True, we have drifted off the starting premise of the thread quite a bit. Inevitable, given the subject matter.
Returning (in vain, probably!) to the initial discussion, I find it instructive that handguns have long been banned from National Parks, and National Parks have low crime rates compared to locations with similar populations (counting the park visitors as “residents”). And a lot of that crime involves petty stuff, like car break-ins. Is anyone seriously arguing that introducing weapons into that environment will make it safer? The armed murderers, rapists, robbers, and burglars tend not to hang out with Yogi Bear and Boo-boo.
Going to the house when the owner was there would be a Very Bad Thing for the burglar. Going when he wasn’t could be a goldmine for getting some guns into the hands of felons or what have you.
C’mon—at least I’m on your side on this one: trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
But see, there’s a chance that you might happen upon someone breaking into your car. If he doesn’t just run away, a dangerous situation could develop. Better to have an advantage than not.
Blake, please read post #213 about the scenario of this meet. If you’re both nervous enough to be carrying, you’re surely both also in condition orange, or whatever it is just before you get out the guns.
I would think that confronting a petty criminal with a lethal weapon could generate a fair amount of trouble for you, instead. It takes a minor property crime and elevates it needlessly. Your personal safety is not being threatened by someone trying to filch your picnic basket.
Ok, well fine, you’re right. I got a little heated in my discussion with Argent Towers and called him out for arrogance that I perceived in his repeatedly asking if I knew what I was what concealed means. Seems a bit like he takes me for an imbecile. Didn’t like that much. For what it’s worth, I’ll apologize to Argent Towers.
But make no mistake, there are people participating in this discussion that have been very information and respectful to me in their debate and I appreciate that. Likewise, I respect them although I may not agree with everything they’re saying. With others, you say one thing they disagree with and now you’re painted as unreasonable in every way, shape and form. It’s tiring, frankly.
So, no, not ‘hardly’ but perhaps not ‘entirely’ either.
Nervousness isn’t the reason I’m carrying. I’m carrying as an insurance policy against my life. You’re talking about the misreading of cues, and I’m saying that the only cue that would get either of us to pull a gun is for the other to do it first. I don’t see a weapon on jim, so I don’t pull. He doesn’t see mine, so he doesn’t pull. Could we both be startled and think “hey now, this guy’s a little too close all of a sudden”? Sure, but since neither of us is trying to assault the other, there’s no reason to even think about the weapon.
I didn’t say confronting. You walk out of the woods and there he is. He wants your stuff and is willing to hurt or kill you for it. As opposed to the guy who would just run off. You can be a victim. Or you can be a survivor. Sounds like you’re willing to bet that nothing will ever go wrong. I’m not.
I was wondering about that. I’ve heard of condition white etc. from dozens and dozens of sources - books, the net, and in New England - but never condition green. Condition white appears in the first Google result, and several times more on the first page but there is no mention of condition green (in that context) in at least the first 20 pages of results. It is used in the context of terrorism warning levels, though.
I think the chances of encountering someone meeting that description in a National Park are somewhere between zero and nil. Just a gut feeling, granted…
Well, but technically, if the owner isn’t there than his gun isn’t there either. Unless he’s got a collection of course. But by the same token, drivers’ license data provides the same information but for people who invariably own vehicles. It’s not like car thieves really need to pull that info to steal cars, but by the same token they aren’t going to do searches on random names to find someone that has a carry license, so they can steal your weapons. And, crap, if you’re worried about that, just charge money for each search.
What’s to stop thieves from searching DMV records to target elderly people who are less likely to put up a fight? Is that a valid reason to suppress DMV records? Is publication of donations to political parties and candidates a valid reason to suppress that information? I don’t think so. I do believe that it can be dangerous, however, to aggregate publicly identifying information like names with addresses.
But if I were going to, say, rent out a room in my house and I preferred to prohibit weapons in my home, I think it would be fair to have access to that information to ensure applicants were being up front with me. If I were to arrested for a weapons-related crime, I believe it would be fair for the information as to whether I was licensed to carry a firearm to be released to the public.
If we have nothing to be afraid of and you are protected by arming yourself, then I see very little reason to suppress the information. I do understand that the likely result is that certain groups will refuse to become licensed, but that’s the trade-off they should be willing to accept.
The public deserves to know what their exposure to firearms is.
Well, I fear that we’re about to get circular here, but…
If you wanted to prohibit guns at your house (in any fashion–even to family members dropping in for a visit, renters, etc.) then you can either post the correct sign or verbally tell them not to have a gun. Once that notice is there, even a legal CHL carrier would have to leave and/or not enter in the first place. Refusal is criminal trespass. That’s Texas law, anyway.
But even if I was being dishonest when I came to your place, and had my gun on, all the record search would tell you is that I have a valid CHL–not whether I had the gun on me. So that information isn’t really helping you. If I just said “I have a CHL, but I don’t have my gun on me” then the only thing you could really do from that point is frisk me (and I’m married! ).
I personally agree with you (partially) about the gun crime thing. I’m not in favor of releasing the information after the arrest–innocent until proven guilty, after all–but if convicted, then sure. At that point they’re a convicted criminal.
I’d have to check, but I don’t think anyone can search Texas drivers’ licenses, though…I know you couldn’t a few years back. Let me see if that’s changed.
Edited to add: According the the Texas DPS website, you can only request your own information.
<hijack>
Wait a minute, DMV records are public? So if I wanted to find out what kind of car a certain person drives, or who a specific car is registered to, I could? How?
I think it’d be fascinating to check out what kind of cars various celebrities drive! Or to contact the owner of a particularly cool custom car i see on the road!
).