Thursday, December 4, 2008

There's no such thing as a "gun free" zone!

The mayor of Seattle wants to ban concealed carry in almost all public places, because a mental patient with a concealed carry permit shot a few people last spring. They say that you will still be able to carry in parking garages and on streets, but how the hell can you carry when you won't be able to legally enter any of the buildings? Under current laws, people with Washington state concealed carry permits can carry in parks and at the Seattle Center. The proposal would take that right away. [1]

Almost EVERY study shows that crime goes down when you allow concealed carry. That's why despite places like Seattle, the general trend recently has been in favor of concealed carry. For example, this year the supreme court overturned the unconstitutional handgun ban in D.C. and Atlanta residents gained the right to lawfully concealed carry on the MARTA. Florida was one of the first states to allow it and more and more states have followed suit after seeing the positive results.

Is the real problem the gun itself? Or is it the man holding the gun?

The only people who obey gun free zones are law abiding citizens who wouldn't be committing crimes in the first place.

Criminological and sociological analysis provides important, even crucial, information as to the role of firearms in violence and the utility and viability of potential gun control strategies. Virtually all of this information is ignored or affirmatively suppressed in the health advocacy literature. That literature also shows consistent patterns of making misleading international comparisons, mistaking the differences between handguns and long guns, and exaggerating the number of children injured or killed, thereby building up the emotional content. Other distortions include presenting gun ownership in such a manner as to ignore or minimize the benefits, and measuring defensive benefits purely in terms of attackers killed, rather than considering attacks deterred or attackers repelled. To the contrary, the criminological and sociological research literature demonstrates the existence of high risk groups for firearms misuse, and of the "career" criminals who commit many of the serious crimes in our society. Yet the anti-gun health advocacy literature consistently overlooks these data and attributes equal propensity to commit violent crime to all people. [2]


PS. Starbucks is super gay and Michael Moore is fat.

[1] http://www.seattle.gov/firearmsrule/

[2]http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

5 comments:

  1. You forgot to point out the obvious: It is already illegal to commit murder, yet this guy did it anyways. So how do they think that making concealed-carry illegal would have deterred this guy? "Man, I'm am so fucking pissed and unstable, I sooo want to shoot people, but that goddamn new law doesn't allow me to carry my gun! I can't catch a break!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah totally.

    "...persons refusing to comply with the rule would be subject to citation or arrest for criminal trespass."

    What kind of difference could that possibly make!?

    I don't want to kill those people because I might get arrested for trespassing.

    This seems like a political move by the mayor. It makes it look like he's doing something when he's really just wasting everyone's time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't see how anyone could possibly take issue with this.

    I understand concern over automatic weapons and military issue assault-type rifles... but regular legal handguns, held by licensed owners with all legal permits, should be allow to be concealed in public. I have no issue with that for all the reasons already presented.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "and military issue assault-type rifles..." - If you read about the '94 Clinton assault weapon ban, you'll learn that those bans don't make sense either. Even Kojiro the hippy agrees.

    It only banned based on looks, not on how effectively they can kill.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wasn't saying I agree... I was saying I understand why some people disagree.

    ReplyDelete