If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cleveland Plain Dealer)   Ohio passes concealed gun law. NRA unavailible for comment due to NASCAR race onTV   (cleveland.com) divider line 253
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

5685 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2004 at 1:07 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



253 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-08 01:55:11 AM
Thanks Poe.
Also on gun statistics. I hear frequently people who own guns are more likely to be killed than those that don't. Is that what the statistics say, or do they say people who live in neighborhoods where you're more likely to be killed own guns?
 
2004-01-08 01:56:02 AM
So let me get this straight.. We, the residents of Ohio can apply to carry concealed firearms, but we still aren't allowed to carry swords. Personally, I think this is f-ed up. I hope to see you all after the state-wide shoot out (reference to Kent State).


*note: I acutally like firearms and own quite a few. However, I feel that there will undoubtably be those who pass the background checks and tests who probably are not stable and have mighty strong tempers... Oye...
 
2004-01-08 01:57:48 AM
"compacity"???? How about "capacity"? No more egg nog for you... :)

You might try joining a shooting club - sometimes that can be reason enough for a CCW because you need to be wearing it on the range & facilities... at least that's how some ranges are set-up.
 
2004-01-08 01:57:54 AM
Before this law you couldn't carry concealed in Ohio? Wow.

Sen. Eric Fingerhut, a Cleveland Democrat, criticized the governor's decision, calling it "a complete cave-in to the gun lobby."

Wow. I hope this guy loses his next election.
 
2004-01-08 01:58:35 AM
TheWalrusKing:

Why should we be anti-gun? Because you are?
 
2004-01-08 01:58:37 AM
TheOmni
That does make sense, somewhat, but I also think alot of Farkers tend to be college students, who also tend to smoke pot. Also, internet nerds and pot smokers are two subcultures that tend to have alot in common.
 
2004-01-08 01:59:35 AM
Lovehate:
The stats are true but if you think about it, it makes sense. If someone breaks into your house and you don't own a gun, it is impossible for them to take your gun and shoot you. But, if you do own a gun, it becomes possible. So technically, if it only happened once, the stats are forever swayed in that direction.
 
2004-01-08 01:59:38 AM
 
Poe
2004-01-08 02:04:13 AM
Well, lovehate, It has been my experience that statistics can be skewed depending on who is reporting them. If you look at statistics from groups like Handgun Control, Inc., who have openly admitted that they don't want any guns whatsoever to be owned by anyone except the military and the police, you will find statments like that. However, when they conduct their surveys, they are not looking at responsable, law abiding gun owners like myself who enjoy a day at the range every few weeks, they look at gang members who have the annoying tendency to shoot at each other on a fairly regular basis. There have also been studies by groups on the oppisite end of the spectrum that show that people who legally own licenced guns are more law abiding, overall, than the average citizen who is not a gun owner. I tend to think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. As for myself, I have a perfectlly clean criminal record, although I do have one or two speeding tickets to my name.
 
2004-01-08 02:04:18 AM
I shot someone for trying to beat an elderly couple to death with a tire iron over a lane change. I carry a gun legally. I was not happy to have to shoot the man, and he lived and sued me (and lost). Would I do it again, sure. Do I want to shoot someone, no. However, a bad lane change is not any reason to beat someone to death.

Of course you don't believe this, but if you want you can mail me and I will fax you my Florida class W permit, and the newspaper articles.

I guess all you gun control freaks would rather have the elderly couple dead and the multiple repeat felon walking around not in prison and not without a small scar on his abdomen where my bullet hit him.

Do I advocate killing anyone, no. But before I let you kill an innocent person I will do everything in my power to stop you. And in case you're wondering I did try to take the tire iron away and got hit with it. Want to pay my dental bills.

The anti-gun whackos worry me. It would be nice to live in fantasy land, but we don't we live in the real world.
 
2004-01-08 02:04:31 AM
Bubbaprog-

I'd suggest taking a look at the works of Gary Kleck, including his original study which can be found in "Point Blank: Guns and Violence In America."

Also, John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" is considered to be one of the most heavily researched studies of concealed gun laws and crime rates.

Unfortunately, Lott's reputation has been sullied by a couple of screwup on his part: The data for one of his surveys was supposedly lost, so he didn't have the data to back it up. He corrected this in later editions of his work after going back and re-doing the same survey with a different group of people.

Lott also was found to have used a pseudonym when discussing his own works online.

But, regardless of the writings of people like Lott and Kleck, the most damning evidence seems to be that, according to FBI and CDC statistics that deaths due to guns are on the decline, while gun ownership and concealed carry permit holders are at an all time high. (Two decades ago concealed carry was unheard of nearly everywhere in the US.)

Regardless of whether Kleck, Lott, or anyone else is right or wrong, I have yet to see anyone prove a significant rise in crime after a concealed carry law in enacted. In every case, before the law is passed anti-gun crusaders bleat about how a CCW law will result in 'old-west shootouts' or 'blood in the streets.' I have yet to see anyone corroborate such claims after a CCW law is passed.
 
2004-01-08 02:05:21 AM
I don't think that this should be left up to individual states. If gun ownership is a right, why should people in some states have more rights than others?
 
2004-01-08 02:06:35 AM
Because the anti-gun farkers are waiting for a cop to come over and type in their response.
 
CB
2004-01-08 02:07:15 AM
An armed society is a polite society.
 
Poe
2004-01-08 02:08:00 AM
somemoron

Sorry.....it is kinda late for me. At least I spelled it consistantly.

And actually, I am a member of a local club. However, I joined just after I got my permit, and I am not going to pay another 200 bucks to renew it with the still slim chance of getting a CCW permit.
 
2004-01-08 02:10:06 AM
Give me a break. John Lott is a horrible researcher. In addition to "losing" his studies and using false identities to praise himself, the guy couldn't run his own numbers right. The Brookings Institute has some great insight on the errors in his works. Hell, even Mustard, his compatriot, agrees that the work has a lot of flaws.

And the fact that he uses UCR data that has been demonstrated to be easily confounded and misleading as his data...well, that's a whole other matter.

The man's logic is amazing: "Most guns that are on the streets are stolen...so let's INCREASE THE NUMBER OF GUNS IN SUBURBAN HOUSES...SO THAT MORE GUNS CAN BE STOLEN!"

The last thing we need is a bunch of people with their fingers on the trigger.
 
2004-01-08 02:12:52 AM

Amateurs.

Our governor just repealed a law just like that one. Now you don't need a permit to carry concealed (unless there's a city law).

 
2004-01-08 02:13:01 AM
Poe
Exactly, I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or not, but I'm basically saying what you're saying. The statistics don't lie about what it is they measure if measured appropriately. It's the reason behind the accurate results, that is subject to spinning and lies.
 
2004-01-08 02:13:33 AM
raistphrk, even if true, it's still as valid as the craptastic biased anti-gun fact studies.
 
2004-01-08 02:14:48 AM
raistphrk-

Might wanna go back and read my entire post there, skippy.
 
2004-01-08 02:23:11 AM
When Bob Taft first ran for election ( He is in his 2nd term) he promised CC laws. He changed his tune (GASP) and has fought CC's ever since. The abilty to release legal gun owners names to the public was his last barrier to enacting these laws. The compromise stinks, but it is better than not having CC at all. What the point of public disclosure of a personal choice is, I do not know. I also expect him to veto this bill regardless of what he says now.
This story is not over.
 
2004-01-08 02:25:47 AM
"So let me get this straight.. We, the residents of Ohio can apply to carry concealed firearms, but we still aren't allowed to carry swords. Personally, I think this is f-ed up."

I never understood that one, either. Same with most knives, too. Hiding a three-inch dagger in the lapel of your coat makes you more of a threat than hiding a .44 under your arm...?

Actually, are there ANY states that will allow one to legally (permit or otherwize) carry a blade?
 
2004-01-08 02:29:20 AM
What is the reasoning behind the ability for reporters to get the names? I really don't get that. I mean what is the justification for it. They have to have given some reason.
 
2004-01-08 02:29:41 AM
haha, listen to all the wanna-be tough guy gun fans talk about how they'll singlehandedly taks on all criminals and the government if they try to take their freedoms.

I'm all for the Second Amendment, but the notion that it protects the rest of the Bill of Rights is Grade-A bullshiat. You think your shotgun will protect you when the gubmint comes for you? Haha, go ask Randy Weaver how that turns out.
 
2004-01-08 02:29:53 AM
You can carry a single-edged blade in Pennsylvania, provided that the actual blade length does not exceed 6 inches, and you can do this without a permit.

Being in the military, I am permitted some dispensation on that rule while in uniform. I carry a double-edged boot knife about eight inches long in case something happens while I'm flying and I have to cut something in a hurry after egress.

In civvies I'd get my ass handed to me for carrying that.
 
2004-01-08 02:30:31 AM
Police protection is a PRIVILEGE. Defending yourself, family, property, etc are RIGHTS. Some of you should learn the difference, but then again, when has personal liberty ever been the concern of this generation of wasted loads.
 
2004-01-08 02:32:12 AM
Why do so many of you have a problem with the names of CC owners being public knowledge? If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right? Same with the PATRIOT Act.
 
2004-01-08 02:34:11 AM
gobabo:Before this law you couldn't carry concealed in Ohio? Wow.
Sen. Eric Fingerhut, a Cleveland Democrat, criticized the governor's decision, calling it "a complete cave-in to the gun lobby."
Wow. I hope this guy loses his next election.


Unlikely. He's very popular in Cleveland (good name recognition too, I think his father was in Cleveland politics.)

Ohio is a very complex state politically. We've got several large political regions that are at odds with each other:

*Very Conservative Southwest (Cincinnati, except for inner urban Cincinnati)
*Very Liberal economic/semi liberal socially Northeast (Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown)
*Liberal economic/conservative social Appalachia/Toledo
*Mostly conservative non-Appalachia rural (a small percentage of the population)
*Moderate Columbus

...and for some reason, ever region wants a piece of the pie. The Conceal Carry debate was splintered by different regions either wanting it, not wanting it, wanting it very liberalized (a la Vermont) or restricted. Add to that a Governor who is a moderate (and the previous Governor, a very moderate Republican from Cleveland who was against it) and the fact that it's passing is actually a bloody miracle.

Ohio is called the bellwhether state politically, but that's not because the population tends to be moderate. It's because the state is heavily polarized with equal portions, and the random result happens to average to moderate.
 
2004-01-08 02:34:38 AM
Far as I am aware, in MI so long as I cary unconcealed, I can carry a blade anywhere I wish. Concealing said weapon on your body, however, is a nono.

Dave
 
2004-01-08 02:35:31 AM
I have a problem with it because it's an invasion of privacy.

For the record, I have a serious problem with the PATRIOT Act as well.

Bottom line: You shouldn't be sticking your nose in other people's business.
 
CB
2004-01-08 02:37:20 AM
CaptainFatass
If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?

Then you wouldn't mind if everything you do and everything you own was available to anyone who wanted to check it out 24/7/365 right? You have no right or need of privacy do you?

/jeez...
 
2004-01-08 02:41:57 AM
raistphrk
The man's logic is amazing: "Most guns that are on the streets are stolen...so let's INCREASE THE NUMBER OF GUNS IN SUBURBAN HOUSES...SO THAT MORE GUNS CAN BE STOLEN!"


So your solution is...?

A: Keep the same number of guns in suburban houses, thus allowing more guns to be stolen, leaving the suburban homeowner more defenseless, and the bad guys more heavily armed.

B: Ban the guns, leaving the suburban homeowner COMPLETELY defenseless, and the bad guys keeping the guys they had before.

C: Increase the ability of the suburban homeowner to defend himself (both in and out of his suburban home), thus marginally increasing the number of guns in the home of bad guys while making it significantly more dangerous for them to conduct their business...

I know which way *I'D* go.

-l
 
2004-01-08 02:43:06 AM
So lemme get this straight; in Queen County, you can carry a concealed weapon, but you can get busted for porn, courtsey of asshats like Simon Leis? What a farked-up set of priorities.
 
2004-01-08 02:50:33 AM
CB, so are you in favor of the PATRIOT Act, with its similar encroachment on privacy?
 
2004-01-08 02:51:00 AM
Just to add my two cents to the mix of this. I feel that if you apply to legally carry a lethal weapon, then others should be privy to this infomation. It's just how one can go to any public school and demand to know how much every educator in that building/district makes. However, the information should be limited to the following:

1) Date of license acquisition
2) Name of licensee
3) Name of licensing agent
4) Level of certification with said weapon and proper use
5) Background check assessmen (Psychological)
6) Photo ID, Copy of License and receipt for firearm purchase

Now, items 1 though 4 should be public knowledge (register with a service to view this information), while the last 2 should only be for police or for other gov. agency. IMHO, news agencies do not need to know all the details just to draw attention to said CW owner.
 
2004-01-08 02:53:17 AM
who gives a shiat about the suburban homeowner? Most of them should be marched out into the town square and executed anyway, just on general principle.
 
2004-01-08 02:53:42 AM
Oh yeah, limit the ammunition to solid slugs only (no hollowpoints or other nasty types) and lmit the licensee to only register to carry 2 firearms (nothing larger than a .357) also only 1 at a time.
 
2004-01-08 02:54:24 AM
Hey captain fatass, go fark yourself
 
2004-01-08 02:56:25 AM
RocketMac, I still don't understand why you want to know that stuff. What reason do you have that outweighs an individuals right to privacy?
 
CB
2004-01-08 02:59:14 AM
I guess sarcasm would have to jump up and bite you on your CaptainFatass for you to recognize it.
 
2004-01-08 03:02:42 AM
Oh yeah, limit the ammunition to solid slugs only (no hollowpoints or other nasty types)

Great reasoning. Yep, just wing the summabiatch so he can sue, or empty a full clip of ball ammo to make sure he's dead, and let a jury decide whether excessive force was used.

No thanks.
 
2004-01-08 03:03:04 AM
raistphrk,

I agree with Loligo.

You say teh last thing we need is a bunch of people with their fingers on the trigger. What you have if you limit guns for the law abiding populace is a bunch of criminals with their fingers on the trigger and defenseless citizens.

I live in South Carolina...obviously a gun carrying state. In this state, if someone breaks into your home, you have the right to defend yourself and your property. That means fire away and as long as the body drops in your home, you're OK. The law applies to commercial property as well.

Not too long ago a 19 year old who opened his own (mind you ratty looking) hand car wash/stereo store (his folks helped him...gotta admire the entrepreneurialism there) and within 2 weeks a gang tried to rob it. They had guns drawn as they cane in. Luckily, grandpa was in back, as well as his shotgun. 3 robbers came in, 1 left wounded and was found under a porch later on. Now would they be alive if they didn't defend themselves? Who knows. Are you willing to gamble their lives over gun rights? You don't have the right to do that. The constitution is pretty damn clear on that, as are the letters and writings of the framers of the constitution (federalist papers, etc): it was their clear intention to establish the right to bear arms, regardless of what a bunch of self serving leftist lawyers want to argue 'what they really meant'.
 
2004-01-08 03:04:02 AM
[quote]
2004-01-08 02:56:25 AM TheOmni

RocketMac, I still don't understand why you want to know that stuff. What reason do you have that outweighs an individuals right to privacy?
[/quote]


No, that's the thing, I am all for privacy and that people are allowed to keep personal information to them selves. However, as mentioned in my post, you would have to register with the monitoring service that would keep track of all licenses (like the database the DMV has). Also, you would only see the information that would be the equivalent of looking up a phone number in the white pages (maybe even less information).
 
2004-01-08 03:05:30 AM
I feel they can look up my CC anytime they want to, but I should be notified that somebody is snooping into my business. Rather than have a public accessible CC database, I'd rather have a "does so and so have a CC permit?" open to the public, that way you can't just easily run a list off. As soon as somebody asks, I get notified in 24 hours, and they have to log WHO asks, and tell me. I'm all for transparency... so long as everybody understands that it works both ways. I mean, your credit report tells you who has run your credit lately... why should gun ownership be any different?
Granted, every cop I've ever talked to has said the shotgun is the best weapon for home defense. Not only can it cream somebody at point blank range, but it has a VERY distinct sound when its cocked. A criminal breaks in, and hears that, and chances are he is going right out the way he came in. Same principal with laser sights... I've heard alot of cops tell me they've defused situations (and seen others do the same) simply by putting that little red dot right over somebody's heart/vitals.
 
2004-01-08 03:10:17 AM
Cernunnos,

On a completely different topic, believe it or not I actually know where your handle comes from.

Cernunnos was the Celtic god of the wild, as found on the Gundestrup Cauldron...why I remember that I have no idea. Used to want to be an archaeologist when I was little...blame Indiana Jones for that one.

It'd be funny if you knew the farker Rhainnon come to think of it...
 
2004-01-08 03:11:20 AM
[quote]
2004-01-08 03:02:42 AM Warchild

Oh yeah, limit the ammunition to solid slugs only (no hollowpoints or other nasty types)

Great reasoning. Yep, just wing the summabiatch so he can sue, or empty a full clip of ball ammo to make sure he's dead, and let a jury decide whether excessive force was used.

No thanks.
[/quote]

Nobody has a reason to use anything else but solid slugs for handguns, unless they are intent on finding/killing people (which brings forth even more problems). As mentioned in the article(s), each permit holder will have to become trained in the proper use of their chosen handgun. Now this would imply a good deal of range time in which the average person should become adequate enough to not "wing" a would-be assailant. I can that a judge/jury would be partial to lean towards the defendant (CW permit holder) in a suite against them by an assailant, granting there were witnesses and/or prevailing evidence that would collaborate with the defendants' version of the story. Basically, if someone is coming at you with a knife in a an aggressive manner, then you should be ok to incapacitate said attacker with a shot to the arm or leg.
 
2004-01-08 03:14:19 AM
Fark nothing bigger than a .357, I'm going for a least a .45. If I hit somebody, I want to make damn sure he doesn't get back up. A 9 mm is right out of the question. And maybe get some of that nifty new ammo that guy got fragged with in Iraq... at least hollowpoints (everybody I know who has a gun for home defense has them). Anybody remember "Black Talons"? Really nasty anti-personnel rounds... they expanded into 4 claw shapes, and had a REALLY bad habit of tearing up organs on the way in, and getting tangled up on the way out. Some wacko took out 7 or 8 co-workers a few years ago in the mid-West, which led to them being banned.
Maybe one of these days I'll shell out the extra money for a class A automatic weapons liscense. My dad's friend has a legal fully auto SAR-48 (scaled down M60). Not exactly practical, but damn is it a blast. I think I'd probably go with an mp5 myself, just because those are pretty fun to shoot on full auto too (about as much recoil as a .22, but it could just be that I was playing with an FBI SWAT model).
 
2004-01-08 03:16:49 AM
I have 2 pumps in the house that are loaded with deer slugs...if I have to kill someone I make sure that they are dead
 
2004-01-08 03:20:40 AM
Movin' to Ohio soon.
 
2004-01-08 03:20:56 AM
Goblinking, always cool to find somebody who knows the origin ;) Always have to explain "obscure Celtic god of the hunt." Only ran into somebody online who used the same nick ONCE back in the day on IRC, and he at first thought i'd stolen it out of spite (was shocked to find out I used it on other servers, and knew the origin).
And for the record, I don't know Rhiannon, but I keep trying to talk the girlfriend into using that name as at least a middle name on any future girl children (or the gaelic spelling of Karen, Cairenn/Caireann). Even though Rhiannon is Welsh, and we're of Irish (Irish-Italian, with tempers of both in her case) descent.
 
Displayed 50 of 253 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report