Thread: Ohio - concealed weapons allowed

That sucks...

Another State off my travelling list.

Personally I like the idea of being able to protect yourself.


Wild Wild West, the wild wild WEST!

Originally posted by John H.
In Ohio concealed weapons will be allowed for those that pass a backround check and successfully complete a firearms use class beginning about April 15th, 2004. I would think that terrorists would really have something to worry about if they knew ALL people in this country could carry and use weapons. In the end it may be our only REAL way of stopping others from harming us. Take Care, John H.

Very nice! I'm suprised considering the liberal swing this country has been taking on gun control the past several years.

Crime drops in every state where carry concealed laws are passed. No exceptions.

Originally posted by MikeKy
Crime drops in every state where carry concealed laws are passed. No exceptions.

Glad to see this post. I was expecting this thread to spawn emotionally charged statements about the evils of firearms. Anyone interested in this subject might want to check out "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott. Great read!!

Originally posted by Var
I was expecting this thread to spawn emotionally charged statements about the evils of firearms.

Well I'll be the first to start. Firearms piss me off simply because any little puke could kick my ass with one of those things

Just my $0.02.
That does not apply EVERYWHERE,up here in Cannuckland we don't have anybody aside from cops and the militaries allowed to carry guns(concealled,and I'm NOT talking of hunting!) and our crime rate is much lower then in the US...

I think it's just a way of thinking...

Originally posted by Dero
I think it's just a way of thinking...

Naw, I think it's because those Yanks are crazy

Originally posted by Dero
Just my $0.02.
That does not apply EVERYWHERE,up here in Cannuckland we don't have anybody aside from cops and the militaries allowed to carry guns(concealled,and I'm NOT talking of hunting!) and our crime rate is much lower then in the US...

I think it's just a way of thinking...

I think there's a lot more to it than, "we have no guns and crime is less than US". The book I mentioned above outlines similar situations. Was crime higher before the ban? Was there other legislation put into effect at the same time as the gun ban which would impact violent crime?

Edit: I think most research shows that gun laws/bans only really effect those who obey laws. Criminals dont have any problem finding firearms on the black market.

I think? Canada either enforces the law or decriminalizes so there is no crime. The problem here is we don't enforce the law. The bleeding heart liberals stand in the way of enforcement. We could pass two thousand more gun laws and it won't make any difference whatsoever. If we applied the law and added "one trial, one appeal" and then hang them high. Then the crime rate would drop. Criminals don't care about other peoples life, but they do care about their own. Our forefathers knew we should have the right to defend ourselves when they wrote the constitution.

Well, it does make me wonder why some communities in the last century started making people check their firearms before entering the town...or businesses.

I see those ads all the time about how crime drops if everyone packs a gun, and that may well be true. I just wonder what will happen the first time someone gets P.O.ed on a road rage. . .a background check is fine, but that doesn't prevent first time offenders. I say stiffen up the punishments drastically if a gun is used....and if someone kills another person "by mistake," don't cut them any slack. Too many looney tunes out there who don't have a criminal background - yet.

By the way, I don't think gun control is simply some "liberal" thing...that cliche is always pulled out when someone disagrees with some official Party public relations line.

What kills me is that people are now trying to say the 2nd Amendment doesnt protect our right to bear arms because it was written in a different time when militias were necessary.
I completely agree with your statement about enforcing gun laws rather than creating new ones. There's a ridiculous amount of gun laws on the books right now. I used to work with a police officer who admitted that the gun laws are so complex and contradictory, that he doesnt understand them himself.

Originally posted by kbm8795
Well, it does make me wonder why some communities in the last century started making people check their firearms before entering the town...or businesses.

I see those ads all the time about how crime drops if everyone packs a gun, and that may well be true. I just wonder what will happen the first time someone gets P.O.ed on a road rage. . .a background check is fine, but that doesn't prevent first time offenders. I say stiffen up the punishments drastically if a gun is used....and if someone kills another person "by mistake," don't cut them any slack. Too many looney tunes out there who don't have a criminal background - yet.

By the way, I don't think gun control is simply some "liberal" thing...that cliche is always pulled out when someone disagrees with some official Party public relations line.

I think the view that allowing people to carry guns will increase crimes of passion is a common one. I personally dont agree with it. And if "we" get a little emotional and throw around "liberal" bashing statements, I think thats to be expected. Gun ownership, hunting, etc... is a traditional in my family and I see it as a personal attack when people try to take my rights away. Its an emotional debate on both sides. Personally, I think there is more evidence supporting the pros of an armed society.

Originally posted by Var
I think the view that allowing people to carry guns will increase crimes of passion is a common one. I personally dont agree with it. And if "we" get a little emotional and throw around "liberal" bashing statements, I think thats to be expected. Gun ownership, hunting, etc... is a traditional in my family and I see it as a personal attack when people try to take my rights away. Its an emotional debate on both sides. Personally, I think there is more evidence supporting the pros of an armed society.

This isn't an emotional argument for me. Throwing around cliches and thinking they are bashing because one Party uses them as public relations buzzwords goes against your own basic ideas of having your individual rights trampled upon. When that happens, someone's ideas begin to look like "MY personal rights....but the rest of you aren't individuals... merely people thrown into neatly labeled political dogma boxes. And if you don't agree with me, you are a 'liberal."

I didn't indicate any particular opposition to gun carrying legislation at all - but I also know that not every individual in this country is responsible, which is one reason there is crime here in the first place. Indicating a desire to see some historical evidence...meaning...why did communities in the last century elect to force people to check firearms before entering towns, etc...is a legitimate question. Guns were banned from being carried around in certain locations for some reason. I'd just like to know if there was more to it beyond some vague "the liberals did it" cliche. Before I'd state a definite opinion about the subject I'd like to know more about that history. If anyone has information about that, I'd be interested in knowing more.

KBM, I believe that the reason certain towns started to make people check their guns as they came into town was due to the fact that pretty much eveyone was armed. At that time in history there was no way to conduct a background check. Personnal I do not think we need tougher gun control laws. We just need to do a better job enforcing some of the ones have now. Like hiring more police officers to stop the flow of guns on the black market. Getting rid of guns is not the answer. Remember some of the famous people in history who wanted and enforced gun control, Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, and Castro just to name a few. However not evey nut in this country should own a gun either. A strict background check must be conducted. One of the main reasons the Germans and the Japaness did not want to attack mainland USA, beside the fact we were so far away, during WWII was the fact that the rest of the world believed every American owned a gun. I feel the more people we have leagally carring concealed the less likely a terrorist group will think of attacking us.

Originally posted by kbm8795
This isn't an emotional argument for me. Throwing around cliches and thinking they are bashing because one Party uses them as public relations buzzwords goes against your own basic ideas of having your individual rights trampled upon. When that happens, someone's ideas begin to look like "MY personal rights....but the rest of you aren't individuals... merely people thrown into neatly labeled political dogma boxes. And if you don't agree with me, you are a 'liberal."

I didn't indicate any particular opposition to gun carrying legislation at all - but I also know that not every individual in this country is responsible, which is one reason there is crime here in the first place. Indicating a desire to see some historical evidence...meaning...why did communities in the last century elect to force people to check firearms before entering towns, etc...is a legitimate question. Guns were banned from being carried around in certain locations for some reason. I'd just like to know if there was more to it beyond some vague "the liberals did it" cliche. Before I'd state a definite opinion about the subject I'd like to know more about that history. If anyone has information about that, I'd be interested in knowing more.

First off, I am neither liberal nor conservative. My beliefs fall in line more with Independents/Libertarians. I was in no way trying to strip anyone of their individuality...and never blamed anyone for the current gun situation. If I used the word liberal referring to people who dont like guns, its because "generally" this is true. Not sure what "buzzwords" i threw around either. The facts that compell me the most and lead me to the conclusions I've expressed is that, in places where conceal/carry rights are granted, violent crime does decrease dramatically. If you're interested in reading more on the history of this debate, I did mention a book above. I also try to read books giving the other side of the debate, so that I can try to get the whole story, but the book I mentioned is the only title I remember off the top of my head.

Originally posted by Dero
That sucks...

Another State off my travelling list.

Oh, so that is why you won't come to NC! I'm gonna have to have a long talk with you D!!

Originally posted by kbm8795
- but I also know that not every individual in this country is responsible, which is one reason there is crime here in the first place.

That is what I see to be the main issue here.

And no amount of background checks can stop someone developing depression or other mental illness ( those two, along with drugs being the main cause of gun related death ) some time after recieving the permit.

Not to mention the inevitable increase in accidental deaths.

And I truely fail to see how all Americans being armed will stop another hijacking ( I can`t see the airlines allowing everyone to carry on board ), suicide bombing, or other terrorist attacks.

Something I read just the other day........

"October 30, 2003
Facts On Gun Deaths In The USA
The Americans value their constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment deals with the right to bear arms. Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege

- 12 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns
- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century
- Osama bin Laden would need nine twin towers like attacks a year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.
- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late last century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)"

Originally posted by kuso
That is what I see to be the main issue here.

And no amount of background checks can stop someone developing depression or other mental illness ( those two, along with drugs being the main cause of gun related death ) some time after recieving the permit.

Not to mention the inevitable increase in accidental deaths.

And I truely fail to see how all Americans being armed will stop another hijacking ( I can`t see the airlines allowing everyone to carry on board ), suicide bombing, or other terrorist attacks.

Something I read just the other day........

"October 30, 2003
Facts On Gun Deaths In The USA
The Americans value their constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment deals with the right to bear arms. Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege

- 12 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns
- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century
- Osama bin Laden would need nine twin towers like attacks a year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.
- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late last century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)"

These are the types of stats that drive me mad. While I'm not doubting that these #'s are true, you would be amazed by death stats for seemingly harmless practices. Puts the above info into perspective. I'll get some info tonight and post tomorrow. Again, the same book I referred to earlier addresses these types of reports very well.
On a side note, the NRA is far from perfect. I support them because they are one of the few orginizations fighting for gun rights.

Originally posted by kuso

- Osama bin Laden would need nine twin towers like attacks a year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

Do we really believe these people wouldnt find another means to commit suicide if guns werent available to them???

Originally posted by kuso

- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late last century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)"

This is something I do remember reading about. There was a lot of other legislation, which wasnt gun related, credited in part for this decrease in murder rates.

Not a lot of hard data in this interview, but something to take a look at if interested...

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

I know this is only one book and I'm sure (like anything else) people will have stats which they believe disproves it. I guess thats part of the reason this debate never ends.

Originally posted by Var
Do we really believe these people wouldnt find another means to commit suicide if guns werent available to them???

Of course, however I took that to mean total gun related death, not only suicide.

I personally know of a lady that attempted suicide.....indeed I was the one to find her and call the police/ambulance etc. She was saved, and now 6 years later is living happily ( last I heard anyway ). Had that been a gun though.........

Originally posted by kuso
Of course, however I took that to mean total gun related death, not only suicide.

I personally know of a lady that attempted suicide.....indeed I was the one to find her and call the police/ambulance etc. She was saved, and now 6 years later is living happily ( last I heard anyway ). Had that been a gun though.........

Must have been a tough experience. No doubt. I'd hate to see anyone go through that and have had some experience with a friends attempted suicide as well. I'm just not sure that this anecdote proves anything. No more than me telling you one story about someone surviving an attack due to being armed. It does shed some light (at least in part) on why you have the concerns you do.

Originally posted by Var
This is something I do remember reading about. There was a lot of other legislation, which wasnt gun related, credited in part for this decrease in murder rates.

Which would also leave part of the decrease to gun control though

And yes, I do know that in Australia gun related crime has INCREASED since the buy-back some years ago.

Originally posted by Var
Not a lot of hard data in this interview, but something to take a look at if interested...

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

It is quite interesting.

Despite my first post in here I`m not totally against guns, nor for gun control. I`m, to be quite honest, not sure where I stand on the issue yet. I`ve yet to see much in the way of compelling evidence from those "pro-gun" though.....more in the way of muddying the waters by comparing the death stats to those of traffic accidents etc. IMHO the fact that cars kill more people means nothing when trying to argue the safety aspect of guns.

Gun control can show stats backing their side. Fortunately, or unfortunately there are no stats on guns SAVING lives.........

Originally posted by Var
Must have been a tough experience. No doubt. I'd hate to see anyone go through that and have had some experience with a friends attempted suicide as well. I'm just not sure that this anecdote proves anything. No more than me telling you one story about someone surviving an attack due to being armed. It does shed some light (at least in part) on why you have the concerns you do.

Well, it wasn`t fun but I never knew her before hand so not as bad as it could have been had I been close.

And you are correct....it was not meant to prove a thing. Just one more thing I often think of when this issue comes up.

Been that way in AZ for quite a while now.

In fact, my CCW is up for renewal this month after 4 years. Never once have I had to pull my weapon, although came close a couple times ready to take out a few vicious dogs that were getting a little to close to my daugher for comfort. Lucky for them, they thought better of it after yelled the command to stop. Had they not, I would of shot them dead.

Protection does not always have to be against other people.

Kuso, I am not sure where you got your stats. But the National Crime Statistics Bureau contridicts you. I have to go to work right now and don't have time to post their stats, but I will when I get home.

Originally posted by copen73
Kuso, I am not sure where you got your stats. But the National Crime Statistics Bureau contridicts you. I have to go to work right now and don't have time to post their stats, but I will when I get home.

Possibly, as as I said it was just something I`d read.

According to the CDC`s Mortality Reports, 2,937 children were killed in 2001 ( the latest they have online ) which comes in at 8.05 per day...still 8.05 too many IMO.

I`m just taking a stab that thats the one you are questioning......