Jackson Free Press

In a near unanimous vote, the state Senate passed a bill yesterday that will allow Mississippi hand-gun owners to walk into restaurants and parks with their weapons, reports The Commercial Appeal. The Magnolia state joins Tennessee in attempting to expand the rights of handgun owners.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Merle Flowers, R-Southaven, and backed by the National Rifle association, now goes to the House. While gun permit-holders could carry their weapons into restaurants, bars and unsecured government buildings, they would be banned from parks where youth play sports. Business owners could prohibit guns from offices, but not from parking lots.

"This will open the door for citizens to protect themselves in the time of need in a whole lot more places than they currently can under the law," Flowers told The Commercial Appeal. "Law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves at all times."

Flowers calls himself a "strong Second Amendment advocate," according to the story. After seeing New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin attempting to collect privately owned weapons in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina, Flowers decided to push for expanded gun rights for Mississippians, he said.

Previous Commentsshow

This is INSANE. It will be unsafe to go anyplace in this State.

justjess

Feb 11 2010

Justjess- how many gun crimes are committed by registered gun owners as copmpared to non-registered gun owners. The feeling of being in unsafe environs is what makes people get concealed carry permits in the first place. Your assertion is laughable.

bill_jackson

Feb 11 2010

It will be unsafe because gun owners can carry they're guns into restaurants? I'm not following, since last time I checked the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. But don't let facts get in the way of you wanting to limit my rights. :) PS - You're welcome to join me at the Turcotte for some gun safety any time.

RobbieR

Feb 11 2010

Ronni- you left out the part that it only applies to people with concealed weapon permits, not all gun owners. (oops I missed you didn't..lol) Jess- How is it unsafe? If anything it will make places safer. Ever noticed where nut cases go to shoot people? Gun free zones. Schools, churches,govt buildings, malls. They do that because they know no one can stop them. They can do the max damage in the least time.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

It only takes one bullet in the right place by the wrong person to destroy someone. There isn't any distinction between a registered gun carrier and one who is not when the issues are based on the fear of one rights being taken away. This is the theme of the "Birthers" and the "TEA BAGGERS". The message has racial coding and I guess you would have to be a member of a certain race who have had terrible experiences with "registered" gun carriers to translate these meanings. What exactly would be your need to take a gun into a restaurant? The chickens, cows, shrim and other served animals are already dead in the restaurant. Again I ask, why do you need a gun in a restaurant?

justjess

Feb 11 2010

justjess, it is not the chickens, cows, shrimp, or other animals that worry me.

cars

Feb 11 2010

Jess- Where are you getting racial coding from people who have cwp being allowed to carry into a restaurant? That's a new one.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

A hothead carrying a registered gun is just as dangerous as a hothead carrying an illegal gun. Of course, we all know registered gun owners never lose their tempers.

chaffeur

Feb 11 2010

Chaffeur- This has nothing to do with registered or non registered guns. Most people who have concealed weapons permits are usually very even tempered and layed back from my experience. They go out of their way to avoid trouble. They usually don't put themselves in a situation where they will need to use a weapon.They carry a gun to protect themselves and their families should the need arise. It's a crazy world out there now days. Most understand it's a big responsibility to carry, 99.9% don't ever want to have to use it, It's better to have one and not need it, than not to have one and needed it.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Perhaps what we need to do is to have everyone who can be certified, get certified to carry a weapon. We will then need to pray that they will not go off of their rockers or have their violent responses activated. If a robbery occurs and people pull out their guns; many others will be harmed - not just the robber. This is the reason that we have hired law enforment. These "combat highs" are dangerous. You are assuming that everyone with a gun is "NORMAL." You are also assuming that old racial hate no longer lifts its ugly head. You are asking that we all go back to the Wild Wild West - shooting even the dogs and cats. These are unrealistic expectations. Just as other cultures have suicide bombers, we will have suicidal shooters. Just remember that MS culture, historically and contemporaneously smacks of homicide. Just read your history books, i.e., Vernon Lane Wharton and James W. Silvers. Perhaps it will be helpful to read other literature rather than your Rebublican Digest and your NRA Bible.

justjess

Feb 11 2010

Jess- didn't know there was a Republican Digest or a NRA Bible. :) I got plenty of history books, buy new ones all the time, want to borrow some? I remember that MS culture, historically and contemporaneously smacks of homicide, all the more reason to carry a firearm. No, the reason we have law enforcement is to take care of things after crimes, ever read anything that says "Police prevented Shooting or Robbery" no they just respond after a crime has been commited when it's too late. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that we should have no expectations that the police is there to protect us.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

I seem to recall many of the anti gun crowd predicting "blood in the streets" back when the concealed carry law passed. Same thing here.

bill_jackson

Feb 11 2010

Ronni- off topic, but I finally got your father's book, going to read it soon.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Robbie- I'm taking my sons up to Turcotte this weekend, maybe we'll see you there.

bill_jackson

Feb 11 2010

BubbaT and Reximus, we are stirring into a hornet's nest. MS has historically rejected federal law in favor of State's rights. MS politicians frequently argue that the constitution is unconstitutional. This type of thinking has residual evidence from "noteworthy" Mississippians. Custom and tradition in Mississippi have often nullified statutory law. My challenge is still one the table: Have you read any of Mississippi's historical accounts from the books of the late history Professors, Silver and Wharton? Until some of the mental abberations of some Mississippians are "normalized/treated", we will live with the fear of outbreaks of violence and confrontations. Think about it. You won't be the only race, creed, or color with a gun.

justjess

Feb 11 2010

I don't own a gun but I do think people should be able to protect themselves. With that said, if you feel like you can't go to a restaurant without a gun, why go? That's just like athletes who go to clubs with a gun (Plaxico Burress!).

golden eagle

Feb 11 2010

Jess, please explain to me what Mississippi's past (or present, for that matter) have to do with MY rights as a gun owner? You are not making much sense to me.

bill_jackson

Feb 11 2010

Golden- it's not that people feel they can't go in a restaurant without a gun, it's why can't they?, they already have a permit to carry, what is so special about a restaurant that they have to take it off to go in one? They can carry in a lot of other places where there are more people than in restaurants, Wally World, grocery stores, etc. Besides if restaurant(or any business) doesn't want people to carry, all they have to do is post a sign (that can be seen from 25 feet at main entrance)and people can't carry in them, even if this does pass. That's been the law since Miss started issuing concealed weapons permits. Bars and clubs are a whole different thing, booze and guns don't mix. Permit or no permit.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Rex- do anti-gunners ever make sense? :)

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Reximus, I can't tell, or teach or explain anything to you. Your reduction of this argument to "It's my gun and I'll do what I want to" leaves little to any room for an intellectual discussion based on issues or facts; however, let the gun sell begin. Let's just all pretend that we are from Missouri and will have to be shown.

justjess

Feb 11 2010

Any more of my constitutional rights you want to do away with, Jess? I'm prepared to discuss at length, but I would like to know what your big issue with legal, law abiding gun owners is.

bill_jackson

Feb 11 2010

Jess- If your statements had anything to do with gun rights, we could have an intellectual discussion, but yours are based what has happen in the past on racial relations. WTH does that have to do with gun rights? Nothing at all. That is so far off in left field, it's ridiculous.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

I'd be cool with the bill. If they mandated classes on 'shoot, no shoot' scnearios.

Pilgrim

Feb 11 2010

Excellent point, Pilgrim. If I'm going to be put myself into public places with people carrying concealed weapons, it would certainly be a comfort to know that they are trained to recognize legitimate uses for guns (and could actually hit what they're aiming for and not innocent bystanders). All that said, my issue with any expansion of the law is that there has been no evidence shown that there's a need to do so. Restaurants and parks are not inherently dangerous places last I looked. Hand guns, however, make any environment more dangerous, IMHO, because they add an distinct element of potentially lethal violence. I'm not interested in adding further fear to any situation. Feeling the need to protect yourself from violence must include the premise that you are already feeling threatened. Thus, carrying a bun actually heightens the sense of fear, instead of lessening it, giving a false sense of security and control.

Ronni_Mott

Feb 11 2010

Now that I'm back from a meeting, Ronni I'll agree with you somewhat. The reason I don't carry is because I don't have the time or resources to hit the range once a week, and no Hogan's Alley or equivalent available to civilians. Add in weapon retention training (which can save your life - must gunfights occur at a distance that means the opponents can close quick) to all of that, and then a firearm would make me feel safe and in control. Without all that, I'd be more afraid of a gun being used against me. Or worse, putting a round through someone down range I that wasn't aiming at. And an ugly truth that a lot of folks don't want to admit: A gun used properly even in a legitimate self-defense situation will cause problems. Living up to the saying "I'd rather be judged by 12 vs carried by 6" is hard. Example: My cousin was in a car with someone at an ATM near a topless bar in Jackson. They were stuck up, at which point my cousin pulled a gun out of the glove box and put three rounds through the crook. The problems came from the surviving criminal, who filed charges against my cousin. While they were eventually dismissed, it ate up a year and a half or so of his life. Plus a lot of resources that could have been better spent elsewhere. Hmm. Could we get legit carry in a nudey bar? A casino? Bingo parlor? Or within a few hundred feet of one? Might make things safer there. Or while we're at it, let's designate high crime areas free fire zones. I guess that means the capitol while the legislature is in session would be the wild, wild west...

Pilgrim

Feb 11 2010

Ronni- you are in places everyday with people that conceal carry, Miss has issued 10s of thousand of weapons permits. You just don't know it, that why it called concealed carry, the whole point is no one knows you carry, that why gun free zone are favorite targets, they know no one is carrying. Pilgram- most people that do conceal carry do practice reguarly. Lots take firearm couses.A Hogan's Alley is useless in self defense training in my opinion. A good holster solves the weapon retention problem that you are concerned about. Now that Miss has the non retreat law, (castle law is a wrong term) your cousin could not have be charge by the criminal,nor any civil law case either. The non-retreat law says you do not have to retreat from a threat and may use force to stop it, in your home,car, or any public place your are lawfully at. Your fear of putting a round down range is why most people carry rounds that do not over penatrate. The stay inside the target. All concealed carriers, know that if they have to use a firearm that it gonna open up a can worms legally. They admitt that freely No go on the nudie bars and casinos, they serve booze.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Banquan- guns aren't the problem its people who use them illegally. We put people in jail and stop them from driving because of drunk driving and killing people, I don't hear people calling for restricting the sales of cars or banning cars.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

No go on the nudie bars and casinos, they serve booze. FYI, According to the story linked, the bill being discussed in this thread passed with amendments that include the ability to carry in a restaurant or bar...where, presumably, they serve booze.

Todd Stauffer

Feb 11 2010

Todd -I already knew that. :) This has been talked about for months, ya'll are a little slow on it. LOL I don't think it will pass with bar amendment still in there,still gotta pass the House. Usually in restaurant have a separate bar area, so long as your not sitting at the bar and drinking I have no problems with it.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Until someone proves why it's necessary to pass this law, it makes no sense to spend time and energy to do so. Like I said before, restaurants and parks are not inherently dangerous environments. So someone explain to me why it's necessary to allow guns there. Bubba, show me the statistics about restaurants and parks being "favorite" criminal targets for violence. Bars and clubs, maybe (where only illegal weapons manage to get in, btw). But restaurants and parks? Really? Also, please provide a link to the non-retreat law you cited. I may be around concealed weapons all the time, as you indicate, but knowing that doesn't make me feel safer—much less so, as a matter fact.

Ronni_Mott

Feb 11 2010

Ronni- never said restaurants and parks were favorite targets, I said gun free zones like schools churches and govt buildings were. Why not be able to legal carry in a restaurant or park? Miss Code 97-3-15 e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be; (f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Ronni-here is an good explanation of the castle law in Miss. http://www.msgovt.org/blogs/tag/castle-doctrine-law/ "Mississippi is one of 15 states with a “Castle Doctrine” law, the euphemistic term for a law that expands an individual’s right to defend himself in his residence — his “castle” — to a much broader scope of turf. In addition to his home, a Mississippian can defend himself at his work-place or place of business, or his occupied vehicle." "Now the ability to use deadly force when one is threatened with bodily harm outside of one’s castle is ok here in Mississippi, as well as in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota. In fact, in Mississippi, Senate Bill 2426, signed into law in March of this year, if someone breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business or work environment, you may presume that he is there to do bodily harm and may therefore use any necessary force against him, including deadly force. This is consistent with Mississippi’s “stand your ground” principal, which has been applied by various state courts in Mississippi since the late 19th century." " The right to use defensive force means that a resulting injury to such an intruder will not be a crime; the immunity from civil liability means that the intruder or his family cannot sue the protected individual in tort to recover from the injuries that the intruder sustained at the hands of the protected individual during the course of the intrusion." I am outta here for the night, see ya'll in the morning. :)

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Bubba, "why not," isn't much of a reason to do anything, much less pass a law. I'm not buying your favorite targets theory. I suspect a lot more people get shot in their own homes than in schools, churches and gov't buildings. We don't hear about home shootings as much—not much sensationalism in it unless someone "important" dies or children are involved. I suspect the drive-by shooting stats in gang-infested areas like east L.A. are pretty staggering, although I don't have the time to research it at the moment. Thanks for citing the code number. The sub-paragraphs you copied don't make much sense out of context, but I'll look into it.

Ronni_Mott

Feb 11 2010

Until someone proves why it's necessary to pass this law, it makes no sense to spend time and energy to do so. Lawd, Ronni, if that's the rule then those boys in the Senate might as well not even get out of bed. ;-)

Todd Stauffer

Feb 11 2010

Ronni- we weren't taking about home shootings or drive bys in California. Jess was worried about suicidal shooters which is what most mass killers are. Pearl High School Columbine High Brookville,Wisc Church Penn Amish School Binghamton,NY civi center Virginia Tech North Carolina nursing home Omaha shopping mall Brookville,Wis church Fort Hood army base. All gun free zones, that's just off the top of my head, I can get you a really long list if you want. They hit where people are defenseless

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Bubba, shooters looking for a crowd are naturally going to go where crowds congregate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. I still challenge your premise that it's the "gun-free" zone that draws them. Schools, churches, shopping malls, etc. are all guaranteed crowds. (It's kind of funny for you to include an army base, btw, as a "gun free" zone. ;-) Going back and reading Jess's post, she compared other culture's suicide bombers to our suicide shooters. It's a thought-provoking point, and a connection I had not made before.

Ronni_Mott

Feb 11 2010

Lawd, Ronni, if that's the rule then those boys in the Senate might as well not even get out of bed. ;-) You might have something there, iTodd. Think it'll catch on?

Ronni_Mott

Feb 11 2010

I'll say this, if this law passes, I won't go into a restaurant unless it has a no carry sign. The same with parks and any other place. I'm not going somewhere and I'm not taking my kids somewhere that has a sense of danger, and I'm sorry, somebody in a restaurant that has had a few too many is a danger. Guns are lethal, and while I'm a firm believer in the second amendment I have no problems with government regulating firearms much as we regulate other things that can impact others such as airplanes, automobiles and even buildings.

GLewis

Feb 11 2010

Ronni- it's not funny I included an Army base in that,it's really sad I had too, because Fort Hood is a gun free zone, all Army bases are Federal gun free zones. No personal weapons, no concealed carry permits even if the state they are in allows it, and no military personal are issued weapons except MPs. Our military base are sitting ducks if terrorist ever decide to attack one. Banquan- Who is trying to deregulate the ability to get a pistol?

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Glewis and Baquan- there are already over 300 federal and state gun laws, we don't need anymore.

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Ronni- nope it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out mass shooters go to where crowds are, but surely you can't be so blind as not to see they go to crowded gun free zones. Can you name one public place that a mass shooter has gone that wasn't a gun free zone?

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Baquan- I would worry more about the people who illegally have and carry firearms, more than I would ever worry about a person who has a concealed weapons permit or where they can carry. They are obeying the law,they took the time and spent the money to get a permit, the criminals could care less what the laws are, laws don't effect them. Even, plainer and even, simpler. :)

BubbaT

Feb 11 2010

Stop the electrons! Did't we have a law like this about 20 years ago - "The Gunsligher Law." as I recall. I did ok for awhile until, I noticed some of the people seeking permission - a former mayor of Jackson, the commissioner of IHL, restaurant owners, two-year-olds in their strollers. I can just see the gunfight at Bravo's.

leobrloom

Feb 12 2010

I am not virulently anti-gun or even particularly opposed to conceal-carry. But I HATE these arguments. "We put people in jail and stop them from driving because of drunk driving and killing people, I don't hear people calling for restricting the sales of cars or banning cars." Guns are designed to kill things and handguns are designed to kill *people*. Cars are for transportation. Need. Better. Analogy. Can you name one public place that a mass shooter has gone that wasn't a gun free zone? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks Conceal carry easy in Virginia, tough in D.C., tough but not impossible in MD - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage_nursing_home_shooting NC is a "shall issue" state - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_massacre Washington is an original "Shall issue" state - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Portland_nightclub_shooting Oregon is a "shall issue" state - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Mall_shooting Washington; two legally armed citizens failed to stop the assailant - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood_police_officer_shooting Washington; target was police officers In other words, to answer your question Bubba, yes there are instances of shootings outside "gun free" zones. Conceal-carry may have its merits, but there's no point in pretending its a magic solution, particularly for stopping *suicide* shooters -- these are folks who decided to die before they walked in the room and/or are completely out of touch with reality.

Todd Stauffer

Feb 12 2010

Kudos to itodd for citing the case of 4, presumably well trained and armed, police officers being gunned down during an ambush in a Seattle coffee shop last year. Point well made. I can not imagine any corporation willing to take on the liability of armed patrons on the premises. The exception being sportsman speciality stores. The legislature may pass the law, but the insurance companies will be the ones to dictate where guns will and will not be carried.

Jeffery R

Feb 12 2010

Todd- Beltway sniper- wasn't he considered a serial shooter? He shot single people at random places,he never shot mutiple targets at any one place. He wasn't a mass shooter. Carthage nursing home- was a gun free zone http://www.examiner.com/x-2698-Charlotte-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d30-Pinelake-Health-and-Rehab-More-killings-in-gun-free-zones "According to an employee of Peak Resources Incorporated, which operates Pinelake and five other health care facilities, all of their facilities are posted against concealed weapons." Capitol Hill massacre- was a private home not a public place. The Zone night club in Portland- Portland has a ban on loaded guns in public places so I pretty sure that would make The Zone a gun free zone. Tocoma Mall- is owned by Simon the same company that owns NorthPark,which is a gun free zone they have signs posted, I would have thought every one they owned was. Anyway neither of the armed citizen fired a shot,should have, but Maldonado didn't shoot anyone else after he was confronted by the armed citizens so I would say their actions put a stop to the killing, wouldn't you? Lakewood- That wasn't a gun free zone but Huckabee should have never pardoned Clemmons, he should still be rotting in a Ark jail.

BubbaT

Feb 12 2010

The Governor of Washington appointed a panel to review the police shooting in Lakewood. The police chief of Lakewood was on the panel. They think more gun laws would not have prevented what happened nor prevent it from happening again. http://www.mansontribune.com/content/view/1380/2/

BubbaT

Feb 12 2010

Bubba, looking at it from another angle, if 4 trained and armed police couldn't handle it, what chance would the average citizen with a weapon have? Related to my particular concerns, could the bill also require additional insurance for folks with concealed carry? Its not blowthrough I'm worried about, its the bullets that don't hit the intended target. After all, if its required for cars, why not a handgun? On a larger social scale, what are the costs and benefits of such a law? If the costs outweigh the benefits, then, hopefully, it wouldn't pass. And with that, I'm going to go poke a stats textbook on how to come up with some rough probabilities, and see if I can find some costs associated with mass shootings. Plus, chance of accidental gun injury or death, risks of the gun and associated costs, etc.

Pilgrim

Feb 12 2010

GLewis said...Guns are lethal, and while I'm a firm believer in the second amendment I have no problems with government regulating firearms much as we regulate other things that can impact others such as airplanes, automobiles and even buildings. Second Amendment to the constitution: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Following a progressive's logic in regards to other rights either real or perceived you would think they would be calling for the government to issue arms to the people. :-P But I don't think the second amendment to the United States Constitution has anything to do with a state law regulating firearms. It's clear, at least to me, that the founding fathers intended those regulations come from the individual states. I am not worried about law abiding people carrying weapons, there is no evidence that otherwise law abiding citizens with arms are dangerous to anything but oppressive governments and criminals. It's amazing to me that people don't see the disconnect between criminals and laws to stop them. Laws don't stop criminals. Their general disregard for the law is what makes them criminals. A gun free zone only assures that the people who obey the law don't have weapons in that zone. You might as well hang a sign that says "Prey" for those looking to do harm to a mass of people. Which is the point that I think Bubba is trying to make.

WMartin

Feb 12 2010

The question that has to be asked is at what point does an expansion of gun rights make things just as dangerous. I'm all for an individual having the right to protect his/herself, but my experience so far in this life is that people have tempers. Alot of crimes that are committed are "of the moment" and regrettable offenses. I'm not particularly educated in this issue, but my opinion is that we should focus all of our resources into allowing law-abiding citizens all the tools/training they need to protect themselves where they would be most vulnerable: at home, car, etc... I've been looking into becoming a gun owner myself, but I imagine that I would keep it at home near the bed or in my car... because that's where I feel it would be most useful in the event someone wished me or my wife harm...

rnpolen

Feb 12 2010

I have no problem with people having an arsenal at home, or keeping a pistol in the car even for emergencies, but toting a loaded weapon into a park or eatery where alcohol is available just sounds like trouble asking for a place to happen. Random armed citizens in a park where I've taken the family for a fishing trip just doesn't make me feel a bit more safe, and I'd probably not even go if that law passed. If parks and restaurants are so dangerous people feel they need to pack, then either they need to be policed or avoided.

GLewis

Feb 12 2010

Carthage nursing home- was a gun free zone Maybe, but your link is to an "Examiner" writer who says the shooting was random and is specifically advocating against "gun-free" zones; the shooter was, in fact, looking for his wife, who worked at the nursing home. The fact that he skips that (otherwise his argument that the location was chosen because of it's "gun-free" status is in serious jeopardy) means we need a different source. The Zone night club in Portland- Portland has a ban on loaded guns in public places so I pretty sure that would make The Zone a gun free zone. There's a ban on open carry of loaded guns, not conceal-carry permit holders. Their general disregard for the law is what makes them criminals. A gun free zone only assures that the people who obey the law don't have weapons in that zone. You might as well hang a sign that says "Prey" for those looking to do harm to a mass of people. Which is the point that I think Bubba is trying to make. Actually, there are legitimate arguments for "gun-free" zones. A gun-free zone make it clear *immediately* that someone who displays a gun is a criminal and a threat. Likewise, the display or discovery of a firearm immediately makes that person a *gun criminal*, which generally means you've just elevated the severity of their crime and eventual punishment. My point to Bubba isn't that someone who is armed couldn't stop a rampager -- I agree that's conceivable (incidents like Luby's in Texas come to mind) -- which it why conceal-carry can make sense to me in some instances. My point is this -- "gun-free zones" are not the problem -- crazy people with guns are the problem. Indeed, Bubba has argued that bars should be gun-free zones, and I assume we aren't arguing that schools shouldn't be gun-free zones. So, by that logic, we're encouraging people to shoot up bars and schools. But the truth is that even in these isolated incidents, most of the people are shooting people they know or (through some twisted logic) feel they have a grievance against; they're not choosing their targets because they're gun-free zones.. and, like many murders, they're not making logical choices anyway. Also, I think it's sensible to guard against the fallacy that people with conceal-carry permits (particularly in "shall issue" states) are 100% upstanding citizens. The "License to Kill" study documented the 5,000+ crimes committed by conceal-carry permit holders in Texas from 1996-2001, before the Texas Leg changed the law so that you couldn't see all this information. From 1996 to 2000, Texas CCW holders were arrested for weapons-related crimes at a rate 81% higher than that of the state's general population age 21 and older. Oh -- and who do you think lobbied to change the law in Texas so that it's harder to discover whether CCW holders are law-breakers or not? NRA-ILA actually takes credit for "passing" the bill. Hmm.

Todd Stauffer

Feb 12 2010

Todd- I never said CCW were the answer to everything. No guns should not be allow at K-12 permit or no permit, but colleges I have no problem with. I agree not all CCW holders are upstanding citizens. But the study you showed "License to Kill" only 1271 of the 8000, crimes by CCW holders were weapons crimes, 1427 were auto related offenses they committed. http://www.vpc.org/studies/ltk4one.htm Gotta go paint a room, be back later

BubbaT

Feb 12 2010

But the study you showed "License to Kill" only 1271 of the 8000, crimes by CCW holders were weapons crimes, 1427 were auto related offenses they committed. 1300+ of which are DUI! And, anyway, what part of "law-abiding citizen" translates to "simply not committing gun crimes"? My point is this -- we have to watch the stereotype that every CCW holder is a Boy Scout. Many are. I believe in the responsible gun owner who wants to hunt, shoot for sport, secure his or her home and I can even understand a conceal-carry desire by well-trained women and men for personal safety. (I also think guns in the wrong hands have the potential to escalate bad situations, particularly for people already given to edginess or fear.) But I think the NRA, etc., takes it too far when they try to block access to information like this because they've advocating for the ideological position over the responsible one.

Todd Stauffer

Feb 12 2010

I have never been to fond of the NRA myself either.

BubbaT

Feb 12 2010

Another gun free zone shooting today the University of Alabama in Huntsville http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585682,00.html

BubbaT

Feb 12 2010

It amazes me how Madison County residents say they want and need HEALTHCARE and want choice but those same Republican Madison county Residents dont want a national healthcare plan with a PUBLIC OPTION.

NewJackson

Feb 13 2010

Another gun free zone shooting today the University of Alabama in Huntsville ... by a "law-abiding" citizen who cracked. Because, you know, everyone is "law-abiding" until they commit a crime. Too often, the first crime they commit is with a gun. Quagmire, no?

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2010

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and guess the nutty professor in Huntsville did not have a concealed carry permit. Oh well, no trip to the range for me this weekend, youngest has a raging stomach bug. And uh, newjackson, I think you posted in teh wrong forum.

bill_jackson

Feb 13 2010

"This is the theme of the "Birthers" and the "TEA BAGGERS". The message has racial coding and I guess you would have to be a member of a certain race who have had terrible experiences with "registered" gun carriers to translate these meanings." justjess: I find it highly offensive that you call people like me a teabagger. TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already and has nothing to do with a depraved sex act. Mods,I'm quite surprised that such slander is allowed here.

ForgottenWard6

Feb 13 2010

Donna- she didn't just crack. She had already shot and killed her brother years ago. Shot him 3 times and the state of Mass ruled it a accident??? Hey but Mass is know for letting drunk drivers get away with murder why not a shooter. :)

BubbaT

Feb 13 2010

I was wrong Bishop only shot her brother once, she missed with the other two shots so it seems.

BubbaT

Feb 14 2010

itodd- I think your point is well made. Of course some percentage of any given group will be "bad apples" so to speak. Even Boy Scouts. No system can or ever will be perfect. But since it is already against the law universally to shoot someone except in self defense, why would anyone believe that someone who is intent on breaking that law is going to be deterred by the law about illegally carrying a firearm into a firearms restricted zone? That is not to say that there aren't good reasons for restricting the carry of personal weapons in certain areas. However, It seems to me that if a government or a private entity is going to restrict one's ability to defend themselves it should fall to the government or that entity to provide security in those areas. They do a pretty good job policing and enforcing the "Gun Free Zone" in courthouses and government buildings because they know a sign is not going to make a difference to anyone except people already pre-diposed to follow the rules. The National Criminal Justice Reference Service has a paper that concludes, in part, the following: The evidence from surveys both of civilians and of felons is that actual defensive handgun uses are enormously more frequent than has previously been realized. Handguns are used more often to prevent the commission of crimes than by felons attempting them. The unique defensive value of a handgun is not the only cause for comparatively low rates of injury among gun armed resisters; of equal or more important value is the wisdom not to resist in circumstances in which resistance is unlikely to succeed. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=132948

WMartin

Feb 14 2010

Yes, I heard that since I posted before, Bubba. It still shows the problem with our liberal gun laws. Technically, she was "law-abiding." Bottom line: A lot of people who buy/carry/conceal guns believe in the power of violence to solve problems, or just to be violent when they think they're wronged. Meantime, our gun-culture-soaked country is one of the most violent. I don't know what the answer is, other than the need to regulate guns as the public-safety crisis that they are. Unfortunately, too many people think it's total gun bans or no regulation whatsoever. And they come up with some ridiculous arguments -- such as many I've seen here -- to justify the proliferation of guns. If you want a gun culture, where it's every man or woman for him/herself, just say it. That's what most gun supporters seem to want, so argue that point instead of insulting our intelligence as you've tried to here. Don't try to make it sound like society is "safer" as a result of concealed and easily accessible guns. It's just not true based on factual evidence, and it's intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise. That doesn't mean some people won't sometimes save their own lives due to their guns; but it is equally as wrong to argue that guns are a panacea; more people die due to the presence of guns in volatile situations. Their presence makes deadly violence easier, in homes, with troubled people who use them to commit suicide, in public, in the workplace. That's just true. But at least one hefty price of being an American seems to be existing in a gun culture where the guy sitting next to you might have one strapped to him just in case he needs to defend himself or his co-workers. Otherwise, that's my only comment here. We've had this same discussion over and over and over again over the years, and it hasn't moved an inch. I'm bored at the thought of getting sucked into an emotional and too-often illogical debate once again.

DonnaLadd

Feb 14 2010

Now, back to my regularly scheduled Valentine's Day. Y'all spread love; it's the most powerful weapon.

DonnaLadd

Feb 14 2010

Mods,I'm quite surprised that such slander is allowed here. Not only allowed but encouraged and used by the moderators. Btw, slander is spoken when it's written it's called libel.

WMartin

Feb 15 2010

I find it highly offensive that you call people like me a teabagger. Even though people in the movement were calling themselves that?

golden eagle

Feb 15 2010

Just FYI, OED has "teabagger" on its 2009 shortlist for inclusion in the dictionary based on usage of the term by both liberals and conservatives. It should be noted that the term "teabagger" appears on Oxford's list because of the usage cited on that list, not because of any other meaning. Citations for the political sense were found in a number of legitimate sources throughout the year. As a reference to members of the currently active Tea Party, the word has been used in speech and print by both liberals and conservatives. In this context, the term "teabagger" is a reasonably conceived informal name for an affiliate of the Tea Party, and as a word in the news, it earned a mention for the year 2009. Having deliberated carefully over the word-usage evidence, Oxford's lexicographers are confident in their judgment that "teabagger" the political term stands distinctly apart from "teabagger" the vulgar term. The truth is that the term got legs for two reasons -- it's a convenient shorthand for the movement members (the alternative seem to be the more awkward "tea partiers" or "'tea party' members" requiring quotes around 'tea party' since it's not an actual political party) AND the salacious reference was obscure enough that both "tea party" members and media didn't realize the double entendre at first until people more in-the-know stopped snickering enough to clue us in. Now "tea party" members are trying to walk this whole thing back. I find it rather irritating that many hard-core Republicans call the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" and insist on leaving off the "..ic" because they feel they gain partisan points. But, by the same token as "teabagger," there's no particular lexicography argument against the usage of Democrat instead of Democratic. And none of that speaks to the real victims here -- people who actually enjoy tea parties but might not like the politics espoused by these recent interlopers. Biscuits, anyone? ;-)

Todd Stauffer

Feb 15 2010

Forgotten and Wmartin: Tea party organizers used the term themselves long before anyone else did. The whole movement started with organizers calling for participants to "tea bag" elected officials by sending them thousands of tea bags in protest. The fact that the term has a slang sexual meaning is unfortunate, but libelous? Not so much.

Ronni_Mott

Feb 15 2010

You teabaggers need to stop whining and embrace the term. No one assigned you the label. You assigned it to yourselves. Oh, and is the sex act really depraved? That's taking teabagging (the sex act) a little too seriously, isn't it? I detect more than a little homophobia in such huffing and puffing. I wish Bubba would address the point Todd made up-thread, because it unravels his whole argument. There is no evidence that people go on shooting sprees in gun-free zones because they are gun-free zones. If you believe otherwise, how can you justify supporting gun-free zones in schools and bars? Why allow any gun-free zones if they only encourage gun violence?

Brian C Johnson

Feb 15 2010

And, no, WMartin, libel is against our user agreement. You've mistaken us for other sites that actually allow unsubstantiated allegations and "facts" to be posted by users (and the law is catching up fast, due to people's inability to self-regulate and ignorance of what libel actually is). Um, y'all need to figure out what "libel" is. Stating false facts and unproved allegations about specific people: libel. Using a term to describe people that they used themselves: not libel. Oh, and even if the left had come up with teabagging as a disparaging term for the far right as a whole, that wouldn't be libel. It's protected opinion, if tasteless. Now, saying something like "Jim-Bob Davis teabagged such and such in the bar at the reservoir after the tea-party rally" clearly could be libel if it couldn't be proved to be true should Jim-Bob choose to sue. And, no, putting "It is my opinion that ..." in front a libelous statement doesn't magically change it to opinion. The teabagger complaints are simply priceless. Is the radical-right downright obsessed with sex!? They seem to talk about it publicly more than about anyone I know. I doubt the tea-party folks who came up "teabagging" politically had any inkling that it was also used as a sexual slang term. I certainly didn't.

DonnaLadd

Feb 15 2010

Brian- Where is the evidence that they don't go to gun free zones, because they are gun free zones? Is it just a coincidence that is just where most of them go? Most might be crazy but why assume they are stupid. Ever heard of a wackjob going to a gunshow and start shooting?

BubbaT

Feb 15 2010

I'll certainly grant your point about gun shows, Bubba. Otherwise, you're begging the question. If gun-free zones were an important consideration for rampage-shooters, surely we would have testimony to that effect from the shooters. However, as Todd said: But the truth is that even in these isolated incidents, most of the people are shooting people they know or (through some twisted logic) feel they have a grievance against; they're not choosing their targets because they're gun-free zones.. and, like many murders, they're not making logical choices anyway. In other words, people tend to go on rampages in areas where they can shoot their perceived enemies. We have lots of evidence that people go on rampages in school because they hate their peers. Others go on rampages at work because they hate their coworkers. The gun-free status of those sites does not play into the killer's decision, inasmuch as we have testimony from the killers on why they murdered where they did. If you have testimony to the contrary, I would like to see it. Otherwise, the fact that shooting sprees often (but not always) happen in gun-free zones is not a compelling explanation for a shooter's motive. It seems to me you can still argue that shooters could be stopped if there were no gun-free zones, or fewer of them, which I take to be the central argument. But you haven't demonstrated that shooters deliberately seek out gun-free zones.

Brian C Johnson

Feb 15 2010

ForgottenWard6, you said in an earlier blog that you find it "offensive that you call people like me a teabagger." You have thrown me totally off with that one. Who are you? Teabagger is a term used by members of the "T.E.A. Party." I need no further education on this issue. This is a term given to them by them. I know that T.E.A. supposedly is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already. What I said and will continue to say is that the "teabaggers" do not have members who look like me; there are no blacks; there are no hispanics; there are no announced gays or lesbians. When you look at the organization's members carring signs, they have slogans consistent with slogans of the 60s, accusing blacks and white "sympathizers" of being communist/socialist and there is the really BIG on of "TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY." This is the one, especially here in MS, that scares the hell out of me as it relates to expanding weapons laws. You see this thought process encourages acts against others who are preceived as an enemy or their loss of power. It is a common fact that power has ALWAYS been fought for: Not jsut with words but, with guns and other weapons that destroy. Please remember that Sarah Palin was the $100,000 speaker who is encouraging a "REVOLUTION".

justjess

Feb 16 2010

Justjess, don't say "no" blacks; they probably have a George Lambus up in there somewhere! ;-)

DonnaLadd

Feb 16 2010

#1 I was only enlightening Forgotten that not only is the term he/she called slanderous allowed by the moderators but is also used, and used with gusto in my ever to be humble opinion, by those same moderators he/she is calling on to censor it. Forgotten must be new here. #2. I was correcting his usage of the word slander to a more applicable term for a description he/she regards as slanderous in text form. Do I personally believe it's libelous to call members of the Tea Party Movement "Teabaggers" on a blog? Not really, since a lot of them use it themselves and it's typically meant to describe their political actions not their sexual proclivities. I kinda like the term personally. I always snicker a bit when I hear some old lady say how she is gonna teabag this person or that one. I first learned the term through online gaming and it is used there in it's sexual context. When one player defeats their opponent, if they are particularly juvenile they may teabag their opponent's avatar which is meant to show dominance. I'm still waiting for an elected offical or pundit to use pwned in a sentence.

WMartin

Feb 16 2010

Dear Lord, Donna. Did you have to bring him up from the dead? LOL Jess, Keith Olbermann did a special commentary last night asking where are the blacks, Hispanics and Asians at these tea party rallies. I'm sure there are some minorities who have concerns about growing federal debt and other legitimate concerns. Why aren't they out in force?

golden eagle

Feb 16 2010

"Why aren't they out in force?" Golden Eagle, because many people of color believe that this group and just simply based on who attends, who endorses and the kind of signs they carry, is really the Tea Klux Klan. You aren't going to find any sane person of color, other than Michael Steele, "hanging" around that bunch. I understand that Steele has a meeting scheduled with 50 TEA Party members. Donna, Steele gives credence to your argument. LOL!

justjess

Feb 16 2010

Given how the Tea Parties are dominated by angry white men screaming about "taking their country back" now that a black man is POTUS, it isn't hard to understand why minorities, even ones who have grave concerns about the national debt and gov't spending, aren't interested in participating in this movement.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 16 2010

Jess- Did you come to that conclusion by any research? I haven't ever paid that much attention to the T.E.A. party to know the racial make up of it. But I did do a simple Google search of "Are there black people in the T.E.A. party" and there seems to quite a few that are.

BubbaT

Feb 16 2010

WMartin, that was some awesome gamer anthropology. I did not know people did that to others' avatars! I learned the (sexual) term from the 1998 film "Pecker" by John Waters, in which the bartender at the gay strip club keeps yelling at dancers for violating the establishment's ban on the practice. It would seem that most libertarians are not John Waters fans, to their disadvantage. Also, I met a woman at a pizza shop in 2003 in Milwaukee who told me that it was her favorite way to relax. I swear I'm not making that up. In fairness, she was very drunk.

Brian C Johnson

Feb 16 2010

Jess- Did you come to that conclusion by any research? I haven't ever paid that much attention to the T.E.A. party to know the racial make up of it. Just look at any of their rallies on TV. Even rallies shown on Fox News don't show any diversity. You aren't going to find any sane person of color, other than Michael Steele, "hanging" around that bunch. I understand that Steele has a meeting scheduled with 50 TEA Party members. I lost all respect for Michael Steele when he cowardly apologized to Rush Limbaugh last year when he didn't need to. For the record, I mentioned this on another thread not too long ago, but a black woman attended the Tea Party convention in Nashville. She's running for Congress from the 9th congressional district in Tennessee (which is entirely in Shelby County, Memphis' home county). It's the most Democratic district in the state.

golden eagle

Feb 16 2010

Golden- Fox news. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/19/black-conservatives-lead-role-tea-party-movement/ The National Black Republican Association has pictures from the tea partys on their website. Sure there aren't many,but there are some.

BubbaT

Feb 16 2010

I am against expanding gun rights too, although I walk around with 5 all the time - two in my boots, one in the small of my back, one up my right sleeve, and one in my left pocket. These gun nuts are some scary and hateful people who can't wait to bust a cap in someone to send their messaage of fear and lawlessness. I carry mines just in case I meet one or some of them under the wrong circumstances. Otherwise, I'm against carrying guns. I carry five because you can never have enough or too many.

Walt

Feb 16 2010

LOL @ Brian's comments ... gotta love John Waters!!

WMartin

Feb 16 2010

BubbaT, I followed your link about blacks being pictured at Tea Party Rallies. Please recount with me because I only saw ONE black person. You said that "there aren't many but there are some." Your report smells of some of that FOX and CL news reporting. Let's just tell the story without the embellishment or expanded truths.

justjess

Feb 17 2010

Jess- you're the one who said "What I said and will continue to say is that the "teabaggers" do not have members who look like me; there are no blacks; there are no hispanics; there are no announced gays or lesbians." "Let's just tell the story without the embellishment or expanded truths." Follow you're one words. I'm outta here,chemo day. :)

BubbaT

Feb 17 2010

BubbaT, ....and I stand corrected. Now, will you admit the same? On a more serious note, I have a very special friend who is also going through chemotherapy. Today I will pray for continued strength as you travel this road to recovery.

justjess

Feb 17 2010

I was curious having never been to a TEA Party. So I looked it up and found people of color attending. And it wasn't very hard to do for such a so called "mono-chromatic" organization. [IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q16/sloshenburg/teapartyatlantaoldmen0415-600x450.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q16/sloshenburg/Copyofimg_3255.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q16/sloshenburg/KennethGladneyweb.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q16/sloshenburg/NBRASupporterwithMLKWasARepublicanT.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q16/sloshenburg/TeaParty-FrancesRiceweb.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q16/sloshenburg/ZZ422F4274.jpg[/IMG]

WMartin

Feb 17 2010

Jess- I will always admit when I am wrong. Thank you so much for the prayers, I think prayers are reason I am still here. Gone to take nap, later

BubbaT

Feb 17 2010

Thanks for the pictures from the Tea Party. Walt, in an earlier post, spoke to the issue of a few misguided, misinformed blacks would be in attendance; no matter the cause. Remember Jim Jones and the Kool-Aide???

justjess

Feb 18 2010

You're welcome. :-) I do remember the Rev. Jim Jones and his cult in Guyana although I was a little kid when that happened. It turns out Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, that I didn't know before I saw the one lady's T-Shirt.

WMartin

Feb 18 2010

While pursuing the issue of black teabaggers, a question has fallen by the wayside -- why pass this law? Why expand gun rights? The simple answer -- because this isn't a positive law, a law with new content, creating new rights. This is removing the unreasonable limitation of existing gun rights placed on legal gun owners (and CCW permit holders). The question isn't "Why expand gun rights to restaurants and parks?" The question is, "If legal (CCW permit-holding) gun owners have a general right to carry their guns in public places, what reasons exist for NOT allowing them to carry in restaurants and parks?" The burden of proof rests on those who seek to limit rights -- the fact that a previous law was enacted to limit those rights doesn't give its proponents immunity from that burden -- if there is no good reason to continue that limitation, then it should be removed. In practical terms, safety is an odd thing. People here are posting that they'll only go to "gun free" restaurants if this law passes -- how ridiculous. The drive you took to get to that restaurant involved so much more risk of injury and death than you'll ever face from CCW-permit holders.

Mark Geoffriau

Feb 18 2010

I forgot a reason why they want the concealed carry in parks ban lifted. Feb 22nd concealed carry will be legal in all National Parks in the U.S. if the state they are in allows concealed carry in parks. The lifting of the ban will allow people who have CCW permits to drive on the Natchez Trace after the 22nd if Miss. lifts the carry in parks restrictions. They can't carry and drive on it now legally.

BubbaT

Feb 18 2010