"Guns Everywhere" in GA

[rebelsoul]

I hoist a flagon of mead to Georgia Governor Nathan Deal and his like minded law makers. Thank you for supporting 2A.

[txgunner00]

Harumph!!!

[customcutter]

Amen brothers.

PS, didn't hear all the details. I'm guessing Federal building are still off limits, but allow carring in schools and churches?

[hm2 clark]

There are some places that I would not want to be around armed citizens.

[rebelsoul]

There are some places that I would not want to be around armed citizens.

Where? I would feel perfectly safe, for me and my family, if everyone had an UZI strapped to their belt in plain site. It is the unarmed that are at risk, from a predator that seeks the defenseless. I want teachers, preachers and street sweepers carrying arms. I want all military personnel to be able to carry. I disagree (respectfully) with gentlemen like Col. Ralph Peters, who say that soldiers shouldn't be armed. Not withstanding the "logistics" arguement; I have many arms that I carry daily that do not interfere with my very active and physical work. This mentality is responsible for absurdity like my former brothers in arms guarding an airport, after the 9-11 attack, without bolts in their M-16's. The cowardly commanders are too concerned with a possible "incident" and choose to trifle with the life of their subordinates. Whew! I'm need to shut up and go back to the huntin' section.

[cory]

Where? I would feel perfectly safe, for me and my family, if everyone had an UZI strapped to their belt in plain site. It is the unarmed that are at risk, from a predator that seeks the defenseless. I want teachers, preachers and street sweepers carrying arms. I want all military personnel to be able to carry. I disagree (respectfully) with gentlemen like Col. Ralph Peters, who say that soldiers shouldn't be armed. Not withstanding the "logistics" arguement; I have many arms that I carry daily that do not interfere with my very active and physical work. This mentality is responsible for absurdity like my former brothers in arms guarding an airport, after the 9-11 attack, without bolts in their M-16's. The cowardly commanders are too concerned with a possible "incident" and choose to trifle with the life of their subordinates. Whew! I'm need to shut up and go back to the huntin' section.

+1

[LRRPF52]

I've spent a lot of time with armed people in dinner rooms, open carrying, riding around the farm, on ranges, and in the military. I feel much safer around decent, armed, polite people. I have neighbors that open carry, and I prefer that over Europe, where firearms transport is highly restricted in most locations.

[nincomp]

There are some places that I would not want to be around armed citizens.

Like the lunatic asylum?

[nincomp]

Where? I would feel perfectly safe, for me and my family, if everyone had an UZI strapped to their belt in plain site.

Like LRR, I have no problem with decent, armed, polite people.

I have always had mixed feelings about everyone carrying firearms in crowded places. There have always been people who want to commit suicide in a spectacular way. "Going Postal" is one example. "Suicide by Police" is another. Since they are planning to die anyway, the fact that other people are armed has no deterrent effect. On the other hand, armed citizens may be able to incapacitate the shooter and reduce the number of those injured.

As another example, this time everyone at a crowded sports stadium has an Uzi. One guy who has a violent temper when drunk has had too many beers and suddenly decides to start blazing away. He is likely to kill or injure a bunch of people before being incapacitated. If a number of citizens return fire, it is likely that even more spectators will be hit. The answer to the adage: "know what is behind your target before you shoot" is: "people, lots of them." If this out of control drunk grabs someone to use as a human shield and continues shooting, you will be faced with the classic dilemma of whether to shoot through the hostage to stop the carnage or not.

The angry drunk did not come to the stadium with the intent to shoot people. Nevertheless, he just happened to have access to a firearm when he lost his temper and judgement. If he did not have immediate access to a firearm, he might get into a nasty fistfight, but that is all. Chances are that he would have cooled down and regained his judgement by the time he had left the stadium, walked to his car, retrieved his firearm and walked back to the stadium.

I honestly do know whether 2A rights overrule everything else in these situations.

I consider the above cases to be very different than entering a deserted parking deck after work or walking down a city street at night.

I also believe that it is stupid to have guards who are unable to fire their weapons. Hell, my sister is a guard at a small museum and she carries a revolver.

[hm2 clark]

A bar? Any of you guys ever been to to a bar "on the strip"? Say right outside a base? How about a mental health clinic? Or a marriage counclers office? How about a court room where someone who has robbed/murdered/raped a loved one is being tried? I you go to visit someone in jail should you be able to carry inside?//Sure it goes that almost everyone should be able to carry almost everywhere...but that dont mean everyone everywhere.

[rebelsoul]

I want to double down on my previous statement; I again say everyone, everywhere. The only exception I would support would be a closed environment, like a courtroom or jail, where armed profesionals are present in large enough force to immediately reduce a threat. The drunk, the jilted husband, the vengful defendant, can gain the advantage now. What if the playing field is leveled? Gun owners are hounded about being responsible and protecting life. I would like to apply the same standard to those who would disarm the public; you are responsible for those lives. Although, it won't help the victims, I hope wrongful death lawsuits have been filed against VA Tech., UAH, etc. The result I hope for is adult students and faculty having the choice of personal protection.

[cory]

Like LRR, I have no problem with decent, armed, polite people.

I have always had mixed feelings about everyone carrying firearms in crowded places. There have always been people who want to commit suicide in a spectacular way. "Going Postal" is one example. "Suicide by Police" is another. Since they are planning to die anyway, the fact that other people are armed has no deterrent effect. On the other hand, armed citizens may be able to incapacitate the shooter and reduce the number of those injured.

As another example, this time everyone at a crowded sports stadium has an Uzi. One guy who has a violent temper when drunk has had too many beers and suddenly decides to start blazing away. He is likely to kill or injure a bunch of people before being incapacitated. If a number of citizens return fire, it is likely that even more spectators will be hit. The answer to the adage: "know what is behind your target before you shoot" is: "people, lots of them." If this out of control drunk grabs someone to use as a human shield and continues shooting, you will be faced with the classic dilemma of whether to shoot through the hostage to stop the carnage or not.

The angry drunk did not come to the stadium with the intent to shoot people. Nevertheless, he just happened to have access to a firearm when he lost his temper and judgement. If he did not have immediate access to a firearm, he might get into a nasty fistfight, but that is all. Chances are that he would have cooled down and regained his judgement by the time he had left the stadium, walked to his car, retrieved his firearm and walked back to the stadium.

I honestly do know whether 2A rights overrule everything else in these situations.

I consider the above cases to be very different than entering a deserted parking deck after work or walking down a city street at night.

I also believe that it is stupid to have guards who are unable to fire their weapons. Hell, my sister is a guard at a small museum and she carries a revolver.

Nincomp everything changes once someone puts a gun to your face.

These speculations are a product of people's imagination with non real world data to back them up. However, there is recent real world date to the contrary.

Look at the Colorado Movie Theater. That guy had every intention of going "Postal" and taking every one with him in his grand suicidal plot. However, as soon as someone (police officers) pointed their guns at him he surrendered and confessed to everything else he had planned.

Look at the mall shooting (Oregon I believe). The guy was shooting at anyone he get within his sights until a man pulled out his concealed weapon and got the scumbag in his sights. He never had to fire his weapon risking catching more innocent people in the crossfire. The scumbag pointed his weapon at his head and ended his life once he realized that gun was pointed at him.

Having or the real threat of having a gun pointed at your head will directly impact someones decision making. Recent history clearly demonstrates this.

[cory]

A bar? Any of you guys ever been to to a bar "on the strip"? Say right outside a base? How about a mental health clinic? Or a marriage counclers office? How about a court room where someone who has robbed/murdered/raped a loved one is being tried? I you go to visit someone in jail should you be able to carry inside?//Sure it goes that almost everyone should be able to carry almost everywhere...but that dont mean everyone everywhere.

Yes I have. And I've had a drunk redneck in a group of rednecks pull a gun on me (well the group of friends I was with) in the parking lot afterwards. Unfortunately for them they had no clue who they were picking that fight with. I was with the MMA team I was training with at the time.

He pulled his gun thinking it was the solution to the fight they never should have picked. While he was trying to get up the courage to pull the trigger and take a mans life, one of my buddies caught him from the side, right in the jar. He left on a stretcher without firing a round.

Before and after this situation I fully support the right to carry everywhere, outside of very limited controlled areas. i.e. Jails & courtrooms

[Heywood]

Like LRR, I have no problem with decent, armed, polite people.

I have always had mixed feelings about everyone carrying firearms in crowded places. There have always been people who want to commit suicide in a spectacular way. "Going Postal" is one example. "Suicide by Police" is another. Since they are planning to die anyway, the fact that other people are armed has no deterrent effect. On the other hand, armed citizens may be able to incapacitate the shooter and reduce the number of those injured.

As another example, this time everyone at a crowded sports stadium has an Uzi. One guy who has a violent temper when drunk has had too many beers and suddenly decides to start blazing away. He is likely to kill or injure a bunch of people before being incapacitated. If a number of citizens return fire, it is likely that even more spectators will be hit. The answer to the adage: "know what is behind your target before you shoot" is: "people, lots of them." If this out of control drunk grabs someone to use as a human shield and continues shooting, you will be faced with the classic dilemma of whether to shoot through the hostage to stop the carnage or not.

The angry drunk did not come to the stadium with the intent to shoot people. Nevertheless, he just happened to have access to a firearm when he lost his temper and judgement. If he did not have immediate access to a firearm, he might get into a nasty fistfight, but that is all. Chances are that he would have cooled down and regained his judgement by the time he had left the stadium, walked to his car, retrieved his firearm and walked back to the stadium.

I honestly do know whether 2A rights overrule everything else in these situations.

I consider the above cases to be very different than entering a deserted parking deck after work or walking down a city street at night.

I also believe that it is stupid to have guards who are unable to fire their weapons. Hell, my sister is a guard at a small museum and she carries a revolver.

I think you are making the assumption that a society that would encourage such freedoms would long tolerate people that would be apt to act that way. As though you would flip a switch and all the people that have not lived in a certain way would suddenly choose to.
People act in such a manner precisely because they have not had to worry about the real consequences. It is generational problem that will not be fixed very quickly.

I live in the most redneck part of the country in a state with a preemption law that says as long as it is a publicly funded building, I.e. School, courthouse, airport, etc. they can not restrict peoples right to carry. Where the possibility of a good brawl is as much a part of the occasional night out as is( or was in my case) the chance to take home a stranger, after all we are still a pretty rough town full of cowboys (the real kind) and a bunch of transplants trying to get away from the hell hole they have created. But good people, even the ones who occasionally lose their cool, know when to leave the guns at home. It would only happen once to make them remember.
People often forget that the old saying "an armed society is a polite society" goes both ways. I have been in a situation where people have had serious cause to get a beat down but because I was armed and it didn't warrant them getting shot I just smiled and walked on.

[nincomp]

As I said, I have mixed feelings.

I suspect that I am more concerned about stupid impulsive behavior than most people. Two of my friends killed themselves on impulse while they were under stress. One just turned around and dove through a high window. The other, who had been drinking I believe, just picked up his gun and shot himself. I am now wary when around armed people at a place where impulsive behavior is likely, like a bar. This impulsive behavior is probably made worse by the fact that there is a growing disconnect between pulling a trigger and what actually happens afterwards. Many people have never seen the effect a bullet has on living flesh.

I fully admit that I have more concerns than answers.

[stokesrj]

Yea if we ever let everyone be armed anywhere we might go back to the days of the wild west. Wait, there were fewer shootings per capita then than there are now, that might not be so bad after all. Or worse yet like Kennesaw GA where everyone must own a gun, must be a horribly unsafe place to live. http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
On a more serious note, I have no issue with restricting cary in bars or courtrooms, but once you let the common sense rules come in to play there are always those that will push it to gun safe places like schools, malls, and so on. This creates target areas for the truly evil. And it is that true evil that we should all fear and prepare to defeat. Governments have killed far more of their own citizens when given excessive power than any drunk or crazy person ever has or will ever be able to. For that very reason, I'm in favor of severely limiting the power of governments, and retaining the power with the people, this includes our government.
Bob

[sneaky one]

Well said Bob.

[wheelguner]

Bob,
I live in a small city on the edge of the Metro Atlanta area just as is Kennesaw. I listen to the news and I can assure you that the shootings in and around here seldom occur in Kennesaw. Not to say they never happen but with the exception of the episode recently at the FedEx Facility there, my search of the Atlanta papers and TV news online found one police involved shooting in the last 10yrs. As one example, in Norcross, another suburb, in the last 90 days there were 27 gang related shootings. My research agrees with the the facts presented in your link. I am currently seated on the Grand Jury for a three county area and I have been impressed with the the facts surrounding the single use of a firearm by a home owner.

[Heywood]

As I said, I have mixed feelings.

I suspect that I am more concerned about stupid impulsive behavior than most people. Two of my friends killed themselves on impulse while they were under stress. One just turned around and dove through a high window. The other, who had been drinking I believe, just picked up his gun and shot himself. I am now wary when around armed people at a place where impulsive behavior is likely, like a bar. This impulsive behavior is probably made worse by the fact that there is a growing disconnect between pulling a trigger and what actually happens afterwards. Many people have never seen the effect a bullet has on living flesh.

I fully admit that I have more concerns than answers.

Thank you for your point of view. I can see where you come from. Your situation is more rare than most of us, thank God. I would like to ask if you have the same aversion to high windows that you do of firearms? I am seriously not trying to be a smart ass or confrontational. I ask because I know people who have lost loved ones in a car accident who eventually lose their fear or hatred of cars. This does not happen with firearms I think because they are not near as common as they should be. That is what I want to see change.

[nincomp]

Sorry for the rants, guys. I tend to ramble when I am having a rough day.
Haywood, for me, the issue is not so much an aversion to firearms, or windows, for that matter. Those were just examples of people doing stupid things on impulse with whatever was handy at the time. Neither of my friends posed a danger to others and not much could be done in those cases. It is likely that these guys would still be alive if they had taken a little time to cool off. The immediate reaction to the impulse was the point.

You guys made me think about my earlier posts. First of all, I am one of those people who immediately gets a mental image of whatever is written or said. My first post was a reaction to the image of everyone carrying an Uzi with its long magazine protruding from its handgrip. For many of us, Uzis are associate with bad guys blazing away. I know that the Uzi part was meant to be an extreme example, it just triggered an extreme image of a serious gunfight in a crowded stadium where a lot of collateral damage would be expected. If the image had been of someone with a pistol, my gut reaction would have been different.

My overall point is pretty much that pistols are more likely to be a danger in places where people's judgement is impaired and emotions are running high. The shooter would draw and fire before judgement could come into play. In these cases, something that would normally result in a serious barfight would turn into a shooting. Even in the case sited by Cory, the idiot with the gun had just enough time to cool down to pause instead of immediately shoot. My guess is that if the idiot were wearing a gun in the bar, he might have used it without thinking.

To summarize: Drunks and guns are a bad combination. Guns in the courtroom are another bad combination.

Guns in the schools is a more difficult issue. In some States, concealed carry age is 18 or below and some students would qualify. As for teachers and faculty, they would be in close contact with students when breaking up a scuffle. There is a chance that their weapons would be snatched away. I would be interested to know some other opinions and solutions for these issues.

Does that make more sense? -Jim