Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law

[Evo]

The article title is a bit misleading since it limits people to keeping guns in their cars on their employer's premise.

The NRA and other supporters always refer back to the Bill of Rights to argue their case. Ok, that was written over 200 years ago, I think things have a changed a bit since then.

At my current office they put a stupid plastic sticky sign of a gun with that red circle and bar on it on the glass doors, so someone trying to carry a gun into the building will see that no guns are allowed and go back and put their guns away before entering. :rolleyes: There is no metal detector.

I know a lot of members are in favor of carrying concealed weapons, I'm wondering how people feel about this type of law.

The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labor unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

The measure applies to employees, customers and those invited to the business establishment as long as they have a permit to carry the weapon.

Backers say the measure upholds the vision of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, who made the right to bear arms part of the Bill of Rights.

"The second thing they wrote about in that constitution was the right to bear arms," said Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican from Crestview, Florida. "It was what was dear in their hearts."

The measure exempts a number of workplaces including nuclear power plants, prisons, schools and companies whose business involves homeland security.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/pl_nm/usa_florida_guns_dc

[Art]

Unless it's limited to companies with very secure parking then no doubt criminals will be delighted to know they have a new potential source of deadly weapons thrown in as a bonus when they steal a car radio from a car in a company's car park.

[BobG]

My first impression is that this violates the rights of private property owners.

Florida business groups are urging the governor to veto the measure, saying owners should be allowed to determine what happens on their property.

There is a conflict between the rights of property owners and gun owners if you have nowhere to park your car when you have to enter someone else's private property. I don't think storing your gun in your car is a completely unreasonable compromise, as long as the property owner isn't responsible for the security of the contents of the car. I can just see this turning into a situation where property owners are responsible for guns stolen from cars parked on their property.

[Astronuc]

The measure exempts a number of workplaces including nuclear power plants, . . . . The last time I was at a nuke plant, the guards had M-16's or AR-15's. Security is somewhat tighter at such facilities.

[turbo-1]

I don't have a problem with allowing people with concealed-carry permits to keep handguns in their glove-boxes. If a disgruntled employee decided to take out a bunch of co-workers, it would be nice if someone could slip out and get armed and challenge that person and perhaps save some lives. Often, police are too remote, and do not have operational knowledge of the facilities that might be involved, and extra lives will be lost as a result. Among other handguns, I have a Glock 20 (chambered in 10mm Auto) with 3 high-capacity magazines. I feel confident that my neighbors can count on me in the case of a home-invasion, and I can count on their support as well. Those that claim that the 2nd amendment only applies to state-sponsored militias are missing the point. The 2nd amendment was written when people relied on their friends, relatives, and neighbors to defend them and each other.

[drankin]

If the private property owner of a business cannot be responsible for ones safety in their own parking lot then, of course, a person should be able to protect themselves. Especially women and elderly who are likely targets of bad guys. But they do need to have the proper permit. Though the Constitution does not speak of only people with permits being able to bear arms I believe this is a prudent compromise. This is good legislation.

[drankin]

I can just see this turning into a situation where property owners are responsible for guns stolen from cars parked on their property.

I would have to ask the question, is a property owner responsible when someone steals your car stereo, tools, or golf clubs out of your car? The same standard applies to all property one keeps in their car.

[Poop-Loops]

If the private property owner of a business cannot be responsible for ones safety in their own parking lot then, of course, a person should be able to protect themselves. Especially women and elderly who are likely targets of bad guys. But they do need to have the proper permit. Though the Constitution does not speak of only people with permits being able to bear arms I believe this is a prudent compromise. This is good legislation.

If someone breaks into my house and beats you up while we are having dinner, do you get to sue me for not protecting you adequately enough?

[Andre]

I will never understand this American fascination with guns. Okay, I did shoot many thousands of rounds with 4 types of 7.62mm guns, 3 types 9 mm hand guns, .50's, 20mm M51 at 6000 rpm, (100 per flight, a few hundred flights) but I never killed anything, except for two aerial towed darts (damage 20k$), but those were not alive. All part of the job, getting increasingly underwhelming.

Thing is that you have an easy killer in your hand/pocket/car/safe etc. So, who recognises getting red in the eyes, capable of killing the jack ass in front of you. All you need to do is reach for your pocket. Would you?

[BobG]

I would have to ask the question, is a property owner responsible when someone steals your car stereo, tools, or golf clubs out of your car? The same standard applies to all property one keeps in their car.

Employers don't have to provide parking, let alone have to allow you to bring golf clubs onto their property. Sometimes it's better to have something completely unaddressed by law - at least from a liability perspective.

If employers are required by law to allow employees to bring guns onto their property, there will be at least a few lawyers that will argue that the law brings some implied responsibilities along with it. Their chance of success may not be great, but their chances will be good enough to have at least some affect on liability insurance.

We have a society that will sue for anything and everything. As a soccer referee, I had to carry liability insurance just in case an injured player felt my call or non-call angered that opposing player enough to come in cleats up the next play. Doesn't matter that the chance of any single lawsuit being won are slim if the potential damages are catastrophic. (Edit: Actually, that's probably a bad example. The main reason referees face liability problems is continuing play with a seriously injured player on the field or not stopping the game for weather - both things the referee is responsible for but not necessarily qualified or in a position to judge accurately).

From a property owner's perspective, banning guns on his property is a good policy even if the property owner never plans to do car by car searches for guns.

[drankin]

If someone breaks into my house and beats you up while we are having dinner, do you get to sue me for not protecting you adequately enough?

Of course not, that's my point. Though I actually could through your home owners insurance if I were so inclined but that is not my point. I'm responsible for my own things in my vehicle.

[drankin]

I will never understand this American fascination with guns. Okay, I did shoot many thousands of rounds with 4 types of 7.62mm guns, 3 types 9 mm hand guns, .50's, 20mm M51 at 6000 rpm, (100 per flight, a few hundred flights) but I never killed anything, except for two aerial towed darts (damage 20k$), but those were not alive. All part of the job, getting increasingly underwhelming.

Thing is that you have an easy killer in your hand/pocket/car/safe etc. So, who recognises getting red in the eyes, capable of killing the jack ass in front of you. All you need to do is reach for your pocket. Would you?

This is a documented, statistically unsound myth. Myself as well as hundreds of thousands of other Americans have a concealed carry permit and carry daily. Statistically (I'll have to find the official stat) permit holders commit violent crimes 100 times less than the average non permit holder. All your point shows is how much you do not trust yourself with a loaded firearm. Which is fine, we would rather you did not carry, though it is your right.

[Evo]

The legal implications are what concern me also. If a disgruntled employee or customer can just walk outside, grab his gun and walk back in before he's had a chance to cool off, it can't be a good scenario.

Also, if someone comes into a building and starts shooting, there is little chance of anyone being able to go and get a gun and return in time to do anything. Also, isn't it frowned upon to take the law into your own hands? If the guy is coming at you with a gun and you fire in self defense without premeditation that's one thing, but if you get a gun and go after the guy, no matter how noble the cause, isn't that at least manslaughter? You have become judge, jury, and executioner. There are people that would argue that even if this person killed 100 people that they should not be put to death because they don't believe in the death penalty for any crime.

[drankin]

From a property owner's perspective, banning guns on his property is a good policy even if the property owner never plans to do car by car searches for guns.

For one, a property owner cannot search anothers person or vehicle without their consent, that point is moot. And we are talking about employers not just going to someones house, anyhow. Going to someones house and not telling them you are armed is rude. I don't see why banning a permit holder his gun in employee parking lots is good policy. Basically you are saying that person cannot transport their legally owned firearm to work and back which is probably where he or she does the most driving is in the most need of having that form of personal defense.

[Evo]

Basically you are saying that person cannot transport their legally owned firearm to work and back which is probably where he or she does the most driving is in the most need of having that form of personal defense.Realistically, how often does a person need a gun commuting back and forth to work?

[drankin]

The legal implications are what concern me also. If a disgruntled employee or customer can just walk outside, grab his gun and walk back in before he's had a chance to cool off, it can't be a good scenario.

Also, if someone comes into a building and starts shooting, there is little chance of anyone being able to go and get a gun and return in time to do anything. Also, isn't it frowned upon to take the law into your own hands? If the guy is coming at you with a gun and you fire in self defense without premeditation that's one thing, but if you get a gun and go after the guy, no matter how noble the cause, isn't that at least manslaughter? You have become judge, jury, and executioner. There are people that would argue that even if this person killed 100 people that they should not be put to death because they don't believe in the death penalty for any crime.


This law was put in place because employees were already carrying their firearms to work. This "disgruntled employee" being a permit holder and shooting up the place has never happened. It's a baseless myth.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. Who cares if it's frowned upon when you are preventing yourself from being killed. I'd rather be frowned upon than buried. If my coworkers were in the process of being killed, I'd certainly take it upon myself to stop it if it were in my power. What is wrong with that? I just don't get that mentality.

[drankin]

Realistically, how often does a person need a gun commuting back and forth to work?

How often? Hopefully never. But Murphy's law is in effect. What is wrong with someone being prepared?

[Andre]

Some stats:

Murders with firearms:

US of A: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime)

UK: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime)

Netherlands: Zero? (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nl-netherlands/cri-crime), no I remember Pim Fortuyn being shot seven years ago. Can't be true.

[drankin]

Some stats:

Murders with firearms:

US of A: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime)

UK: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime)

Netherlands: Zero? (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nl-netherlands/cri-crime), no I remember Pim Fortuyn being shot seven years ago. Can't be true.

Prevent permit holders from carrying their firearms and that murder rate in the US will go up. There are plenty of murders prevented by people who have had to defend themselves.

[Greg Bernhardt]

I say we just make it mandatory that everyone should wear a firearm.

[drankin]

I say we just make it mandatory that everyone should wear a firearm.

I don't agree with that (felons, illegals, etc.). It would certainly make for a more polite society though!

[turbo-1]

I say we just make it mandatory that everyone should wear a firearm.That sure would cut down on car-jackings and home invasions.

[Evo]

This law was put in place because employees were already carrying their firearms to work. This "disgruntled employee" being a permit holder and shooting up the place has never happened. It's a baseless myth.Actually that happened at an office I worked at many years ago. I got there right after it happened, before the police arrived, the guy had already fled. He had a fight with his girlfriend that worked there, he accused her of fooling around with another guy that worked there, got his gun, walked into the cafeteria and shot the guy.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves. Who cares if it's frowned upon when you are preventing yourself from being killed. I'd rather be frowned upon than buried. If my coworkers were in the process of being killed, I'd certainly take it upon myself to stop it if it were in my power. What is wrong with that? I just don't get that mentality.Oh, you know some crazy law about not taking the law into your own hands and killing people. Go figure.

[jaap de vries]

Some stats:

Murders with firearms:

US of A: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime)

UK: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime)

Netherlands: Zero? (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/nl-netherlands/cri-crime), no I remember Pim Fortuyn being shot seven years ago. Can't be true.

Where on your given link does it say that there are 0 gun murders in Holland? It says we have about 183 murders (could not find for which year or with what weapon)

We usually have a couple of drug related gun settlement in "Amsterdam".

I kinda turned around on the gun issue (and I have only lived in Texas for 3 months now)
People should be allowed to have a gun at there own home. However I do not wish for my brains to be blown out because some genitor forgets to put the safety on, or because someone got fired and decides to take it out on the rest of us.

It is very simple, how many registered weapons cause accidents/deaths versus how many safe lives? That data is important instead of incidental stories about some grandma shooting a burglar in the face.

[jaap de vries]

Prevent permit holders from carrying their firearms and that murder rate in the US will go up. There are plenty of murders prevented by people who have had to defend themselves.

Please show link to back this up! I for one hardly ever hear this happening.

[BobG]

Realistically, how often does a person need a gun commuting back and forth to work?

That's where a gun is most needed if you commute to work in Boston or Los Angeles. (Road Rage (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/99/08/12/DRIVING.html))

"Ask any of the 131 people who were shot in Los Angeles during 1987 if there's such a thing as road rage. Ask the people who were murdered. Ask the deacon," he says, referring to Donald Graham, the Rhode Island deacon who, following a 1994 highway altercation, shot and killed another motorist with a crossbow.

"You are a negative person," he says. "You are looking at things that I wouldn't pay attention to. I don't think you're a person who looks for good things." Then, warming to the subject, he adds: "The thing that would delight you, of course, would be bloodshed."

"A shooting would be nice," I say. "If you shot someone, it would be ideal."

[drankin]

Actually that happened at an office I worked at many years ago. I got there right after it happened, before the police arrived, the guy had already fled. He had a fight with his girlfriend that worked there, he accused her of fooling around with another guy that worked there, got his gun, walked into the cafeteria and shot the guy.

Now, if there was a law that stated that you cannot have a gun in your car in your vehicle at work would that have prevented this? Also, was the bad guy a permit holder? If there was a law it is likely that the bad guy would have ignored it. Because, that is what bad guys do. They ignore the laws, while the law abiding types are disarmed.
Oh, you know some crazy law about not taking the law into your own hands and killing people. Go figure.

In the moment your life is in mortal danger, do you call your lawyer? Is there a judge on the nearby street corner? Is there a cop at your side? No, and they are not responsible for you. YOU ARE. You are basically saying, "how dare you defend yourself".

[drankin]

Please show link to back this up! I for one hardly ever hear this happening.

When I get some more time I will. This is a good point because you don't hear about this as often as it happens. I read about it monthly because I'm a bit of a fireams hobbyist. Every month there are a few gun magazines that will list documented cases where a folks have had to use their firearms to prevent murders, rapes, and armed robberies. Which, of course, would lower the murder rate.

[Evo]

The link (BobG's) shows how defensive driving and not agressing driving prevents you from getting into a road rage situation. Also, if you are aggressive and you *do* tick someone off and they shoot you, are you going to have time after being shot to grab your gun, go after him (I'm sure he sped off as soon as he shot you) and then shoot him back? You were just "winged" by his first shot, but now that you've fired back at him. He shoots you again killing you.

Uhm, ok, I can see how both people having guns really helped here. :biggrin:

Perhaps after you were shot, you could have pulled over and called 911 and been perfectly ok.

I don't see how both drivers having guns helps. Unless if someone cuts you off and you decide to kill them first just incase they may have a gun?

[drankin]

The link (BobG's) shows how defensive driving and not agressing driving prevents you from getting into a road rage situation. Also, if you are aggressive and you *do* tick someone off and they shoot you, are you going to have time after being shot to grab your gun, go after him (I'm sure he sped off as soon as he shot you) and then shoot him back? You were just "winged" by his first shot, but now that you've fired back at him. He shoots you again killing you.

Uhm, ok, I can see how both people having guns really helped here. :biggrin:

Perhaps after you were shot, you could have pulled over and called 911 and been perfectly ok.

I don't see how both drivers having guns helps. Unless if someone cuts you off and you decide to kill them just incase they may have a gun?

Evo, people are ALREADY carrying guns in their cars and this does not happen with any kind of documented regularity. It's a crazy scenerio you are making up. Sure, it probably has happened before but the people who carry out these things are the same people that would never set foot in police department to get their permit to legally carry their gun in the first place. In other words, I in no way advocate that criminals should be allowed to exercise the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

You are making a case that people who are violent and get pissed off easy shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun in their car. I can agree with that.

[drankin]

Regarding your road rage scenerio, if someone where in a car and shot at me, hell if I'm going to drive after him and volunteer myself into a gunfight. Even if I did, I wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. A DA would eat me alive. This kind of scenerio only happens in gang-bang land, I'm sure.

[drankin]

Please show link to back this up! I for one hardly ever hear this happening.

Here is a link (one of many): http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

[turbo-1]

Here is a well-researched paper documenting that allowing the concealed carrying of handguns reduces violent crime.

http://www.guncite.com/lott.pdf

In Vermont, you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and they are 49th in violent crime rate and 47th in murder rate.

http://www.gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm

[WheelsRCool]

Two good books on this subject are John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns."

[wildman]

You can't take a gun to my work unless you are a member of security. And it doesn't matter what the state says since it is a federal military base.... And yes they do search your car at random intervals so it is not a good idea to try to cheat.

[wildman]

The biggest problem with guns is what the military calls friendly fire. This is when you shoot the wrong person. Yea I know you all think that would never happen. Well, it can happen and it does happen quite often. Combat is fast and things happen.

The second problem is that people tend to get shoot by their own guns in close combat. If the opponent is only a foot away, it is really dangerous to pull a gun. I is very likely that your opponent will grab the gun (and he has 2 hands and you only have one since you must keep hold of your gun!!) and point it back at you just as you are pressing the trigger. That happens about 75% of the time.

[Poop-Loops]

I'd like to see a source for that "75% of the time" claim, even though I know what you are saying. I believe even police departments do drills like that to determine how close someone can be before drawing your pistol isn't viable anymore.

Anyway, the point about friendly fire is a good one. If a random Crazy started shooting a public area, and innocent bystanders 1 and 2 join in to stop the guy, then bystanders 3 and 4 who come in later (even a few seconds) will just see 3 guys with guns, not knowing what is going on. Police Officers 1 and 2 will likewise have no idea.

If it's a situation like protecting your home, when you know you are pretty much alone, then yeah, it make sense to be armed.

But there's a reason soldiers have uniforms and there is a reason why they are trained in units, not individually.

[wildman]

The source is my boss who has A LOT of close combat experience. He also sleeps with his Glock under his pillow so he is not an anti-gun nut. Of course, the 75% number does not apply to people trained in close combat such as police. They know enough not to do it.

Actually, friendly fire situation at home does happen when people get woke up by a relative who was not expected. Combat is not as easy as it looks in the movies.

[drankin]

Yep, it's important not to shoot yourself or relatives unintentionally. Good points.

[NeoDevin]

The source is my boss who has A LOT of close combat experience. He also sleeps with his Glock under his pillow so he is not an anti-gun nut. Of course, the 75% number does not apply to people trained in close combat such as police. They know enough not to do it.

Actually, friendly fire situation at home does happen when people get woke up by a relative who was not expected. Combat is not as easy as it looks in the movies.

Second hand anecdotal evidence is always the best kind. No doubt he heard it from someone else, so it's even better than second hand.

[drankin]

According to the 75% stat and the fact that he has ha A LOT of close combat experience tells me that he has shot himself at least 2 or 3 times.

[wildman]

Second hand anecdotal evidence is always the best kind. No doubt he heard it from someone else, so it's even better than second hand.

Ha! Ha! Isn't that so. He heard it in combat training so you are right!!

[wildman]

Yep, it's important not to shoot yourself or relatives unintentionally. Good points.

This makes trivial a very serious problem. I'll tell you another second hand story. This one may or may have happened, but it Illustrates an important point.

There was an old colonel who went to the War College to obtain some training. A young captain pulled out some maps of a make believe battle and said this and that happened and this happened…. Who won?
The colonel, who by this time had kind a glazed look to his eyes turned to the captain and said, “Who panicked?” The captain said, “No one panicked!” The colonel sighed and said, “Look son, in real combat, who ever panics first loses.”

Drankin, I sure you think that in combat, you will be Rambo. And maybe you will. Some people are. But most people panic. That is why the military trains and trains and trains. Most civilians with a gun panic and when you panic you are as likely to shoot your relatives and friends as the bad guy.

[turbo-1]

Most civilians with a gun panic and when you panic you are as likely to shoot your relatives and friends as the bad guy.Where did you get that idea? When you are motivated to protect people from attack, you are as likely to shoot the victims as the attacker? That's ridiculous and entirely unsupportable.

My wife is almost as good a shot as I am, as long as she's shooting .38s or 9mm, and we have a .22 pistol that seems to fit her hand so well that her aim is almost instinctive. She doesn't like shooting my Glock 20 because the 10mm auto has too much recoil and her hands are small. I can guarantee that if someone was trying to break into our house, she would shoot the intruder and not me. We have friends and relatives (male and female) who enjoy target-shooting and plinking as well, and we get together occasionally at local sand pits to practice and re-affirm familiarity with the loading process, arming, safety, etc with each type of firearm - revolver or semi-auto. None of these civilians would panic when they have familiar tools of self-defense at their disposal. Certainly, nobody is going to be happy when confronted with a home invasion, for instance, but that is not going to prompt any of us to turn a gun on our families instead of the real threat.

[Poop-Loops]

turbo-1 has a point. You have no evidence to support the claim that people panic when under heavy stress.

I think instead we should all accept turbo-1's unsupported claim that in a life-threatening situation all of his friends wouldn't panic. It just makes more sense to assume people keep their cool when the s*** hits the fan.

[luben]

i wonder if gun can be completely banned in US, except military and police. Then there will be much less gun-murder. A stun rod is enough for civilian i think.:wink:

[turbo-1]

turbo-1 has a point. You have no evidence to support the claim that people panic when under heavy stress.

I think instead we should all accept turbo-1's unsupported claim that in a life-threatening situation all of his friends wouldn't panic. It just makes more sense to assume people keep their cool when the s*** hits the fan.People may not keep their cool, and may in fact be in heavy adrenaline-rush mode, but when these people are thoroughly familiar with their handguns, shotguns, or whatever they might choose for home defense, I would NOT want to be the stranger breaking down the door. To assert that the victims are likely to start shooting one another instead of the intruder is ridiculous.

[wildman]

People may not keep their cool, and may in fact be in heavy adrenaline-rush mode, but when these people are thoroughly familiar with their handguns, shotguns, or whatever they might choose for home defense, I would NOT want to be the stranger breaking down the door. To assert that the victims are likely to start shooting one another instead of the intruder is ridiculous.

Once again, you make trivial of what I said. Of course, you won't shoot your wife who is next to you. Friendly fire incidents are very rare within the the same unit. More common is this that happened near my home:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/page/3/

Read the link, but basically what happened was that Harold Fish panicked and shot Kuenzli. Fish wasn't a murderer in spite of what the jury found. He was someone with a gun that panicked. This kind of stuff doesn't make the American Rifleman, but it happens and more commonly than people think. The military spends LOTS of time and money trying to figure out ways to prevent friendly fire and if they have problems (and they are very well trained), then civilians are going to have even more....

It is not that I am anti-gun, but you have to realize that a gun is a give and take thing. It increases the chances of Fish - Kuenzli type incidents while reducing the chances of home invasion type incidents. It depends on the situation whether it actually makes you safer or not.

[turbo-1]

Once again, you make trivial of what I said. Of course, you won't shoot your wife who is next to you. Friendly fire incidents are very rare within the the same unit.I am not trivializing what you said. I'm pointing out that you have made a broad generalization that is irrational and is not supported by any facts. You have not cited any support for your statement, but are changing the subject big-time. There are very few home-invasions in Maine because we have one of the highest rates of gun-ownership in the country.

People who are familiar with their guns and are aware of their competence in their use are NOT going to panic and start shooting friends, family, and co-workers instead of the person(s) who are threatening their lives. If you'd like to cite some studies that support that idea, I'd be happy to review them, but I'm not holding my breath while you try to dig up something.

[drankin]

i wonder if gun can be completely banned in US, except military and police. Then there will be much less gun-murder. A stun rod is enough for civilian i think.:wink:

A complete ban on firearms is impossible in a Constitutional US. Now, if the Constitution were removed, then it would be a possibility. But, that would require a revolution that would surely bring a death toll that all the civilian firearm fatalities that every happened would not touch. IMO of course.

[drankin]

Wildman, I'm not sure what you are getting at other than accidents DO happen. We have had firearms for hundreds of years in this country and "panick" accidents like you describe hardly rank as a statistical concern.

[wildman]

Drankin,turbo-1

I'm asking my cousin who is in law enforcement about your statement so it will be a while before I get back to this interesting discussion. In the mean time I included a gun/Hillary joke in your private mail which you all will find very funny but is unfortunately a bit too off color for the public forum.

[Poop-Loops]

Wildman, I'm not sure what you are getting at other than accidents DO happen. We have had firearms for hundreds of years in this country and "panick" accidents like you describe hardly rank as a statistical concern.

Err... how often do citizens bust out their guns to stop a crime or to defend themselves?

How often do citizens fire their guns to defend themselves or to stop a crime?

It could very well be that simply pulling out a gun can end a conflict peacefully (i.e. someone trying to rob you, but runs away, someone assaulting someone else and runs away), but when shots are fired all hell could break loose. As far as I can tell, these incidents don't happen very often at all, so to draw any kind of conclusion from them would be hard.

[drankin]

Here are some raw stats: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
I don't think anything really addresses panic shootings though. ("panic shootings", a new term! LOL)

[vanesch]

I have to say that when I read this, I get a most un-real feeling. This must be a cultural thing, so it is difficult to argue rational over it - I guess John Wayne is part of the culture.

I would say that a country where you have to walk and drive around and go to your work with a gun just to protect yourself, is a highly insecure place! So, or this insecurity is imaginary, or it is real. If it is imaginary, then, well, it is just in the mind of course, and carrying a toy gun would help just as much as a real one, and be less dangerous :tongue2: However, if the insecurity is real, then I'd say for a rich country such as the US, it is high time to invest a bit more in police protection ! This is on the verge of craziness: you are spending fortunes to capture the bearded lunatic who might eventually plan a terrorist attack half a planet away, but you are under *constant attack* from your fellow citizen without doing anything about it.

I can eventually understand the need to take your physical protection in your own hands in remote places with very low population density, but in cities and highways and so on, this sounds totally un-real to me!

[drankin]

I have to say that when I read this, I get a most un-real feeling. This must be a cultural thing, so it is difficult to argue rational over it - I guess John Wayne is part of the culture.

I would say that a country where you have to walk and drive around and go to your work with a gun just to protect yourself, is a highly insecure place! So, or this insecurity is imaginary, or it is real. If it is imaginary, then, well, it is just in the mind of course, and carrying a toy gun would help just as much as a real one, and be less dangerous :tongue2: However, if the insecurity is real, then I'd say for a rich country such as the US, it is high time to invest a bit more in police protection ! This is on the verge of craziness: you are spending fortunes to capture the bearded lunatic who might eventually plan a terrorist attack half a planet away, but you are under *constant attack* from your fellow citizen without doing anything about it.

I can eventually understand the need to take your physical protection in your own hands in remote places with very low population density, but in cities and highways and so on, this sounds totally un-real to me!

Van, the deal is that you are not familiar with guns. They are not common to you. They are common here. Guns are everywhere here. It's really not a big deal to own pistols and rifles in the US. It's common. Noone is under "constant attack" from their fellow citizens. There are wacko here as there are among all human populations. We just refuse to let wackos determine whether the rest of the law abiding public can maintain rightful ownership of firearms. To disarm the common people is to simply leave them defensless against the lawless. Even though it is rarely necessary for someone to ever need a firearm in their lifetime for self-defense.

In order to "invest" in more police as you suggest would require us to deputize a large fraction of our population. Which would require more government, which requires more burauecacy, which requires more regulation, which requires more money, which requires more taxes. And so on...

[Ivan Seeking]

I have to say that when I read this, I get a most un-real feeling. This must be a cultural thing, so it is difficult to argue rational over it - I guess John Wayne is part of the culture.

You got it backwards: "John Wayne" was the personification of [some aspects] of our culture, not the other way around. The wild west really did exist.

I would say that a country where you have to walk and drive around and go to your work with a gun just to protect yourself, is a highly insecure place! So, or this insecurity is imaginary, or it is real. If it is imaginary, then, well, it is just in the mind of course, and carrying a toy gun would help just as much as a real one, and be less dangerous :tongue2: However, if the insecurity is real, then I'd say for a rich country such as the US, it is high time to invest a bit more in police protection! This is on the verge of craziness: you are spending fortunes to capture the bearded lunatic who might eventually plan a terrorist attack half a planet away, but you are under *constant attack* from your fellow citizen without doing anything about it.

I can eventually understand the need to take your physical protection in your own hands in remote places with very low population density, but in cities and highways and so on, this sounds totally un-real to me!

I grew up near a housing project in the Los Angeles area that the fire department wouldn't enter without a police escort because people would shoot at the firefighters.

Many of our cities are a real mess. Poverty and illegal immigration have driven services to the breaking point in many areas. And if you want to talk about craziness: Since 911, about 2 million people have entered the US illegally. Although most of these people are just looking for work, many are associated with dangerous gangs like MS13. Some of these gangs require that new members kill someone as part of the initiation process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha

Some of these gangs are better armed than the police. And no, the weapons they have, like fully automatic weaspons, are not legal. In short, our cities are full of little terrorists. People have good reason to fear for their safety.

[jimmysnyder]

You got it backwards: "John Wayne" was the personification of [some aspects] of our culture, not the other way around. The wild west really did exist.
The wild west was nothing like what is depicted in Westerns. More people die violently in an hour and a half on film than in a decade of the real thing.

[vanesch]

Van, the deal is that you are not familiar with guns. They are not common to you. They are common here. Guns are everywhere here. It's really not a big deal to own pistols and rifles in the US. It's common.


Yes, this is what I meant with a "cultural thing". Visibly it is important to many American citizens, as a principle, to have a gun. But to most Europeans, for instance, this sounds very bizarre (as most cultural differences do, I understand that). It must be some "liberty feeling" or something, which is totally absent in most European populations. I'm just guessing here, but I would think that most of my fellow citizens would bluntly *refuse* to have a gun even if one offered them one legally. Just as a matter of principle.

Of course, weaponry can be job-related, and police and security functions might require one to have a gun available, and can even provide for some real protection. Also, as I said, sometimes one can feel quite insecure, like when one is alone in a remote place, and having a weapon can, in certain cases, provide for extra (true or imagined) security.
But these are normally rare cases. Most of the time, there is no objective need for a gun. Personally, I prefer not having a gun, and knowing that my rather bizarre neighbour also doesn't have a gun. I tend to think that most of my fellow citizens think about the same, although this is guessing.


Noone is under "constant attack" from their fellow citizens. There are wacko here as there are among all human populations. We just refuse to let wackos determine whether the rest of the law abiding public can maintain rightful ownership of firearms. To disarm the common people is to simply leave them defensless against the lawless. Even though it is rarely necessary for someone to ever need a firearm in their lifetime for self-defense.


So this argument is rather: guns have only in rare occasions a *real* use, but we adhere to our right in principle to carry one. Ok, this is the cultural thing I talked about. Here it would rather be: I prefer not to have a gun, but if it is really necessary for my security, then I will, if I really have to, take one.


In order to "invest" in more police as you suggest would require us to deputize a large fraction of our population. Which would require more government, which requires more burauecacy, which requires more regulation, which requires more money, which requires more taxes. And so on...

Personally, I'd prefer to pay a bit more taxes, and walk around in security, rather than pay a bit less taxes, and having to walk around armed, with the genuine risk of being shot every minute...

But we are mixing here apparently two totally different topics. One is a cultural thing, and is "we Americans, enjoy the right to carry guns, and we don't like to give it up, we feel naked without".
The other point, not much related to this, is: "there's a lot of insecurity, and police protection isn't adequate to protect me and my relatives ; I need to be armed to protect them, for real".

I would say, if I were in the second case, I would also carry, reluctantly, a gun, but I would prefer the situation to normalize, and to delegate physical protection to police forces, rather than do it myself. I am totally strange to the first case, but I can understand that this is different in the US.

[Evo]

I feel absolutely no need to carry a gun. I don't not feel that I live or drive in an unsafe place. Do the people here that feel they live in an unsafe place live in a dangerous inner city gang area? That's a relatively small portion of the US.

[drankin]

I feel absolutely no need to carry a gun. I don't not feel that I live or drive in an unsafe place. Do the people here that feel they live in an unsafe place live in a dangerous inner city gang area? That's a relatively small portion of the US.

Evo, it dawned on me as I was driving back to Seattle from Spokane (300miles, I do this every weekend) that you might be thinking one feels they might need a gun to protect themselves while driving. This is not what I meant. I don't even think the police are allowed to fire their weapons while driving. That's extremely crazy and an unsafe use of a firearm. Maybe that isn't what you meant, but just in case...

Whether one feels they need to carry while going to and from work isn't so much the point. It's whether we have the ability of protecting ourselves in public or if our employer can determine that we cannot because he/she doesn't want them in their parking lots. Because we are in public before we get to work and in order to get home after work, it makes sense that those who are licensed to carry shouldn't be restricted by their employer during those times.

[drankin]

Yes, this is what I meant with a "cultural thing". Visibly it is important to many American citizens, as a principle, to have a gun. But to most Europeans, for instance, this sounds very bizarre (as most cultural differences do, I understand that). It must be some "liberty feeling" or something, which is totally absent in most European populations. I'm just guessing here, but I would think that most of my fellow citizens would bluntly *refuse* to have a gun even if one offered them one legally. Just as a matter of principle.

Of course, weaponry can be job-related, and police and security functions might require one to have a gun available, and can even provide for some real protection. Also, as I said, sometimes one can feel quite insecure, like when one is alone in a remote place, and having a weapon can, in certain cases, provide for extra (true or imagined) security.
But these are normally rare cases. Most of the time, there is no objective need for a gun. Personally, I prefer not having a gun, and knowing that my rather bizarre neighbour also doesn't have a gun. I tend to think that most of my fellow citizens think about the same, although this is guessing.



So this argument is rather: guns have only in rare occasions a *real* use, but we adhere to our right in principle to carry one. Ok, this is the cultural thing I talked about. Here it would rather be: I prefer not to have a gun, but if it is really necessary for my security, then I will, if I really have to, take one.



Personally, I'd prefer to pay a bit more taxes, and walk around in security, rather than pay a bit less taxes, and having to walk around armed, with the genuine risk of being shot every minute...

But we are mixing here apparently two totally different topics. One is a cultural thing, and is "we Americans, enjoy the right to carry guns, and we don't like to give it up, we feel naked without".
The other point, not much related to this, is: "there's a lot of insecurity, and police protection isn't adequate to protect me and my relatives ; I need to be armed to protect them, for real".

I would say, if I were in the second case, I would also carry, reluctantly, a gun, but I would prefer the situation to normalize, and to delegate physical protection to police forces, rather than do it myself. I am totally strange to the first case, but I can understand that this is different in the US.

Yep, that is a good objective view of it. It's a difference in cultural or our social environment.

[lisab]

I feel absolutely no need to carry a gun. I don't not feel that I live or drive in an unsafe place. Do the people here that feel they live in an unsafe place live in a dangerous inner city gang area? That's a relatively small portion of the US.

The few people I've known who are what I would call "rabid" gun people don't live in what I would consider dangerous areas, but they all seem to live with a generalized, vague fear of being a victim.

One guy in particular, a former coworker, was absolutely irrational about having his guns "taken away." He called in one day, saying he wasn't going to make it in. Turns out he heard a sound in his house in the middle of the night, so he grabbed his gun and spent the whole night slinking room to room looking for the boogeyman.

We all got a laugh comparing him to Elmer Fudd...what a dork.

[edward]

In Arizona a person can carry a weapon just about anywhere as long as it is in plain sight; In a holster, stuck in your belt, you name it.

Recently a state law maker came up with a guns on campus bill.

The lawmaker, State Senator Karen S. Johnson, has sponsored a bill, which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last week, that would allow people with a concealed weapons permit — limited to those 21 and older here — to carry their firearms at public colleges and universities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/us/05guns.html

Since concealed carry is limited to those 21 and older I was wondering who was going to protect the underclassmen.:surprised

The law didn't pass, but the legislature did pass a law that allows a person without a concealed carry permit to have a gun concealed in a vehicle.

[drankin]

In Arizona a person can carry a weapon just about anywhere as long as it is in plain sight; In a holster, stuck in your belt, you name it.

Recently a state law maker came up with a guns on campus bill.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/us/05guns.html

Since concealed carry is limited to those 21 and older I was wondering who was going to protect the underclassmen.:surprised

The law didn't pass, but the legislature did pass a law that allows a person without a concealed carry permit to have a gun concealed in a vehicle.

That's unfortunate that students are required to be victims on an Arizona campus. If someone decides to initiate another massacre on a campus in Arizona, noone will be able to stop them.

[BobG]

Err... how often do citizens bust out their guns to stop a crime or to defend themselves?

How often do citizens fire their guns to defend themselves or to stop a crime?

It could very well be that simply pulling out a gun can end a conflict peacefully (i.e. someone trying to rob you, but runs away, someone assaulting someone else and runs away), but when shots are fired all hell could break loose. As far as I can tell, these incidents don't happen very often at all, so to draw any kind of conclusion from them would be hard.

Having someone know you have a gun before the situation develops can certainly defuse the situation, even if the other person has a gun. If the motivation is just money, a gun battle for the money isn't all that attractive of a proposition.

Having a potential victim pull out a cell phone can defuse the situation, as well, provided the situation hasn't developed very far. It doesn't take much time to dial 911 if a person feels sufficiently threatened.

If the other party has already drawn their gun, it's a little late for either option. If the other party has already assaulted you, even without a gun, it's a little late for either option since using a gun in that situation is going to be dangerous for both parties.

Of course, the other person wouldn't have near as much fear of trying to knock a cell phone out of your hand before you could dial 911 as they would of trying to knock a gun out of your hand before you could pull the trigger. So, a gun does have some benefit in self-defense, just not a lot. And, as you mentioned, these incidents only rarely occur in most places. The benefit of having a gun for self-defense is just very small.

How small is small enough is open to debate. I had my Jeep broken into just this weekend and I'd consider my neighborhood to be pretty safe, if you could call the first incident of any kind I've had in 8 years as pretty safe (in fact, one person or group of persons victimized quite a few vehicles in the neighborhood in one night).

[cristo]

That's unfortunate that students are required to be victims on an Arizona campus. If someone decides to initiate another massacre on a campus in Arizona, noone will be able to stop them.

Well, apart from the people you pay to uphold the law!

I just love the emotionally loaded comments that this sort of discussion brings. One can bet any money on any thread slightly related to gun ownership ending up in the "I want to carry a gun; it's my constitutional right" vs "You shouldn't carry a gun it's just asking for trouble" argument. :zzz: It's pretty dull hearing the same thing for the ninety-ninth time!

[wildman]

I'm not looking at this thread again and not answering any other input. However this is the input from my cousin who has been in law enforcement for quite a while:

"What I understood for a number of decades is that a person who buys a handgun (I do not remember it being other guns like rifles) is more likely to kill a dear one or innocent party (like a spouse coming home early from a business trip or a kid coming home unexpectedly late at night) than to kill a criminal inside their house. It has been a number of years since I read the latest stats, but that data held up for so long that I see no reason it would change now. The NRA denies it, but they haven't yet made a sound counter argument to my mind."

"Remember, the criminal is prepared to use lethal force without remorse or hesitation, "amateurs" aren't and that split second makes all the difference. When the homeowner brings a gun into the equation, the criminal will react with lethal force. If a gun is not brought into the equation, the criminal is more likely to flee. In a home invasion the homeowner very likely will have no time to arm himself."

"The NRA likes to publicize successful resistance by homeowners, but do you notice that they don't do that too often?"

"Unless stats have changed recently, homeowners are much more likely to kill some innocent with friendly fire than kill a criminal, but the NRA will never give on that point. Think of the remorse those fathers/mothers feel when they shoot their own children or spouse? It is very sad."

"We talked about this before at your house and there is one hell of a big difference between shooting at targets and panic shooting in a split second situation."

[NeoDevin]

Is anyone going to post an argument which is not subjective or anecdotal on this topic?

[drankin]

Is anyone going to post an argument which is not subjective or anecdotal on this topic?

Permit holders should not be restricted on campuses because they are already trusted to carry everywhere else. What makes a campus any different? It can only help. And there are documented cases where faculty and students have stopped school shootings. I'll dig up some sources.

Does that qualify?

[NeoDevin]

Once you find the sources supporting it. If you could find sources which list that alongside the number of times a permit holder was involved in such a shooting as well, that would be even better.

I don't actually have a strong opinion either way, I was just pointing out the (nearly) complete lack of facts presented in the last 5 pages of discussion here.

[Andre]

I remember reading "on aggression" of Konrad Lorentz (http://www.amazon.com/Aggression-Konrad-Lorenz/dp/1567311075)

In short, his take is that aggression within the same is a normal element of the evolution, those who prevail pass on their genes. However if aggression amongst strongly armed species causes too many fatalities that's bad for the survival of the species too, therefore these species may get a build-in resistance to kill the opponent at the sight of surrender or alterrnatively the fights get symbolic, like a running contest.

When species are not equipped with deadly weapons, they have usually enough possibillity to flee, and that's enough for the winner. Those species don't need a build in restistence. He then gives an example that two doves in a cage, unable to fly away, may peck each other to death.

So in what category is a man with a gun?

[turbo-1]

Here is a fact sheet with sources and citations regarding gun deaths (not specifically related to concealed-carry, but to gun ownership, population growth and incident rates).

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120
* Firearm accident deaths have been decreasing for decades. Since 1930, their annual number has decreased 80%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 89% since 1975.
* Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time annual low, while the U.S. population is at an all-time high. Therefore, the firearm accident death rate is at an all-time annual low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94% since the all-time high in 1904.
* Today, the odds are a million to one, against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident.
* Firearms are involved in 0.6% of accidental deaths nationally. Most accidental deaths involve, or are due to, motor vehicles (39%), poisoning (18%), falls (16%), suffocation (5%), drowning (2.9%), fires (2.8%), medical mistakes (2.2%), environmental factors (1.2%), and bicycles and tricycles (0.7%). Among children: motor vehicles (45%), suffocation (18%), drowning (14%), fires (9%), bicycles and tricycles (2.4%), falls (2%), poisoning (1.6%),environmental factors (1.5%), and medical mistakes (0.8%).

[drankin]

Unfortunately, a great deal of people have an unreasonable, unsupportable bias regarding gun ownership. These same people have very little, if any, experience with guns. Not more than four years ago I shared the same view towards guns as many of you that find gun ownership unneccessary or unreasonable in our society.

And then one night my fiance at the time was chased from college campus several blocks to her car (she's frugal, parked off campus) after a late class. She is a small woman and thankfully she recognized the situation was able to get far away soon enough that nothing came of it. I bought my first gun and gave it to her to keep with her. I was then intrigued about the whole idea of owning a gun and studied up on it. I had very little experience prior. Since then I've had training, gotten a permit and carry regularly. I KNOW how to safely possess and operate a firearm (there is always more to learn, of course) and have educated my children and often take them target shooting. This experience gives you a proper context to understand a persons rights and obligations concerning ownership. And you quickly begin to see how unreasonable and ignorant the bias that many folks have. Statistics alone show how insignificant guns are in comparison other dangers we contend with everyday.

I would encourage anyone here (of sound mind and maturity) to get themselves a pistol or rifle if for no other reason than to shoot for fun. You will quickly get a rational perspective on what it's about and what it's not about.

[daveb]

If the guy is coming at you with a gun and you fire in self defense without premeditation that's one thing, but if you get a gun and go after the guy, no matter how noble the cause, isn't that at least manslaughter?

This is an interesting point I've never heard in the whole gun debate. I know that self defense can be claimed if the person is threatening your own life, etc. But, in this case, if the person was able to get out to their car, they are obviously no longer in danger. Going back inside then means they are no longer acting in self defense.

[NeoDevin]

You seem to be making the assumption that everyone who carries a weapon is as smart about it as you. That every family does as much to educate their children. I don't know what the regulations are there (or here for that matter, not something I ever looked into), but I wouldn't count on your average gun owner to be much smarter than your average person, which is mildly disconcerting.

[drankin]

This is an interesting point I've never heard in the whole gun debate. I know that self defense can be claimed if the person is threatening your own life, etc. But, in this case, if the person was able to get out to their car, they are obviously no longer in danger. Going back inside then means they are no longer acting in self defense.

But, it is justifiable if you are defending others. Defending your own family members would be an obvious example, but you are justified in defending anyones life. You can kill someone who is trying to kill another. Don't even have to bring guns into the equation. The only way to defend yourself or anyone else against a gun toting bad guy, is with your own gun.

[daveb]

There are very few home-invasions in Maine because we have one of the highest rates of gun-ownership in the country.

That's a bold statement to attribute it to gun ownership. Do you have any studies that correlate the two? Perhaps other factors are the cause instead.

[drankin]

You seem to be making the assumption that everyone who carries a weapon is as smart about it as you. That every family does as much to educate their children. I don't know what the regulations are there (or here for that matter, not something I ever looked into), but I wouldn't count on your average gun owner to be much smarter than your average person, which is mildly disconcerting.

Gun owners are typically average people. Nothing to do with intelligence. But, you only hear about the stupid ones because thats what gets all the attention. It's the average owner who gets the bad rap because of the stupid folks. And the average makes the case that because there are stupid people with guns out there, all the more reason to not take ours away or unreasonably restrict them. This is why the idea of a permit is such a good one, we can distinguish between the average and the stupid.

[NeoDevin]

Provided the requirements for getting such a permit are sufficiently stringent.

[daveb]

Here's http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm an interesting web site that defines what self defense is and isn't. I particularly find this part interesting.
Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him

[turbo-1]

That's a bold statement to attribute it to gun ownership. Do you have any studies that correlate the two? Perhaps other factors are the cause instead.It's common sense that if you want to burglarize a home, you would be hesitant about doing so in a state with 1.4 million guns (more than enough for every single resident). Though that 1.4M is the most commonly-cited figure, it is probably far too low because there are lots of families handing down lever-action hunting rifles, revolvers, shotguns, etc that are used for hunting and target practice and have been in the family for many years. It is not uncommon to see people out deer-hunting with Winchesters that are over 100 years old and nobody (except hardware store owners and gun companies) were counting gun sales back then.

Here is a study that concludes that states with shall-issue gun permit laws have lower overall crime rates, including burglaries. It also states in the conclusion that states that allow concealed carrying of handguns experience an increase in property crimes involving stealth, in which the possibility of the perpetrator confronting an armed victim is minimized. Bad guys are motivated by fear of getting shot and they modify their behavior.

http://hematite.com/dragon/Lott_ORDu.html
The results are large empirically. When state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent. In 1992, there were 18,469 murders; 79,272 rapes; 538,368 robberies; and 861,103 aggravated assaults in counties without "shall issue" laws. The coefficients imply that if these counties had been subject to state concealed handgun laws, murders in the United States would have declined by 1,570. Given the concern that has been raised about increased accidental deaths from concealed weapons, it is interesting to note that the entire number of accidental gun deaths in the United States in 1992 was 1,409. Of this total, 546 accidental deaths were in states with concealed handgun laws and 863 were in those without these laws. The reduction in murders is as much as three times greater than the total number of accidental deaths in concealed handgun states. Thus, if our results are accurate, the net effect of allowing concealed handguns is clearly to save lives. Similarly, the results indicate that the number of rapes in states without "shall issue" laws would have declined by 4,177; aggravated assaults by 60,363; and robberies by 1,898. [26]

On the other hand, property crime rates definitely increased after "shall issue" laws were implemented. The results are equally dramatic. If states without concealed handgun laws had passed such laws, there would have been 247,165 more property crimes in 1992 (a 2.7 percent increase). Thus, criminals respond substantially to the threat of being shot by instead substituting into less risky crimes. [27]

[drankin]

Provided the requirements for getting such a permit are sufficiently stringent.

That is determined by the state of residence. All of which require actually going into a police station, getting fingerprinted and FBI background checked. This pretty much weeds out your typical wacko.

[lisab]

It seems this Florida law disregards the property owner's rights.

Of course citizens have a second amendment right to own a gun; I always thought their right stopped at my property line, though.

[drankin]

It seems this Florida law disregards the property owner's rights.

Of course citizens have a second amendment right to own a gun; I always thought their right stopped at my property line, though.

This is where there is a compromise. An employer cannot restrict the right of an individual to carry their firearm to and from work. If one cannot have their gun at work they wouldn't be able to have one getting to and from. It's a reasonable compromise that doesn't violate anyones right. No different than employer saying he doesn't want golf clubs on his property in my opinion. If it's in my vehicle, it's none of his concern.

[NeoDevin]

That is determined by the state of residence. All of which require actually going into a police station, getting fingerprinted and FBI background checked. This pretty much weeds out your typical wacko.

I was thinking of at the very least mandatory safety training, as well as available education for everyone in the family/household. Possibly also with a refresher exam or something every five years to ensure that everyone is still familiar with safety and regulations.

[drankin]

I was thinking of at the very least mandatory safety training, as well as available education for everyone in the family/household. Possibly also with a refresher exam or something every five years to ensure that everyone is still familiar with safety and regulations.

I believe most states require some training requirement as well, though my state does not. The state could certainly require this is if it shows to be an issue. Personally, I'd rather be responsible for my own education on my own time rather than have to jump through more hoops to make other people "feel" better to my expense.

[NeoDevin]

Not everyone will be as responsible about it as you are.

[drankin]

Not everyone will be as responsible about it as you are.

A reasonable compromise might be if the state ok'd a list of 3rd party training companies(which are generally better anyway) that could certify people. This would allow them to compete for the business via price and training times rather than having to schedule with a state run agency and pay that new beauracracy pig that's only open Saturdays at 7am pending available slots, etc. Take the burden off the state and it's taxpayers at the same time making the cost lower for better training at place that was designed for it. I'd be ok with that.

[NeoDevin]

As would I, as long as these 3rd parties were held to some standard in order to be able to certify people, and not just to the lowest bidder.