(WRT this.)
I noticed a few months ago that a newly installed beach-rules sign in Miami specified no weapons, contrary to state law. I’ve seen signs like this before. Until recently local officials faced no costs for promulgating local rules that violated Florida’s preemption law.
I happened to pass that sign a few days ago and the weapons line had been whited out.
It is progress. It takes a long time, sometimes. Tea Party sympathizers should keep this in mind.
Still, wearing a firearm get-up on the beach, out of principle, leaves one with an ugly spot on otherwise tan
On Tom Sullivan’s show yesterday they were talking about the misfortune of visitors to NYC who have carry permits in other states, in good faith telling authorities they have a weapon and what should they do with it?
The latest is Mark Meckler, head of a Tea Party – who had his locked in a case Glock and reported it at the airport counter – he is arrested and faces prison.
On the larger issue they were talking about how authorities keep trying to water down the 2nd Amendment with legislated “exceptions”.
Tatyana – I was thinking the same thing – although maybe it could become the “new chic” – having the outline of a SIG, Glock, or that all-round classic, the Browning 1911 outline on your torso!
Watch for it in Vogue
Bill,
that depends on the size of the torso
“The latest is Mark Meckler, head of a Tea Party – who had his locked in a case Glock and reported it at the airport counter – he is arrested and faces prison. ”
The charges have been dropped but they kept his gun. No law saying so but they are all powerful.
Progress is that you can carry guns on the beach. ROTFLMAO.
The point of civilization has been missed completely apparently.
Hi ho.
Progress is when all civil rights are recognized, on beaches and elsewhere. Perhaps you will explain for us, in a manner more coherent than your usual sneers, exactly why it is civilized to forbid people from defending themselves.
Jonathan, why, it’s because civilization is all about taking power away from people and giving instead to the government, of course.
If you don’t do that, people might try to exercise their rights and freedoms in full view of others! We can’t have that!
“Jonathan, why, it’s because civilization is all about taking power away from people and giving instead to the government, of course.’
Wow … just wow. There was the old saw that America went directly from birthing a country to decadence without stopping at civilization on the way.
Now I see that you regard that as a plus.
Hi ho (Kurt Vonnegut’s reaction to Dresden, he was there.)
This is going to be amusing at Haulover Beach, the Miami-Dade-operated, clothing-optional beach. But then, I guess that’s what they made beach bags for!
@Michael – there is another case of a guy from Indiana who was visiting the Empire State Building – sees a sign saying “no weapons” – tells the security guard he has a pistol and what should he do with it – the guard calls the cops – and the guy is now looking at up to 15 years in prison.
On the one hand I would think those with carry permits should make sure they are “legal” where they are going; on the other hand this fellow they want to prosecute certainly represents no threat.
Wow ”¦ just wow. There was the old saw that America went directly from birthing a country to decadence without stopping at civilization on the way.
Again, what is civilized about forbidding people to defend themselves? What is decadent about recognizing their right to defend themselves?
These questions are at the heart of the issue. Sneering at Americans doesn’t answer them. If the logic of your position is strong you should be able to state it clearly.
Guns don’.t kill people. Misfits who ought not be allowed to fhave or carry or use or own guns DO!
NY? they have laws. State’s rights. Don’t like it? Stay home.
State’s rights. Don’t like it? Stay home.
State govts still have to obey the Constitution. NYC’s laws are ripe for challenge on 2A grounds.
Also, imprisoning (or even threatening to imprison) a visitor for three years for ignorance of local law when that person 1) caused no harm and 2) made a good-faith effort to obey what he thought were the rules is brutal and inhumane.
“Again, what is civilized about forbidding people to defend themselves? What is decadent about recognizing their right to defend themselves?”
The point of civilization is to have a civil society. A civil society is not well defined but to me it means you do not need to carry deadly force to defend yourself. If the society you have created does require one to carry deadly force to defend oneself that does not fit into the definition of civil society. Well not my definition anyway.
Civilization is not forbidding people to do anything in particular. It’s more a state of mind and attitude.
In Canada, where I live, conditions are quite similar to the USA and yet we see no need to carry weapons about. A state of mind exists that we do not need to and ya know … we don’t.
Canadian police carry weapons, allowing you to pretend that you don’t need to. The underlying issue is that many Canadian voters and I’m sure the majority of the Canadian political class don’t trust individuals enough to allow them to protect themselves.
In all societies some people have weapons and some don’t. In most places the only people with weapons are the ruling elites, their functionaries, and criminals. That’s what you call “civilized” without explaining why. The USA stands out as the only large country where ordinary citizens possess and carry weapons for personal defense in significant numbers. A large number of private citizens have used weapons successfully to defend themselves against violent attacks. In your country the only option for most people in such situations is to hope they won’t be hurt too badly. Please explain why you think it’s more civilized to be defenseless than to be able to defend yourself. Saying the answer “is not well defined but to me it means” doesn’t cut it — that’s a mere aesthetic preference. What is the moral or logical reason why it’s better for ordinary people to be defenseless?
Don’t feed trolls. Don’t wrestle with a pig in the mud-you’ll get all muddy and the pig will enjoy it.
It can be worth it if the other party’s weak arguments help me to make my own arguments.
“Canadian police carry weapons, allowing you to pretend that you don’t need to. The underlying issue is that many Canadian voters and I’m sure the majority of the Canadian political class don’t trust individuals enough to allow them to protect themselves.”
Huh? There are lots of guns in Canada. My buddy just picked up a 1911A in 40 caliber as he runs the Thompson Mountain Combat Range and the cops use 40 caliber. So he ends up with garbage cans full of cases. Every other house in my backwoods area has a 30 06 somewhere about the place.
No we have a civil society and nobody walks around with cannons because they are not needed.
A lot of the American gun thing is your rich imagination and TV culture. You kill far more people with guns than you save. It’s not worth it in a rational sense but that is really not what you want to hear. You all want to be superheros as far as I can tell. Feel free it’s your country but some things just are not sustainable, as you are starting to find out.
I said possess and carry weapons, not have them in the house for moose hunting or recreational shooting. An ordinary Canadian is not allowed to carry his loaded 1911 for defensive purposes. You rationalize this situation by saying that weapons are not needed. But that can’t be true or your police would not carry them. If it’s acceptable for police to carry them why is it wrong or uncivilized for non-police to do so? You prattle about how civilized you are yet you don’t trust your fellow civilized Canadians to carry weapons for self-defense. You seem a bit paranoid to me.
“I said possess and carry weapons, not have them in the house for moose hunting or recreational shooting. An ordinary Canadian is not allowed to carry his loaded 1911 for defensive purposes.”
Yeah we like it that way. We have you for an example don’t forget. As I said, the numbers in your country prove it’s much more dangerous your way.
“You rationalize this situation by saying that weapons are not needed. But that can’t be true or your police would not carry them.”
Really you compare the police and the things they have to do with an average citizens experience.
“If it’s acceptable for police to carry them why is it wrong or uncivilized for non-police to do so?”
The carnage that results is not worth it. Again we have you for an example.
“You prattle about how civilized you are yet you don’t trust your fellow civilized Canadians to carry weapons for self-defense. You seem a bit paranoid to me.”
Not at all, I live in Canada. ;)
Civilization may be too good for you I dunno. Here is a question:
Would you like a country so civil that there was no need for any citizen to carry defensive apparatus?
Probably not. The rest of us do like it that way. That attitude thing again.
The carnage that results is not worth it.
You watch too much American television. In reality US violent crime has been declining for more than two decades at the same time as weapons-carry laws have been relaxed and gun ownership has increased. Violent crime rates in the parts of the USA that are demographically similar to Canada are comparable to Canadian rates. See Lott et al. And of course there are still violent criminals in Canada. So your argument amounts to a wish to impose your personal preferences on other people. Why do you distrust your fellow Canadians so much?
It’s a bit difficult to find recent numbers. The ones for 2010 are for murders by firearms.
USA 9,369
Canada 144
You are just a bit less than 10 times our size. The difference is striking.
There is little doubt, outside of right wing America, that your obsession with guns has a very large cost.
Do I trust my fellow Canadians to walk around armed and not create a situation like you have in your country.
No I do not. I am getting to be an old man with a lot of experience in human nature and people in general are just fine but there is a large population of crazy fools in both our countries. I would prefer they were not armed.
Works pretty well for us up here most of the time.
Here is an interesting page with statistics on firearm and non-firearm homicide rates in different countries, along with their rates of gun ownership.
Much of the data is old, but if you look at, say, Switzerland or Norway, it’s pretty clear that the Guns = Murder meme doesn’t hold water.
Conversely, gun control doesn’t appear to lower homicide rates. Notice that the Canadian numbers in the table above date from before the 1995 gun control rules, and yet the murder rate then was about what it is today.
“Much of the data is old, but if you look at, say, Switzerland or Norway, it’s pretty clear that the Guns = Murder meme doesn’t hold water.”
Those are guns issued to all citizens, in Switzerland anyway, for the army. They will all be long guns as both societies ban handguns.
In Canada very many people own guns but again long guns. The handguns are very much constrained in their usage. One needs an FAC for any gun and the requirements for handguns include being in a locked box until you get to the range. The idea being we are fine with people who want to shoot handguns. We are not fine with using handguns as a tool.
PenGun,
That last post is informative, on topic, and free of slander.
Congratulations.
“PenGun,
That last post is informative, on topic, and free of slander.
Congratulations.”
Thank you. Yours was somewhat misleading because you used total gun numbers in countries where handguns are almost unknown.
The USA is a big country with regional ethnic and cultural differences that correlate with differences in violent crime rates. There are very few murders in Vermont despite the fact that any noncriminal adult may legally carry a firearm there without a license or other official permission. There are many murders in Chicago despite numerous laws restricting the possession and carrying of weapons. New Orleans has the highest murder rate of any American city. If you moved the people of New Orleans to Canada would they become less violent? Probably not. They might shoot each other less frequently but they would find other ways to kill. Many if not most American murders occur in a handful of big cities. The parts of the USA that border Canada are generally not more violent than Canada despite high rates of firearms possession on the American side. Looking around the world there are many countries with strict controls on firearms possession, that have no “gun culture” and yet have extremely high murder rates by US standards (South Africa and Brazil are obvious examples). And in the USA many of the regions with high rates of gun ownership have low rates of murder and other violent crime. So the hypothesis that high rates of gun ownership cause crime doesn’t hold up.
While you are up there in Canada congratulating yourself on being too civilized to allow commoners to carry weapons, there are entire US regions that are demographically similar to Canada but that are awash in guns and allow almost anyone to carry one and yet have little crime. I can see how pointing this out might bother you.
John Lott has a page here that gives a summary of research on the effects of US right-to-carry laws on crime rates. 30 studies found that allowing citizens to carry weapons either reduced violent crime rates or had no effect. Two studies found an increase in violent crime. You may not trust your fellow Canadians but that’s your problem. Extrapolating from US evidence, I doubt they would be any threat to you if some of them went armed.
There’s also that “trust the people” thing that distinguishes US law from that of most other nations, sadly including even modern Britain and Canada.