintain the right to shoot people with a gun even when it would be illegal for you to carry one.
Do you suppose Georgia could become the first state to collectively qualify for a Darwin Award? 🙂
I think this is the whole point. (Well, not the whole point, as there are a lot of points, but one of the points that makes up the whole point)–the inevitability (notice that I did not say “possibility”) of escalation. One shot is fired (or, a nearby truck backfires, or someone drops his tray in the food court) and all the crazies start shooting.
And, you know what? Every single one of those gun-toters thinks that *he* is trained and competent, and won’t be the one to blow away his own wife or some innocent bystander.
Crazy person starts shooting up the mall/bank/etc. Typical gun owner kills a few innocent bystanders. Even well-trained, experienced police kill innocent bystanders.
If I were a criminal determined to mug you for your wallet and thought you to be armed, I would use extreme violence and take your wallet and your gun.
How about the drunk who gets mad in the bar or the person who gets upset in the courtroom and starts shooting? A bunch of untrained, but armed civilians kill a lot more people trying to stop her or him?
“Safe Carry Act” – wording right out of “1984”
It is safe for the people carrying the guns, they wont get hurt, just a lot of civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time, so they just need guns too. It is an arms race amongst Georgians, their neighbours have guns, their police have guns so they need a gun too to protect themselves from everyone else who has a gun. Then everyone will be safe in their neighbour proof homes growing angrier and more paranoid and not going outside. Guns and alcohol are good mix, guns and students are a good mix, guns and religious fanatics are a good mix, it is obvious really. It would be interesting to keep an eye on murder stats in Georgia, it sounds like there will be a noticeable increase from July 1 when this is law.
You probably already know this, but actually that ain’t so. Or, at least, there is enough evidence to the contrary that it is not an easy call to make at all. As with just about anything from acting to yoga, most people who own guns aren’t very proficient with their safe use.
They have been known to shoot body parts they’re rather fond of while moving about. Not a good story to tell the E.R. doctor.
Darwin awards all around!
Really unbelievable! This is supposed to make places SAFE??
Contemporary Georgia legislators have apparently lost the wisdom of the Old West lawmakers who required folks entering town to check their guns with the sheriff.
To what end was this law enacted? What concern or fear drives the desire to have a gun always at hand in a supposedly civilized nation where violence is on the decline?
Though it yet seems a bit farfetched to me, the only reason I can think of is that a contingent of the majority is so terrified at becoming a minority it is desperate for the reassuring feel of a gun trigger at all times. If that turns out to be the case, how insecure and cowardly.
I can answer that! In short, it is the fear that someone, somewhere, might think that you have a below average dick size.
That, and the fact that some of those ridiculing the mass and volume of your reproductive apparatus may well have a few more milligrams of melanin in their skin than you do.
I once commented somewhere: “Let’s face it. The right-wing is a party composed of a group of self-satisfied, xenophobic, jingoistic, willfully ignorant religious know-nothings who can’t seem to distinguish their guns from their pricks, pay lip service to democracy while pining for the good old days of plutocracy, don’t even pay lip service to the working class or the environment, and whose mindset, if one can without irony use the term in relation to them, is a social darwinism so unalloyed by any sort of sense of progressive or united society that it would have given the pre-ghosts Ebenezer Scrooge the heebie-jeebies, had that fictional character been around here to interact with them.”
I have not yet been given any reason to adjust even one word of that.
Excellent rant.
I have to agree with musical beef (and, OT, there has got to be an interesting story behind that name).
A fully detailed, well articulated exposition compared to my “in short.”
Even Tombstone, Arizona had such a law in effect at the time of the O.K. Corral incident, featuring Wyatt Earp.Even then they realized that cowboys, whiskey, and pistols was not a good mix.
I find the part about guns in bars the most baffling.
I imagine some GA judge that dislikes the idea of armed people in his/her courtroom will find a federal precedent to let them squash the state’s ‘guns in courthouses’ law. The question in my mind is whether they will look after other public institutions when they do that, or just themselves.
I think every one of us who doesn’t live in Georgia should contact their tourism board (exploregeorgia.org) and tell them we refuse to visit there as long as this law is in force.
I think you are right.
Then you better add many more states to your list. Georgia is just behind the curve. What they did is similar to what dozens of other states, including Michigan have allowed for years.
And yet these states don’t seem to have blood in the streets. Where most of the blood is at is in states and Districts that have very restrictive gun laws. D.C, Chicago, NYC, Boston, LA, etc…
“…including Michigan…”
Wait! What? Didn’t Detroit top Forbes list of most dangerous cities in the US last year, just to give one example. And it was a repeat win.
Murder rates were higher in Chicago and D.C. for years. Illinois now has concealed carry laws and DC allows people to keep handguns in their homes, so murder rates should drop.
So are you saying that when a long term trend continues you are going to claim that it is because of a recent change in gun control laws?
You do know that gun ownership in the US has been going down over all? You do know that at the same time violent crimes, gun related crimes have also been trending down over all for many years now? Sometimes reality just isn’t what you want it to be.
I just googled ‘Michigan shootings’.
No blood on their streets, yeah?
You will always have murders. I was referring to lawful gun owners killing each other. As I stated Michigan has had the same laws as well as dozens of other states. Murder rates do not go up with more liberal gun laws.
Here is a list of firearm deaths by state.
Here is a list of stand your ground states.
Of the top ten states with the higest rates of firearm death, six of them have stand your ground laws. In contrast, of the bottom ten* states, two have stand your ground laws.
So you seem to be completely wrong. The presence of stand your ground laws DOES correlate with more firearm deaths. Whether that correlation actually means anything is a different matter, but you are backwards on your facts.
*I used states 41-51 as the bottom ten, since the list includes Washington DC.
Any reliable statistics to support this claim?
I don’t know about the other places you mention, but NYC and Boston have been on the safest big cities lists consistently for several decades now… have the Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine been lying to me all this time?
I’m pleased that three out of my five gun-owning friends (one of whom works for Camp Quest) are mad as hell at the NRA and favor much stricter gun regulations and laws. One of those three friends bought a lifetime membership in the NRA back in the ’70s and in the ’90s wrote them asking to have their membership annulled/revoked and was deeply upset that the NRA would not comply. The NRA replied if you bought a membership for life, you’re a member for life, period!!
It occurs to me that the pornography industry more often takes the attitude (at least with liberal administrations) that if they accept !*some*! government restrictions, then the state will most likely otherwise leave them alone and give them wide latitude within those boundaries. I wish the gun lobby would do the same!!!
Not only is the gun lobby’s domino theory (a few gun laws today- all guns banned and confiscated tomorrow) largely without merit (perhaps somewhat justified in the case of Sen. Dianne Feinstein), but their oft-repeated claims about guns in Nazi Germany are a flat-out falsehood. The Nazis took guns away from Jews but were happy to allow “Aryans” to own guns.
I don’t really buy into a lot of Freudianism, but one is at least tempted to claim guns are a phallic symbol and anyone terrified of big government taking away one’s guns suffers from a badly unresolved Oedipus conflict.
They’re afraid the government will take them away from white people and then black people will kill all the white people. That’s where the Nazi reference really comes from.
Funny, gun control has a history of racism, by denying blacks access to firearms.
So it seems odd that all those whites that are fighting against gun control are accused of racism and all those blacks that support gun control are called….what?
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm
!!!!!
I know all these guns seem pointless, but there are people texting inside of movie theaters who must be stopped.
Thanks. I had forgotten about that.
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/01/14/man-fatally-shot-at-movie-theater-after-texting-his-daughter/20807552/
and kids playing music too loud on their car radio. And carrying candy and icea tea. There is danger everywhere.
That incident shook me up terribly. What a pointless death. Some pro-gun acquaintances in FL think guns are okay and that the courts should settle individual cases. Tell that to the guy who is dead, and his wife and kids.
It’s also sad for the perpetrator….if he had not had the gun available, it wouldn’t have escalated, so in one sense, guns themselves bear some of the responsibility. The gun ruined his life, too.
The trope “guns don’t kill people, people do” is a deepity.
Yes, but the way I see it is the perp made the choice to buy and carry the gun, so I don’t consider it all that sad for the perp, except he has to live with this now.
I doubt anyone forced him to bring along his gun when he went to see a movie that day. He could not control his temper; it was a crime of passion. If he had not had the gun perhaps there would have been fisticuffs, and less chance of a death.
I won’t make any more judgements on the case since I have not read everything there is to read about it, except to say that it’s a crappy society where going to a movie (or having someone get mad at you in traffic or having a drunken guy come out of a bar) means anyone might get shot, maybe even by a stray bullet.
So you believe in free will?
But it is true! Guns don’t kill people – as Chris Rock has noted, it’s bullets that kill people.
I guess you can bludgeon someone to death with a gun once you run out of bullets.
Might as well have Snake Plissken on the Georgia state flag.
It’s all over.
Ha! Escape from Atlanta!
You can take guns to the airport as well. If you “forget” that you have one and try to take it through security, you just apologize and they are now required to give the gun back.
It was also scary to hear the Governor of the state of Alabama talk about this as a protection against government tyranny. What if that is his own state troopers who will eventually have to take on armed militias who don’t like to live by law.
Evolution has reached it’s peak and we’re moving backwards.
I wonder if citizens who carry firearms will be allowed anywhere near the Governor and the rest of the state assembly.
Or if the law is just for the little people.
Jeeez… When I read the subject line I thought Russia is now causing again trouble in the former Soviet republic Georgia!
Good thing there are no current international incidents in Memphis, Egypt. I lie in wait to make an Elvis joke whenever I visit a museum with an Ancient Egypt exhibit.
In a sound-bite a Georgia representative said that they were “…keeping their religion and guns.” They can also take their guns to church if the pastor permits…YES THIS IS CRAZY!
I *strongly* support them taking their guns to church. As many as possible. If they’re going to start a gun battle, best they do it in church, that way, it’s more likely Christians will get shot rather than atheists.
Cynical, that’s me.
Support the 2nd Amendment, including the part that says “well regulated…”
We are getting close to achieving the world I wished for when I was 7 years old. Guns in the courthouse might be a little extreme for even a 7-year-old, though.
Mebbe, mebbd not. Here’s a quote from libertarian L. Neil Smith (sourced at his Wikiquote page):
“Make no mistake: all politicians — even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership — hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician — or political philosophy — can be put.
If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash — for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.”
Ironically, that first paragraph has a bit of truth to it. I’m sure there are, in fact, many politicians that hate being asked-point-blank questions about where they stand on gun regulation. Regardless of whether your base is liberal or conservative, answering that sort of point-blank question is not likely to garner you many additional votes.
Does anyone remember ten years ago when Ed Helms did a segment on The Daily Show about people bringing guns into bars? http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/x41cpc/a-round-of-shots
The first time I was in the US (1970) I went to the Yale COOP and went to the magazine section, and I could not believe my eyes: there was a rack with about 15, or more, gun magazines! I couldn’t believe my eyes! I had never seen a gun magazine, and now, here in Italy, you will have a hard time to find one.
I did one year of military service in Belgium as a conscript and in my view anyone enjoying guns has to be completely bonkers. Perhaps conscription in the US will cure this gun craze.
Not likely. The gun culture in the US runs deep. There are a significant number of people who eagerly seek careers in security or law enforcement of some kind so that they can live out their Chuck Norris fantasies. Precisely the kind of person that should never be accepted for such work. Certain military positions, perhaps. Civilian Security or law enforcement, no way.
I’ve read that the percentage of Americans owning guns has been declining, but the average gun owner is owning more guns.
Schools? Schools??
If only we had long catalogue of disasters that could illustrate exactly how bad an idea that is…
Schools are typically gun free zones, so no guns are in schools. No shootings take place in gun free zones (schools) because signs stop people from bring them in.
Signs work!
Folks, you are all preaching to the choir. The fact that you read this website at all suggests that you possess a significantly greater understanding of humanity and are nevertheless stupefied at such incredible ignorance presented by the idiot governor of Georgia (and I’m a Republican, or at least I was, once).
Nice – screw the 60% or so of people who don’t want anything to do with guns. Maybe Jawgiuh’s going for the title of murder capital of the USA. Guns n’ alcohol – yeah, that sounds like great fun. It’ll be the Wild West all over but with more booze and the bar owners aren’t allowed to ask people to leave their guns at the door.
And how many of these gun owners will keep their weapons safely locked away at home? We’ve read about way too many cases where a child gets the gun and kills or hurts someone.
Well, the new law makes that less important now, doesn’t it. You strap it on right right after getting dressed in the morning and feel like real man all day long.
A criminal plans a crime, say an armed robbery of a convenience store/restaurant/bank. Before this law he walked into the targeted business with his weapon concealed, the only person inside the room prepared to draw, brandish and point a gun & fire it in an instant from real or only perceived provocation — unlikely that unarmed employees or customers would challenge an armed robber — or to shoot an innocent person in the room for no reason other than derangement.
Now, same perp counts the number of hog-legs worn by others in the joint, and if he decides to proceed with the crime he mentally ranks those in the room according to perceived threat levels. Drop them shootin’ irons on the floor and kick ’em to the wall, he shouts, and the startled citizens … do what? Well, if they don’t do what he says, people get shot. Quickly. Or maybe a customer reads the actions of another customer all wrong and Stands His Ground before the other dude even draws his gun.
The point about a shouted alarm in a crowded room scares me, and it should any Georgia tavern patron. Even trained peace officers/military who have been in firefights don’t necessarily react with great efficiency and sound judgement. A bunch of clowns drinking it up who think they will pull their gun and everything will turn out exactly like a Dirty Harry movie, and they’re Clint? I know too many macho people, including some women, who really believe this shit.
Arms/munitions manufacturer’s are following the tobacco industries’ sales model, and their advertising campaign is even more successful. 21st Century libertarian’s are their principal mark’s, and those fuckers are all over the place nowadays.
Richard Olson
Can you give examples of this happening, outside movies, TV and targeting cops?
Brian Jeffs,
As I wrote above:
‘A criminal plans a crime, say an armed robbery of a convenience store/restaurant/bank. Before this law …
Now, same perp …’
Before (past). Now (present). From Now onward (future). I have no statistics or references to cite for potential future events that result from this law.
There are existing examinations of the results of Stand Your Ground legislation. Those laws are not identical to this Georgia statute, and SYG is so recent that data has not had time to amass and settle out to the same degree of reliability that it will in future, nor are all the implications (behavior fallout) from the quite significant societal changes resulting from this sort of significant legal alteration to public safety. For example (and there is much more available where one goes to google):
‘In 2005, Florida became the first of nearly two-dozen states to pass a “stand your ground” law that removed the requirement to retreat. If you felt at risk of harm in a park or on the street, you could use lethal force to defend yourself. The shooting of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., drew national attention to these laws.
Now, researchers who’ve studied the effect of the laws have found that states with a stand your ground law have more homicides than states without such laws.
“These laws lower the cost of using lethal force,” says Mark Hoekstra, an economist with Texas A&M University who examined stand your ground laws. “Our study finds that, as a result, you get more of it.” ‘
One factor that will inform us in future about the efficacy of such laws, aside from injury/death rates, is whether insurance expense in open carry jurisdictions changes for public venues, which ones, and by how much, and will there be an impact on customer volume?
If two or more armed customers drinking at the same place are evicted for an altercation and shoot it out in the parking lot or elsewhere within a certain time, will bar owners incur liability for serving alcohol that impairs one or more actors, the way bars/servers may presently be held responsible for drunk drivers?
link for story about SYG laws above: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167984117/-stand-your-ground-linked-to-increase-in-homicide
This isn’t just about Georgia. Virtually all of these right-wing laws pass in some Southern state (which would now include Kansas), then make their way to other states. Often drafted originally in some Think Tank. This sort of bill will also be popular in Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama, etc. the anti-Enlightenment backlash is pretty broad based, so avoiding Georgia (which isn’t a bad idea) won’t do the trick.
Funny you can’t open carry a handgun in Florida, Texas, South Carolina, 3 southern states. Why? Because those laws were enacted to prevent blacks from going armed in public.
Oklahoma was a no Open Carry state until a few years ago.
Sounds like a recipe to kill off some of the IDiots. I don’t see a downside. Where do you see one? (Of course, this refers to a country to which I don’t wish to return.)
But . . ., the US has its fair share of some wonderful geological formations!
Exactly. The US has it’s fair share. So there’s no particular reason to go there rather than, say, Mongolia. Or Australia.
That said, since work has opened an office in Houston recently … I suppose I may get paid to go back there one day. Definitely got to be careful though – there have been as many Aberdonians shot in Houston as have been shot in Aberdeen (one).
I think this is a case where “think of the children” is justified. Moreover, bullets get through stuff like walls and windows from time to time …
Another reason never to visit the US ever.
After having been told of the treatment of non US citizens by airport immigration officers, my desire to ever visit or even use an US airport had diminished significantly.
With those laws and the macoho struttin’ gun totin’ attitude – I only can hope that the morons of those states take care of the problem fast, with enough sane folks left to do the cleanup.
Welcome to the new edition of the Wild West. This is an American disease – from an Australian perspective, it’s just crazy. Here, some of our low life own guns and usually kill each other. I’m so sorry for the US.
Amazingly, our governor here in Arizona (Jan Brewer, R) has just has vetoed two major pro-gun bills that would have allowed concealed-carry permit holders to take guns into public buildings and would have punished cities and towns that enact gun ordinances stricter than the state’s own laws.
Amazing – Americans really want to shoot themselves… You don’t need external terrorist threats – enemies of the USA will be sitting back and laughing.
Hopeless & sad.
Oh, come now. Can’t you see that if everyone is carrying weapons that terrorists would be stopped before they could do any major damage? Consider how much less successful the 9/11 attacks would have been if most of the people in the towers had all been emptying their mags firing at those fuel laden air liners traveling several hundred mph?
By the way, there is a perfect example of over-the-top US gun culture that has been unfolding in Nevada. If you want to be disgusted google “Cattle Grazing Issue Nevada Bundy.” Also, Jon Stewart did a very nice segement on this issue this past Tuesday, I think it was, and again last night. Last nights segment was actually about Hannity’s assinine and hypocritical bloviations on the issue. I highly recommend both segments.
If it was up to one of our own Supreme Court Judges, we deserve more:
“SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.”
I have heard numerous times, from people that support him and from people who oppose him, that Scalia is really smart. I just don’t see it. Everything I’ve ever seen, or heard, or read, from or about him, supports a very different conclusion. “They” say he acts like a thuggish, sociopathic idiot because it amuses him to be deliberately provocative. I’m not buying it. He may indeed like to be deliberately provocative for his own amusement, but I see no signs of brilliance lurking anywhere.
Here are links to three Daily Show segments well worth watching. Towards the end of the third one Stewart precisely describes my own assessment of Hannity.
Apocalypse Cow
Welfare Rancher
Hannity Obsession
Fifteen seconds into any Hannity video or audio I’ve ever come across and I just want to beat the dogshit right out of him. Never fails. Hell, for the past decade or so just seeing the smug expression on his face in a photo sets me off. I oppose violence and seldom think it is justified to speak ill of others, but I can’t stand that sanctimonious & ignorant dick.
I couldn’t have said it any better.
Re: Hannity – where’s Hitch when you need him?
That legislation is madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of last years “Mr Madman” competition.
But then I’m from the U.K.
Courtroom shootings? GA had one in 2005 in which an accused rapist took the gun off a sheriff’s deputy and killed 4 people (the judge, a court reporter, a sheriff’s deputy and, later, a federal agent).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Nichols
Too bad courthouses don’t have armed security guards and police officers who could prevent incidents like this.
And too bad that law enforcement officers aren’t “responsible, combat-trained citizens” who know how to use guns to defend themselves – 100 were killed in the line of duty in the US last year. (And that is lowest number since WWII according to the The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund).