Well maybe. OK, not you, but anyone else. ;) Its fair to assume that not everyone is capable of said control. Background checks seem generally accepted to be a good idea.

My belief is that your right to carry a handgun sufficiently threatens my right to public safety (and yours) due to variables of increased gun presence in community settings, your unpredictable actions, unintended accidents, and the actions of others that might aquire your weapon. I think arguements of crime prevention are bogus.

I draw the line at handguns. Others might at automatic weapons, others no line at all, roll out the missiles. Its a negotiation of rights in order to coexist.

Like I said, I've got no problem with you bagging a deer or protecting your home. I just dont want to ride the bus or stand in a DVM line, or go to a losing Cubs game (!) in which everyone is packing. I've seen those law abiding crowds get ugly.

That's just one guy who has apparently done studies. There are a lot more out there. Of course that story says nothing about the positive aspects involved in CCW...sounds like a bunch of anti-gun nazis up there.

I just said that last part to point out that the pendulum swings both ways. :)

Chicago became the murder capital of the US during a time of prosperity in this country. Now, I'm sure that there are several reasons why the murder rate went up in Chicago...but if you live in a city of 3 million people, where cops have 9 million things to do, and the populace is unarmed...don't you think the criminals would use that to their advantage?

That's just your opinion though...you really don't know if that would happen or not.

But has there been an increase in violent crime or violence involving guns since CCW went into effect?

That situation doesn't relate to the CCW issue though. It sounds like the dad had the piece before CCW went into effect, so it's not like that had anything to do with the kid losing his mind. That could have happened at any time.

Kids have had access to guns for a while now. I would imagine that it's not too terribly hard to get a piece on the shadier streets in Minneapolis or St. Paul. If you want a gun bad enough, you'll get it...or get caught.

But that's not the fault of the CCW law. That's just another moron being criminal...and the failure of whatever level of government involved to have adequate security.

Crimes involving guns are not going to disappear...we have them here all the time. And you don't even have to believe the stats...b/c each side loves to skew 'em their way.

But let me put it to you this way, since you come across as a Democrat or liberal.

You would be outraged if minorities weren't given the protection afforded to them in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You'd be fuming if the courts tried to limit our 1st Amendment rights through something like a Mapplethorpe exhibit.

You see, the Democrats love to give people things...even if it costs taxpayers a ton of money. But yet, most Democrats and liberals seem to want to take guns away from people. It clearly seems like a 2nd Amendment violation to me, but the Democrats will try and justify it to no end. And I'm not saying this is necessarily you, warch, but that shit irks me to no end. That's as bad as conservatives trying to inject morality into our society...b/c they think it's the right thing for everyone.

How is this going to happen? Particularly when the laws involving the purchase of guns have not changed.

People doing stupid shit with guns on themselves isn't going to change just because of CCW. As far as to others, it won't go away, but the chances of one getting away with it are going to shrink. After all, you never know who has a gun.

Plus, it's not really easy to get a CCW license...at least from what I've seen. There's a lot of hoops to go through. Does that help cut down on the number of idgits that get guns? Based on what I know, I'd say it helps.

But we're talking about good law-abiding citizens who legally want to protect themselves in case shit jumps off. Sure, some folks probably get a swollen head from having a piece, but that's the exception and not the rule. Guns are serious things--they're not taken lightly by most Joe Q. Publics. Not to mention, some states don't give a whole lot of leeway as to reasonable use of a firearm in a dangerous situation--I know Missouri's are rather narrow.

You've lived in two states previous to MN with CCW. Austin is generally considered one of the safest cities around...and Texas has some incredibly "loose" gun laws. Did you feel particularly nervous while living in Texas? I'm going to wager "no."

You don't hear about people going apeshit with guns in the heat of the moment too often--the woman in Alabama a few years ago comes to mind. It's sorta like airplane crashes to me--for every plane that crashes, thousands more take off and land safely. With guns, for every nutjob that goes retarded with one, there are way WAY more that are responsible with theirs.

Bottom line--guns are good, Warch is a good egg, if only a bit misguided or confused. :)

-10, illegal ;)

[quote]I'm not for banning all guns. I'm for rational control of gun proliferation, better enforcement of gun sale laws and background checks. [quote]
They have hundreds of laws on the books, and have for a long time, that control the sale of guns. Even though I have a Concealed Carry Permit, I can't buy a gun without a background check. It's a federal felony to attempt to buy a gun if you are not eligible. Since this system went into effect, tens of thousands of people have been stopped from buying guns. How many of these "felons" have been procecuted? ZERO as in zip, nada, none. We don't need any more laws. We need the law enforcers to do their part.

They do. The way the law reads in PA, you apply, get fingerprinted, submit 2 photos and loooog forms. Then the Sheriffs office does a background check, contacts your police dept, the FBI, your neighbors, your employer and your friends. If they can't find a reason you shouldn't have a permit they have to give you one. That's case by case as far as I'm concerned. The only difference in this system is it puts the burden of proof on them. Oh, then you have to renew every 5 years with new pictures and a less thorough check as they are just looking for changes. I've had my permit for a long time and I've been told that new applicants have to prove formal training now, but I can't say for sure.

Did I miss something somewhere? Are you, OnyxCougar, a Brit? I have no problem understanding a British accent. Monty Python, BlackAdder, Fawlty Towers, Blake's Seven, and Doctor Who have served me well.

So I suppose you mentioned this several months back, and I just didn't notice?

Pends on where you are. I walked into the county courthouse without a CCW at about 10am one friday in 2k and I had a fresh permit in my hands by 10:20. No shit. In and out, provided you pass the background check. You need not own or even register a handgun with the permit. Also our office staff isn't horrified at the notion of granting people their 2a rights, because so very many people own and carry a variety of handguns without incident . Someone applying for a CCW is about as common and unthreatening as those getting any other court or county document.

This might scare Warch types but it's been working pretty well here for a number of years. If it were a problem you can bet the Brady Bitch would have some campaign against the county.

Murder is almost unheard of here and , in fact, the last murder was committed with a knife. To bad the victim dint have a piece.

There are firearms injuries here sometimes but they are normally hunting related. The last I remember was from about 20 years ago. A hunter shot another from long distance in the head. Charges were filed for negligence or somesuch but I cant remember if there was a conviction.

That's the local Sheriff handling permits on a case by case basis as the state intended. They feel the local law enforcement knows their constituents best. How did they do a background check, Slang?

I agree.

Something I noticed soon after I started carrying full time was that many people didnt have faith in the own self control enough to carry. They were elligible for a CCW but didnt apply for one.

This seemed silly to me when I heard someone explain that they shouldnt have one. But it makes sense. Many people eliminate themselves from consideration. That's perfect. Many people dont want to take the responsibility and they recognize how serious a burden this can be.

Hey, I'm all about the choice! Yea or Nay! (just dont tell me I cant participate becuase you dont)

PICS, I assume but not sure.

Hey, I realise my opinion differs from the majority of cellar posters here, but I'm old and I'm pretty set in it, as I'm sure y'all are. And yes it is just my opinion, as the feeling that concealed handguns help prevent crime may be yours.

Yes, at this point, there is no solid, agreed upon statistical proof that conceal/carry handguns prevent crime. And what is particularly troubling about researcher and "expert" John Lott, whose widely circulated More guns-Less crime "study" has not only proven to be bogus, (and he's assumed an alternative internet identity to slander others) is that he has appeared as an "expert" before various state legislations, including MN, has figured significantly in their decisionmaking and statements.

And yes, at this point there is no solid agreed upon statistical proof that conceal/carry increases crime. So why oppose this free choice? Because I want to lower my risk and the risk of those I love of being shot by my fellow citizens.Even without statistical backup, I think more guns in a given area increases the odds of more guns being shot in a given area.

You mean basic human rights, yes. And I'm outraged at the levels of gun violence in many urban minority communities. 1964 isnt 1791.

Maplethorpe's case raised interesting cultural questions that were publically debated. I'm more fuming currently about the patriot act tracing my library books.Again a clash of rights.

All rights are not absolute, unless youre the only one here. When your right conflicts with my right, we need to negotiate to find the lesser evil.

Heh heh, Yeah, Republicans save taxpayers money!
The whole 2nd amemdment debate- again- is there any limit to what arms one can bear? The idea that its absolute is not practical. Now, in this age, with the array of weaponry of 2003? I think handguns should be closely regulated. That's my opinion. I think conservatives, radical ones, have done a terrific job of injecting the "moral" justification, and paying for the bogus scientific proof, for unfettered personal possession of deadly weapons into our society. Its ironic.

Well, hurray for the Brady Bill! You support that then? From what I understand, besides the variation in rigor of background check, its like renewing your plates.

Ive stated the reasons why I oppose this law and the threat of increased crime is only one of the potential threats to public safety I feel will increase. But data is needed.

I'm interested in statistics that record gun violence. Looking consistently at not only what is considered criminal, but also recorded as accidental, suicidal. Not just deaths, but also injuries.

Did I feel nervous in Austin? Well its (was) the hippie stronghold, you know. There are other parts of Texas that freaked me out, for a number of reasons. But damn, that's good BBQ :)

I'd say that whether you're going to get shot or not, and moreover whether you're going to be killed or not, is more related to the local culture than the local gun laws.

That would be my takeaway from Austin: the presence of hippies overrules gun laws.

If someone wants a gun they can build one using cheap raw materials. If someone wants you dead they can blow you up or poison you or knife you or hire someone to kill you.

So, how to build a culture that doesn't want to use deadly violence? Obvious: create more hippies

The problem is that when hippies attempt to create more hippies, many of the new little hippies end up turning into Alex P. Keatons later on...