I had my permit to carry in Texas and the classes weren’t exactly what I’d call “training” in the use of a firearm. The classroom portion covered deadly force laws, law regarding where you could carry and where you couldn’t, and probably a little more but that’s all I can remember because it’s been more than 10 years. The shooting range portion of the class consisted of making sure I could hit the broad side of the barn at ranges of 5-10 yards at most.
Marc
Speak for yourself.
No. It isn’t. Banning concealed carry anywhere it isn’t explicitly posted as allowed kinda defeats the purpose of legal concealed carry. Besides, I like those places that post their “No Firearms Allowed” signs; I refer to them as “criminal magnets,” and tend to avoid them as much as possible.
More importantly, the Magistrate that is the subject of the OP did not get a Concealed Carry Permit as would J. Average Citizen (which you would know if you had taken the time to restrain your knee from jerking so hard, and had read the various posts by knowledgeable posters in the thread). It was pretty much issued pro forma due to the public office she holds.
I had heard (or read) somewhere that most “tactical” handgun shootings take place at about 7 meters (approx. 7.7 yards) or less. If true, 5 to 10 yard marksmanship would be adequate.
So the Lifetime Fitness, 200 Park Place Office Tower, Bearpath Country Club, Minnesota Children’s Museum are all hotbeds of criminal activity huh? :rolleyes:
Show me where I said “hotbeds of criminal activity.”
I said “criminal magnets.”
What did my selection of the word “magnets” mean to imply? Since you seem simple, don’t sprain your brain trying to figure it out, I’ll tell you.
To most dimbulbs, when used metaphorically, the word “magnets” tends to imply an attraction.
Now if I’d said something like “super magnets,” I could maybe kind of see where you might think I was trying to imply a “hotbed of criminal activity.”
But I didn’t.
As far as the rest goes…
…dig me up a cite on the last “mass shooting” that wasn’t in a “gun free zone.”
Then dig me up a cite on the last armed criminal action at a gun store (an honest-to-God gun store, not a fucking pawn shop that hocks guns as well as cheap stolen jewelry) or shooting club.
Apparently you didn’t get my point numbnuts.
Let me use your phrasing then:
So the Lifetime Fitness, 200 Park Place Office Tower, Bearpath Country Club, Minnesota Children’s Museum are all CRIMINAL MAGNETS huh? :rolleyes:
If you seriously think disturbed individuals who commit mass shooting sprees look for the “gun free zone” signs before entering so there will be no chance of anyone retaliating with their own gun you are hoplessly dreaming.
I’ve been to Bearpath, seemed like there were plenty of crooks hanging around to me…
IIRC, you do carry, which seems to reinforce his point.
The facts speak for themselves: mass shootings have almost exclusively taken place in Gun Free Zones. I would have to do some serious digging to turn up a mass shooting that did take place in a non-“Gun Free Zone.”
That’s not a dream; it’s reality.
In my locale, a nice local Indian restaurant has been held up twice this year alone. They have a “No Firearms Allowed” sticker on their front door.
The nice local Mexican joint (in the very same retail center) has no such signage. They haven’t been robbed. Ever. I’m acquainted with the owner; super nice guy, a real immigrant success story. We talk guns over beers and fajitas. He showed me a picture of his cherry 1911 in .38 Super. I have no certain knowledge (but little doubt) that it’s within hand’s reach at any given moment in his restaurant.
I did, many years ago in Texas, when I worked nights in a very bad part of Dallas. But I moved on from that job years ago, and let my license lapse. Since moving to Missouri in '03 (the year Missouri passed a CCW law, BTW), I have not felt the need for a CCW permit.
I’m not opposed to the idea of getting a Missouri CCW permit, if I felt the need.
Oh, come on. Mass shootings take place in schools more than anywhere else. Would you call those “Gun-Free Zones” in the sense you’re using it? And if so, do you really think schoolkids- or even teachers- ought to be packing heat?
People hardly ever get shot in Britain, which is basically a gun-free zone itself.
As far as you not carrying, I retract that assertion.
You’re absolutely right about that. If I were going to hold up a liquor store, I’d most certainly choose one that had a sign prohibiting concealed firearms on the premises. Be fucking retarded not to. As ExTank’s experience with a couple local restaurants shows.
I believe you are misunderstanding the sense in which ExTank is using the term. Generally speaking (all states have different rules of course), school property and the public spaces surrounding it are * legally* designated “gun-free zones.” Many states even have language which requires duly-licensed concealed carry permit holders to unload and lock their firearms in the trunk when picking up their kids from school. And technically, you might even violate the law merely by driving through a school zone without stopping. And of course, you can’t lock your gun in trunk after stopping at the school since you’d be in the “gun-free zone.” You gotta stop somewhere along the way before getting to the school. Or risk arrest.
ExTank’s anecdotal experience doesn’t show anything other than the fact that the Indian restaurant near him has been robbed more often than the Mexican one.
A sign prohibiting firearms on premises doesn’t prevent the owner (or staff, with his permission) from carrying them. If you base your choice of robbery target on whether or not there’s a sign outside saying “no guns allowed” then you’d be a very stupid criminal. Since I presume you’re not a habitual armed robber, that is perhaps unsurprising.
My point is that any statistic showing that more shootings take place in “gun-free zones” is flawed, because it would include school zones.
I have never owned a gun, other than a BB gun, but have plenty of family members who do, and have fired guns at targets on several occasions, and also gone hunting. I don’t regard gun owners as bad guys, just the ones who think the Second Amendment forbids any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of maniacs and gangsters.
Which ones would those be, exactly? I would be stunned, STUNNED I tell you, if you could find someone who thinks that maniacs and gangsters should be allowed to possess guns. Not even Wayne LaPierre believes that, and he’s perhaps the most ardent public defender of gun rights and regularly says things that offend the publics’ sensibilities.
Sometimes I don’t think you guys think about what you’re posting before you hit the submit button. I refuse to believe that you posted something this asinine because you actually believe such people exist. I prefer to think that you had a knee-jerk moment and you simply misspoke.
Perhaps. But you don’t really know how the robber made his selection, do you? If he’s playing odds, then his obviously better choice would definitely be the store with the “No guns allowed” sign. Again, it’d be foolish not to choose the store that bans guns whne presented with such a choice.
In some jurisdictions it may. There are several cities which disallow persons to be armed at their places of work - regardless of any concealed carry laws the state may have in place. And a guy that chooses not to allow concealed firearms on the premises would seem to me to be less likely to be carrying his own, too. That’s just own my estimation, though.
Why? I’m afraid I don’t follow you here. Seems to me like you simply want to discard a portion of the data because the incidence of school shootings is above the norm. Unless you can demonstrate why this particular data shouldn’t be counted, it looks like you’re cherry-picking.
We’re talking about criminals here who are notorious for their lack of risk assessment and often risk life, limb, or imprisonment for just a few bucks from a convenience store. My point is that I’m not so sure the signs are much of a factor.
When I was working in Dallas the company laid off a whole bunch of people right before lunch. We were told when the layoffs were complete that we would be having a meeting following lunch. I went out for lunch that day and when I returned to the office the maintenance people where putting no guns allowed signs on all the entrances. The absurdity of putting the signs up just cracked me up.
Marc
I’m not averse to the idea of select teachers or administrators passing some sort of qualification course and being allowed to carry in school.
And as far as GB is concerned, “hardly ever” is “on the rise.”
And no need for a retraction; your memory is fine, just out-of-date.
Uncle Beer otherwise covered a lot of ground I never thought to touch upon. I thought it was common knowledge that almost any U.S. School Zone you’d care to name was pretty much a “Gun Free Zone” by law. There was even some concern when Pres. Clinton wanted a 1000 yard radius (diameter?) around schools to be totally Gun Free that that would include home owners within that zone having to surrender their firearms.
I didn’t expect to have to explain that, and now that I have to it’s hard to put into words - but here goes.
Of course, this is purely hypothetical at the moment since I can’t actually find any statistics grouping shootings by location type. :mad:
You’re welcome to do so, but those are just about the worst citations I’ve ever seen.
The first one is an op-ed piece which doesn’t mention gun crime at all - just violent crime. There are plenty of violent crimes in Britain; beatings, stabbings, and so on - but there are hardly any gun crimes, which is obviously a big difference.
The second one appears to be about the NYPD and doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Britain 
The third one is another op-ed piece written by… a dentist and an optometrist. And published in NewsMax, which is one step above the Iraqi propaganda minister for accuracy in reporting.
The fourth one doesn’t specifically mention gun crime at all.