Friday May 4, 2012, 11:39 am
If you’re planning to protest at the Republican National Convention in Tampa from 8/27 to 8/30, please take extreme care to avoid conflict with the local minions of InsaniTEA there. It will not be a safe place to be, because, for the Republican Party, extreme ideology trumps public safety.
I can't think of better place for open carry then the republican convention. They believe this nonsense, they say they stand behind these laws, let 'em prove it. Which is not to say I want anyone killed or even harmed, though I'm not sure I would mind a scare or two. We need some good ole common sense about guns, and not everyone should be carrying a gun. Most particularly carrying a gun in public, or do we still need replays of the many events of lunatics and guns?
Friday May 4, 2012, 5:47 pm
After all these months learning about American politics etc, I still do not understand you Americans and your seeming fixation on owning and carrying guns! And on top of that, ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws in some states — in my opinion, an open invitation to vigilantism and murder.
When people hear about the incidences of violence using guns — Gilbert, Arizona yesterday; the murder of Trayvon Martin; Columbine; Virginia Tech; Gabby Giffords; and more — does anybody ask “How can we stop this”? Does anybody ask “Are our gun laws too lax?”
When the 2nd amendment to the US constitution was written, times were very different. There were few or no police. The young nation was predominately rural and protection from various forces was necessary. But today, are the needs for self protection any greater? I would say not as there are police and various other law enforcement agencies.
I live in Canada where owning a handgun is, let us say restrictive. According to Wikipedia “Nearly 22% of Canadian households had at least one firearm, including 2.3% of households possessing a handgun. As of September 2010, the Canadian Firearms Program recorded a total of 1,831,327 valid firearm licences, which is roughly 5.4% of the Canadian population. “ So north of the 49th, our culture as concerns guns is quite different, thankfully. Recently on the news, I learned that of the handguns recovered that were used in crimes in Canada, 80% had their origins in the US and were illegally brought to Canada by criminals and gangs. Here is part of the requirements for gun ownership in Canada as taken from Wikipedia:
Individuals who wish to possess or acquire firearms in Canada must have a valid possession-acquisition, or possession-only, licence (PAL/POL); either of these licences allows the licensee to purchase ammunition. The PAL is distributed exclusively by the RCMP and is generally obtained in the following three steps:
a.Safety training: To be eligible to receive a PAL, all applicants must successfully complete the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) for a non-restricted licence, and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CRFSC) for a restricted licence; the non-restricted class is a prerequisite to the restricted licence. The RCMP publishes information on the locations and availability of these courses.
b.Applying for a licence: Currently only one type of licence is available to new applicants, the possession-acquisition licence (PAL). People can request a PAL by filling out Form CAFC 921.
c.Security screening: Background checks and investigations are performed. All applicants are screened, and a mandatory 28-day waiting period is imposed on first-time applicants, but response time may be longer.
Licences are typically valid for five years and must be renewed prior to expiry to maintain all classes. Once licensed, an individual can apply for a firearm transfer, and an authorization to transport (ATT) for restricted firearms.
(Note: People may hunt with firearms in Canada only with non-restricted firearms. This requires an additional “Hunting with Firearms” course)
Perhaps I am a little off on a tangent, but when I hear the Mayor of Tampa, a gun packing man himself, request a temporary ban on firearms in the downtown area during the RNC in August, I see a man that is weighing the risks with so many people likely to be in town, some of whom no doubt are what I will call ‘far right nut cases’. For a Governor to flatly say no to the request, is in my mind an idiot asking for trouble.
Sorry everybody, but I really do have a problem with gun ownership.
Friday May 4, 2012, 6:28 pm
Watch your back for Ted Nugent, too! He just might try to "cut your heads off"! I wouldn't put it past him. Yikes! I sure do wish that the government would take his guns away. Isn't threatening the president with violence reason enough to take his weapons away? I should think so! Any way, thanks for posting!
Saturday May 5, 2012, 5:11 am
Remember the Democratic convention when Dan Rather was beat up (he was a backpack toting cub reporter working for Cronkite)? That was a fiasco of perhaps equal proportions to what may happen in FL. Shoot out at the MR corral? Stand by your guns.
Saturday May 5, 2012, 10:02 am
Thanks all. I doubt that Republicans will be shooting each other much. They are more likely to target folks hho seem 'librul' or are guilty of walking while black or Latino.
Saturday May 5, 2012, 10:06 am
Ellen and Lynn, I'm in your corner....the entire gun thing has been taken to the extremely ridiculous - I doubt I'd shed many tears if they all shot each other at this convention.
Saturday May 5, 2012, 10:48 am
I would imagine if a lot of convention goers are carrying, it will actually be a very safe place to be. Not likely to be many robberies, muggings, or carjackings in that vicinity. While I won't be attending, I rarely get in my car without taking either my .357 or my .45ACP along for the ride.
It is a very well known fact that statistically states and cities with high legal gun ownership and legal concealed-carry have lower crime rates. The most dangerous cities in America are those with the strictest gun laws. How do you explain that?
Saturday May 5, 2012, 4:09 pm
Thanks for posting. I don't understand why they are worried about guns at the convention, they approve of them just about everywhere else,right? Why should they fear for their safety this time? Sounds hypocritical to me.. They get what they get when the gun policies (or lack thereof) they love to push are enacted.
Saturday May 5, 2012, 5:37 pm
Remember this,folks, when you vote in the general election. If the Republicans win both Houses of Congress and the White House......you can expect to see Guns Inc. in Washington, DC after Romney is sworn in.
Saturday May 5, 2012, 11:29 pm
There seems to be a major point missed here: Republicans seem to mostly believe that an armed public is an asset to public safety, not a risk. It reminds me of a satirical suggestion for airplane-safety: Give everyone a gun loaded with frangible bullets (to avoid putting holes in the plane). The first groups to draw theirs is the hijackers, and the second is everyone else. That's pretty much the idea, to overwhelm any threat with hundreds of armed not-exactly-bystanders and deter would-be threats. It's just a different strategy from what most posters here find familiar.
Sunday May 6, 2012, 9:56 am
Thanks to most. Let me point out that both Canada and the countries in Western Europe have very low gun ownership and a much lower crime rate than anywhere in the US. Also, statically there is a positive correlation between gun ownership rates and homicides, contrary to gun lobby propaganda,.
I just ran the numbers myself, using gun-ownership rates from here: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/9841-percent-firearms-ownership-state.html
and violent crime-rates from here (using number of incidents per 100,000 people):
In violent crime, counting only murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, I found a statistically insignificant anti-correlation within the U.S., not the positive correlation you mentioned if I left out D.C. When I included D.C. (though it has a small population), the anti-correlation gets stronger and more significant. It's certainly not a primary determinant of violent crime-rates, but at R^2 a little over 0.1, given the number of other factors at play, I think it is significant. Counting only states with populations above 10,000,000 (according to latest Wiki estimates), I got that a 1% increase in gun-ownership lowers the violent crime-rate by 2.8 incidents per year per 100,000 people with an R^2 of 0.0848, which is far from insignificant, given the number of complicating factors. The statistics could probably be done better, but I don't know where to find correlations between other factors and gun-ownership.
We could compare gun-ownership rates to non-violent crimes if you want. Maybe a comparison of the ratio (violent crime / total crime) to gun-ownership would help to clear things up.