Amid Wave of Pro-Gun Legislation, Georgia Proposes Sweeping Law (NYT)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:
Well, we have an industry to support. People won't panic buy AR-15s just for no reason.

I often think that gun sellers must feel a little guilty. Every time there's a school shooting they make bank. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place

**d-usa**

We are talking about the same guys that decided "Obama is going to take our ammo away", so they run to the store, buy every box they can get their hands on, then look at the empty shelves while screaming "look at those empty shelves, they took our ammo!"

**Ouze**

Well, it's almost time for the annual sale.

Spoiler:

**Jihadin**

What Dept had the 4-5 million rounds of assorted rounds to be purchased? Just saying.

Edit

Federal Dept

**d-usa**

There are 50 million households with guns in the US. If every household buys a single box of ammo a year that would be one billion and two hundred fifty million rounds of ammo purchased a year. And that is only if we buy one single box of 25 bullets each.

5 million being purchased by the government doesn't even register on the market.

Just ask the NRA about the ammo shortage:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/17/the-nra-reveals-whos-to-blame-for-ammo-shortage-yo.aspx

**Ouze**

The NRA has all but said "stop making up idiotic rumors, morons" on the topic.

Still, derpers gonna derp. Probably whispering under their breath that the NRA is full of libs who are just lying to cover for Hussein Fartbongo; while waiting on the loading dock at Walmart to once again buy all the .40 S&W that got delivered that day.

Because they don't sell ammo in the FEMA camps.

**sebster**

I don't really see a problem with the law opening up to allow guns in bars and restaurants and the like. I mean, if you're going to have concealed carry laws it only makes sense for them to be permitted in the regular places that people frequent. Airports are a little weird, of course, but I guess it's just for the people waiting around to pick up or drop someone off.

But the more I read about this the more I just can't get my head around the idea of people really wanting to carry a gun around with them all the time. It just starts feeling like those women that carry small dogs everywhere with them, or people that get fully dressed up in gym gear to walk the dog. I'm not opposed to it and I'm not going to stop you, I just don't understand why.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

sebster wrote:
But the more I read about this the more I just can't get my head around the idea of people really wanting to carry a gun around with them all the time. It just starts feeling like those women that carry small dogs everywhere with them, or people that get fully dressed up in gym gear to walk the dog. I'm not opposed to it and I'm not going to stop you, I just don't understand why.

I agree.

As a gun owner, I have never felt the need to be armed at all times. There is a group of people from the Virginia Citizens Defense League that frequent a diner that I also patronize for breakfast with the family on weekends that I am off. They are proponents of open carrying (which is perfectly fine) but I personally don't see the need to carry a handgun and three extra magazines on my belt while I enjoy my french toast, especially openly.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
sebster wrote:
But the more I read about this the more I just can't get my head around the idea of people really wanting to carry a gun around with them all the time. It just starts feeling like those women that carry small dogs everywhere with them, or people that get fully dressed up in gym gear to walk the dog. I'm not opposed to it and I'm not going to stop you, I just don't understand why.
I agree.

As a gun owner, I have never felt the need to be armed at all times. There is a group of people from the Virginia Citizens Defense League that frequent a diner that I also patronize for breakfast with the family on weekends that I am off. They are proponents of open carrying (which is perfectly fine) but I personally don't see the need to carry a handgun and three extra magazines on my belt while I enjoy my french toast, especially openly.

Agree with both of you.

I've said this before, but when I was in America a while back, I visited some little towns/villages in the middle of nowhere and people were carrying guns (which was a shock to me being from the UK) but what got me was the sense that there was a fear gnawing away at people. These were pretty safe places (to me at least) but people I spoke to were always expecting something to happen. After a few days, I started getting a bit jittery as well, like I was expecting zombies, skynet, or aliens to make their move!

**Ouze**

In Iowa, the requirements to get a permit to acquire handguns is good for a year and is $14, the permit to carry (which includes all the rights of acquiring) is good for 5 years and costs $40, So, I got the CCW. The option to carry is nice but I rarely actually do so.

Open Carry is for fools, in my opinion. Not only is it totally needlessly provocative, if the gak actually goes down, you're getting blasted first.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Churches are private.

But why do they need special protections, and why do private schools not get the same protections?

What about religiously affiliated schools not directly associated with a church?

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:
I don't really see a problem with the law opening up to allow guns in bars and restaurants and the like. I mean, if you're going to have concealed carry laws it only makes sense for them to be permitted in the regular places that people frequent.

Its quite common. Typically the rule is you can go there but all laws apply to you. Texas drills into candidates that if you drink and carry your pretty much presumed to have broken the law (they hammer it so much its never been tested in court - CHLer's have the lowest crime rates of any US population outside of nuns and I am not joking).

Texas has an additional factor I like, the "51" sign. Businesses that make over 50% of their sales in open container alcohol have to put up a very specific sign. These signs are effective notice and CHLers may not enter while armed. This does not include liquor stores or groceries. I'm very fine with that.

Airports are a little weird, of course, but I guess it's just for the people waiting around to pick up or drop someone off.

Its the non federal area. Its also designed so you don't get arrested in the parking lot.

But the more I read about this the more I just can't get my head around the idea of people really wanting to carry a gun around with them all the time.

*Why not? You can get killed any where. This was especialy drilled into us when we had (have?) the stalker situation. Everyone forgets statistically a third (and growing) of CHLers are women, and all that macho crap goes out the women with them. Its purely protection.

It just starts feeling like those women that carry small dogs everywhere with them, or people that get fully dressed up in gym gear to walk the dog. I'm not opposed to it and I'm not going to stop you, I just don't understand why.

*For the record, Rodney the wiener dog resents this remark. He views himself as a "carryable companion" and that he's not small or fat, he's just retaining water.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Open Carry is for fools, in my opinion. Not only is it totally needlessly provocative, if the gak actually goes down, you're getting blasted first.

Open carry is fine in areas it was meant for - rural areas and open range. Aka cowboy country for you Yanks.

Growing up, it was nothing to see a bunch of kids on the side of the road in country with rifles going hunting or plinking. Hikers/campers were always armed. When I hiked in Cali I was always armed.

Anywhere South/West of San Antonio you'd better be. There's nothing out there but snakes and coyotes, and I'm not talking about the four legged kind.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Churches are private.

But why do they need special protections,
***Because they are private, and there have been quite a few shootings there.

and why do private schools not get the same protections?
***Do you meann no guns? Thats not a protection.

What about religiously affiliated schools not directly associated with a church?

Thats location specific. In Texas IIRC those still count as schools. Again there has been some recent legislation changes and this may have changed. There has been a push here to permit CHLs in schools and arm certain school personnel. Considering the crap they teach about "shelter in place"

they need to.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Open carry is fine in areas it was meant for - rural areas and open range. Aka cowboy country for you Yanks.

Growing up, it was nothing to see a bunch of kids on the side of the road in country with rifles going hunting or plinking. Hikers/campers were always armed. When I hiked in Cali I was always armed.

Anywhere South/West of San Antonio you'd better be. There's nothing out there but snakes and coyotes, and I'm not talking about the four legged kind.

Well, yes, I supposed I should have qualified my remarks a little. Open carrying in an urban situation is for fools; I'm talking about those guys in all camo at Walmart strutting about with a pistol and mag holders on their hips; like they are just back from the front to get some skoal and jerky and head back out. I also feel the same about people who go to political speeches with their AR15s, as happened during the presidential election. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

It's a little different then people wearing a sidearm where you might presumably run into a bear or something like that, or kids with rifles, or even just being near the border, as you say.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Open carry is fine in areas it was meant for - rural areas and open range. Aka cowboy country for you Yanks.

Growing up, it was nothing to see a bunch of kids on the side of the road in country with rifles going hunting or plinking. Hikers/campers were always armed. When I hiked in Cali I was always armed.

Anywhere South/West of San Antonio you'd better be. There's nothing out there but snakes and coyotes, and I'm not talking about the four legged kind.

Well, yes, I supposed I should have qualified my remarks a little. Open carrying in an urban situation is for fools; I'm talking about those guys in all camo at Walmart strutting about with a pistol and mag holders on their hips; like they are just back from the front to get some skoal and jerky and head back out. I also feel the same about people who go to political speeches with their AR15s, as happened during the presidential election. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

It's a little different then people wearing a sidearm where you might presumably run into a bear or something like that, or kids with rifles, or even just being near the border, as you say.

Pardon the pun but I got into a major gun battle with an OCer on the topic of bringing an AR into a Home Depot. My position was that that constituted a legally defensible "reasonable threat" and could legally shot by a CHLer. There was 'heated disagreement.' between the two of us.

**d-usa**

I'm not a fan of everyday OC because of loosing the element of surprise, but I carry open when hiking and visiting back country. Damn snakes...

**Dreadclaw69**

In a way I can see OC as a visual deterrent, and in a lot of cases active shooters pick locations without firearms and frequently shoot themselves when someone with a firearm confronts them.

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
In a way I can see OC as a visual deterrent, and in a lot of cases active shooters pick locations without firearms and frequently shoot themselves when someone with a firearm confronts them.

I just imagine that here is a difference between seeing a guy with a gun on his hip and seeing a guy with a gun in his hand. I do get the deterrent factor, but I also worry about being picked out as the first victim before I even know what is going on.

I'm also not going to draw and get involved if someone is robbing the 7/11 while I am in there, so less attention towards me is appreciated. I know that is one of those topics I have disagreed with some folks in the past.

I don't fault others for OC, and I was happy when Oklahoma made it an option, it's just not something I'm going to do most of the time.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
In a way I can see OC as a visual deterrent, and in a lot of cases active shooters pick locations without firearms and frequently shoot themselves when someone with a firearm confronts them.

I just imagine that here is a difference between seeing a guy with a gun on his hip and seeing a guy with a gun in his hand. I do get the deterrent factor, but I also worry about being picked out as the first victim before I even know what is going on.

I'm also not going to draw and get involved if someone is robbing the 7/11 while I am in there, so less attention towards me is appreciated. I know that is one of those topics I have disagreed with some folks in the past.

I don't fault others for OC, and I was happy when Oklahoma made it an option, it's just not something I'm going to do most of the time.

Agreed.
As an OC state, do you actually see people OCing pistols in an urban environment?

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
I just imagine that here is a difference between seeing a guy with a gun on his hip and seeing a guy with a gun in his hand. I do get the deterrent factor, but I also worry about being picked out as the first victim before I even know what is going on.

I do get the point about not wanting to draw attention to yourself. Especially as some people treat anyone with a gun as a criminal/potential shooter, and I'm sure having to explain your innocent intentions to the police is not a fun venture. If I recall I do not think that OC has been a factor in (m)any shootings/violent attacks. But again that may be because most active shooter incidents take place in gun free zones.

d-usa wrote:
I'm also not going to draw and get involved if someone is robbing the 7/11 while I am in there, so less attention towards me is appreciated. I know that is one of those topics I have disagreed with some folks in the past.

As someone who goes to the range but does not own a firearm my opinion may be somewhat moot. Purely hypothetically there would be a lot of factors at play for me to consider getting involved - potential to wound bystanders, whether my wife is with me, number of perpetrators, behavior of perpetrators, available cover and concealment, etc.

d-usa wrote:
I don't fault others for OC, and I was happy when Oklahoma made it an option, it's just not something I'm going to do most of the time.

If I see open carry I try and see if I recognize the firearm

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
I don't fault others for OC, and I was happy when Oklahoma made it an option, it's just not something I'm going to do most of the time.

If I see open carry I try and see if I recognize the firearm

I do that. I try not to

when I see a Brick er Glock.
I saw a sheriff with a Wilson Combat once in a diner. I went over and shook his hand.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:

As an OC state, do you actually see people OCing pistols in an urban environment?

I see some, but it appears to have died down a bit. Everybody was OCing because they could for a while, but now it has become less frequent. I'm used to guns, so I may also notice it less because it wouldn't be that unusual for me to see.

**LordofHats**

d-usa wrote:
I'm not a fan of everyday OC because of loosing the element of surprise, but I carry open when hiking and visiting back country. Damn snakes...

I are disappoint.

A real man uses his bare hands to kill snakes, then puts their heads on his belt

**Ouze**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:But again that may be because most active shooter incidents take place in gun free zones.

Dreadclaw69 wrote: in a lot of cases active shooters pick locations without firearms

While there have been shootings in gun free zones, there is no evidence that even a single spree shooter in the US used a gun free zone as a criteria for selecting a location to shoot up. None.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
While there have been shootings in gun free zones, there is no evidence that even a single spree shooter in the US used a gun free zone as a criteria for selecting a location to shoot up. None.

So we should just chalk it up to coincidence that a lot of them keep happening in gun free zones?
- Columbine
- Aurora
- Sandy Hook
- Tucson
- Navy Yard Shooter
- Fort Hood twice

Even if we leave aside the notion that active shooters do not use gun free zones as a criteria, many shootings still happen in gun free zones

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/14/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-control/1770345/

"After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." Burroughs continued: "I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."

Plenty of people — especially among America's political and journalistic classes — feel differently. They'd be much more comfortable seeing ordinary Americans disarmed. And whenever there is a mass shooting, or other gun incident that snags the headlines, they do their best to exploit the tragedy and push for laws that would, well, take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.

There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn't work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.

In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Policies making areas "gun free" provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.

This vulnerability makes some people uncomfortable. I teach at a state university with a campus gun-free policy, and quite a few of my students have permits to carry guns. After the Virginia Tech shooting a few years ago, one of them asked me if we could move class off campus, because she felt unsafe being unarmed. I certainly would have felt perfectly safe having her carry a gun in my presence; she was, and is, a responsible adult. I feel the same way about the other law students I know who have carry permits.

Gun-free zones are premised on a lie: that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers. That's an insult to honest people. Sometimes, it's a deadly one. The notion that more guns mean more crime is wrong. In fact, as gun ownership has expanded over the past decade, crime has gone down.

Fortunately, the efforts to punish "the people who didn't do it" are getting less traction these days. The Supreme Court, of course, has recognized that under the Constitution, honest people have a right to defend themselves with firearms, inside and outside the home, something that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently acknowledged in striking down Illinois' gun-carry ban. Given that gun-free zones seem to be a magnet for mass shooters, maybe we should be working to shrink or eliminate them, rather than expand them. As they say, if it saves just one life, it's worth it.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.

And your second link "This is a blog dedicated to academically refuting pro-gun myths, and providing a scholarly defense of gun control.". Which should not be surprising as two of the first links are Mother Jones, and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:

While there have been shootings in gun free zones, there is no evidence that even a single spree shooter in the US used a gun free zone as a criteria for selecting a location to shoot up. None.

Yeah... I'm not buying their arguments...

Fact of the matter, it's not nor ever been an end-all-be-all shield. Mass shooters have their reasons and we'll never really know exactly what they're thinking.

It may be true that if "gun free zones" never had existed in the first place, the outcome wouldn't have change.

But I think it's reasonable to say that advertising a location that is supposedly gun-free is the crux of the argument. Why do that?

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:But again that may be because most active shooter incidents take place in gun free zones.

Dreadclaw69 wrote: in a lot of cases active shooters pick locations without firearms

While there have been shootings in gun free zones, there is no evidence that even a single spree shooter in the US used a gun free zone as a criteria for selecting a location to shoot up. None.

Fort Hood shooter specifically targeted his location for the large number of people and lack of weapons/response.
Aurora shooter picked a theater full of people in a theater expressly prohibiting firearms.

Please identify a spree shooter that went off in a gun full zone.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Frazzled wrote:

Please identify a spree shooter that went off in a gun full zone.

The dude who tried to kill Giffords?

**Frazzled**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Please identify a spree shooter that went off in a gun full zone.

The dude who tried to kill Giffords?

That wasn't a spree shooter.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:But again that may be because most active shooter incidents take place in gun free zones.

Dreadclaw69 wrote: in a lot of cases active shooters pick locations without firearms

While there have been shootings in gun free zones, there is no evidence that even a single spree shooter in the US used a gun free zone as a criteria for selecting a location to shoot up. None.

Fort Hood shooter specifically targeted his location for the large number of people and lack of weapons/response.
Aurora shooter picked a theater full of people in a theater expressly prohibiting firearms.

Please identify a spree shooter that went off in a gun full zone.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Frazzled wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Please identify a spree shooter that went off in a gun full zone.

The dude who tried to kill Giffords?

That wasn't a spree shooter.

Huh, so it wasn't. I stand corrected.

Arguably, though, neither was Columbine, Aurora, Fort Hood or Sandy Hook, seeing as they all took place in one location.