“If you want to make state officials feel more comfortable, I think the right thing to do is to allow them to carry their own personal firearms as they see fit.” – Michigan Open Carry president Phillip Hofmeister in Capitol likely to remain open to guns [at livingstondaily.com]
The very premise of the issue is faulty, and we as a community need to do a better job of not letting the antis define the narrative.
Allowing or not allowing firearms in the capitol building, by law, will only affect the law-abiding. People who follow the law would also follow a law that prohibits firearms from the capitol. We know this to be true, because statistics from across the country demonstrate that those who carry firearms (via state-issued permit, or constitutionally) are the most law-abiding demographic of anyone.
On the other hand, anyone with intent to commit crime, or too psychopathic to care about the law, will carry or not according to their own desires. No law will stop them.
There is a reason that spree shootings have only ever happened in so-called “Gun Free Zones”.
I agree with your premise, but you need to be factual. MOST spree shootings occur in gun free zones, the Gabby Giffords shooting was NOT a gun free zone as I can remember. That’s the only one I can think of, carry on.
I am being factual. The Gabby Giffords shooting was not a spree shooting; it was an assassination attempt.
Yet another distinction the antis want to deceptively gloss over.
Assassination was his PRIMARY goal, but he shot 18 people, 6 fatally. If that’s not a spree shooting, I don’t know what is.
An assassination attempt is, by definition, not a spree shooting. A spree shooting has no specific targets, and includes indiscriminate violence. An assassination has a very specific target. Just because the would-be assassin shot several people who were, or who tried to get, between him and his intended target doesn’t make the shooting a spree shooting.
There is a big difference between an uncontrolled ‘posted’ gun-free zone and one that is secured. The former does only effect the law-abiding; the latter actually deters and can stop armed criminals from entering.
You mean, sort of like Ft. Hood, or the Naval Yard, or the Canadian Parliament?
Warner said “The gun lobby’s suggestion that ‘gun-free’ zones are to blame for mass shootings is flat-out wrong.”
They may not be to blame but that’s where they generally take place.
Correlation does, indeed, not imply causation.
However, in this case I suspect that gun-free zones do tilt probability’s playing field a bit.
Replace “mass” with “spree”, and it is factual to say that 100% of them happen in so-called “Gun Free Zones”.
The remainder of mass, non-spree shootings involve drugs and/or gangs. There is the occasional domestic murder-suicide that now falls under “mass shooting” (fungible definition, to inflate numbers).
In all cases, allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in public does not contribute, in any way, to “mass shootings”. Statistically speaking, you’d be more effective at reducing homicides by preventing police officers from carrying firearms, given that they commit firearms-involved crimes an order of magnitude more frequently than non-badged civilians who carry lawfully.
“The gun ban lobby’s suggestion that mass shootings can be stopped by unarmed civilians is flat out dumb.”
Which is precisely why they continue to call for such “solutions.”
They do NOT want these events to go away. Highly publicized events, especially when tragic, bolster the need for control…and more to the point…controlers.
They need “problems” to “solve.” Of course their solutions are going to be ineffective. That’s the point.
I hate to be the sticker, but how many times have we railed against the antis and their “feel safe” arguments? Here we are doing the same.
No, I think there is a fundamental difference.
An anti will say, “I feel unsafe, so I demand the State use its power to infringe on your right to defend yourself by keeping and bearing arms.” We say, “If I feel unsafe, I am empowered to maintain the means to defend myself, by keeping and bearing arms.”
There is nothing inherently good or bad, right or wrong, about “feeling unsafe”. In fact, the danger sense is an innate part of human survival. The difference lies in how one responds to it, and whether one turns to personal responsibility and liberty, or statist control.
Well said
Only law needed is severe sentence “enhancements” for committing a violent felony while in possession of a gun. This won’t stop felons from using guns.
No laws needed to prevent the law abiding from buying firearms, carrying firearms, concealed or open.
No storage mandates. But sufficient penalties for mishaps that are a result of failure to take proper care in keeping guns away from children. Like the parents that were shot by their 3 year old. Tragic and completely avoidable. But laws can’t mandate common sense.
“Only law needed is severe sentence “enhancements” for committing a violent felony while in possession of a gun. “
I completely disagree with this.
Why is a rape, for example, more heinous if it committed with a gun vs not?
The problem is not the gun…the problem is the violent felony, gun or no gun.
Agreed.
If we had substantial prison time for violent crimes – regardless of the weapon(s) used (or even if only boots/fists were used) – that would be far more appropriate than any extra penalties that single out guns.
I do understand the desire of some to “punish more” those who misuse firearms, but I think it misses the point (which is that the actual crime is the violent act), and probably does more harm (demonization of firearms) than good.
That’s already the way the law works, genius. There ARE severe sentencing enhancements for crimes involving the use of a weapon. Maybe check existing laws before calling for new ones. You’ve made yourself look lie the antis who call for a ban on automatic weapons (despite the de facto ban that’s been in place since ’86).
The article appears to be a non-news, manufactured story by the Livingston Daily. They even acknowledge that the legislators aren’t asking for a change in the law. Just an opportunity for some “Everytown” stooge to get a quote in the paper.
Absolutely. From the article,
“Emotions can flare in politics. In Lansing, that can happen around guns. At an immigration rally in mid-July, for example, Michigan State Police Capitol Security Section officers arrested two opposing demonstrators after they got into a shoving match on the Capitol lawn. One of them was openly carrying a pistol …”
And yet the person openly carrying the pistol did NOT draw his handgun much less shoot the other person. Nor do we hear of the prosecutor charging the open carrier with any crimes. I have a sneaking hunch that the prosecutor did charge the other person. It would be interesting to confirm this.
Man if feels almost like that should be codified in law somewhere. Somehow. Maybe in the fundamental document of our nation?
WINK
“If you want to make state officials feel more comfortable, I think the right thing to do is to allow them to carry their own personal firearms as they see fit.”
If there’s already a mechanism for the unwashed masses to be allowed to carry in the statehouse, then there’s nothing preventing any state official from going through the same process. (Other than the nuisance factor of course …)
Otherwise you’re simply putting another law in place that makes special allowances for the convenience of those in power. We need less, not more, of that sort of thing.
Comments are closed.