Buy a gun, register to vote and then bring it to to work. Thank you NRA.

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
Last years gun bill was just the beginning:
Last year, the Legislature passed a bill that allows Floridians to use deadly force if they feel threatened by an attacker without first trying to escape. That prompted one gun-control group to distribute fliers at airports in Orlando and Miami warning tourists, "Do not argue unnecessarily with local people."

If this passes expect to see a jump in republican voters:

Florida legislators say they want more people to register to vote.

Just not all people.

At least that's what their actions suggest.

Their latest plan would require businesses that issue hunting and fishing licenses to also pass out voter-registration forms.

This means we'll be courting people who care enough about shooting things -- but not voting -- to fill out paperwork.

Getting more folks involved in democracy is always a noble idea. But if that's really the goal, you'd assume that the state would also be passing out voter-registration forms in more of the offices it actually runs.

What kind of registration efforts are in place, for example, at the state's Health Department offices, which serve tens of thousands of people?

"Nothing at all," said Health Department spokesman Fernando Senra.

So what's the difference here?

Well, the Health Department serves many poor people. And minorities. In other words: a lot of Democrats.

Hunters are a reliably Republican lot.

One Florida pollster estimated that more than 60 percent of hunters are Republicans. And a recent Gallup poll found that Republicans are 78 percent more likely to own guns than Democrats.

The bill sponsor, state Sen. Carey Baker, a Republican who owns a gun shop in Mount Dora, said this week that beefing up his party's voter rolls had nothing to do with this.

Conservation, he said, was his motivation for his NRA-backed measure. He wants hunters to use the ballot boxes to tell politicians to save and protect land (though obviously not the fuzzy and feathered critters who live on the land, since they want to pump 'em full of lead).

"The bottom line," Baker said, "is getting more people to vote."

OK. Well, how about amending your bill to also require similar efforts at the health offices?

Or what about the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which issues occupational licenses -- and which also said this week that it doesn't deal in voter outreach? Shouldn't manicurists, acupuncturists and veterinarians be encouraged to vote as well?

Maybe, Baker said. But he doesn't want all that on his bill.

"I have a good bill right now. I don't want to make it controversial," he said. "I don't want to mess up my bill."

State Rep. Sheri McInvale, the Democrat-turned-Republican from Orlando who is co-sponsoring the so-called "shooter voter" bill in the House, didn't eschew the idea of getting more offices involved.

But she also said she had no problem starting with hunting and fishing licenses. On the heels of the state's "motor voter" act to register voters at DMV offices, she said this proposal seems like "a natural progression."

House Majority Leader Andy Gardiner, however, sounded a little more interested in getting more offices involved quickly.

"It's a good point," he said. "To me, the more people we can get to vote, the better."

We'll see what actually passes. Health Department patients, after all, don't have quite the lobby that gun owners do.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-maxwell0206feb02,0,6519315.column?page=2&coll=orl-news-col


Well I guess this is better than the bill requiring employers to allow guns in the work place.

Here's the other bill they're trying to pass:

At issue is a law the NRA is pushing that would guarantee employees the right to bring guns to work, provided the weapons remain locked in their cars. It's part of a nationwide campaign by the powerful pro-gun group to ensure a company can't force its employees to give up their Second Amendment rights.

But the idea has generated fierce opposition from the state's deep-pocketed business lobby, which calls it a gross infringement on their private-property rights. Leaders of the state Chamber of Commerce voted unanimously Monday to oppose the proposal, and the president of the Florida Retail Federation says the issue has generated unprecedented opposition among the group's nearly 12,000 members, which include Walt Disney World, Wal-Mart Stores and Publix Super Markets.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-guntowork0806feb08,0,6714843.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-state

Remember be nice to Mickey when you go to disney world, he may be packing.

Also, do you want to fire a guy with a gun sitting in his car?
 
This is why I now refuse to visit Florida and spend money there. I'm not going someplace that's going to attract right-wing nut jobs that like to pack heat.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Man are you fuckers a bunch of pansies.

My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.[/QUOTE]

Classic.

I love Florida. Maybe the criminals will think twice before brandishing their illegally obtained weapon when they know grandma's got a 38 in the glove box.

[quote name='EZB'] This is why I now refuse to visit Florida and spend money there. I'm not going someplace that's going to attract right-wing nut jobs that like to pack heat.[/QUOTE]

As opposed to the criminals who like to pack heat whether it's illegal or not. You're the real nut job.
 
Mulligan, what's the possible benefit for people bringing to work? Sure they can't bring them in the building, but don't you think that increases the danger of work? Particularly when incidents occur involving an aggressive person who has a gun sitting in his/her car?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."

-Al Gore [/QUOTE]

PAD, you need to fix your sig. That's a dan quayle quote, not an al gore one.
 
Can I buy a BFG 9000?

And what purpose does the second bill serve? Is their an epidemic of people with guns in their cars being fired or something?
 
Look up the bills, they're all real. The first and last one were simply news, the middle one was op-ed. But it voiced an opinion I agreed with, it's all factual. Look up the bills yourself if you don't agree.
 
PAD, you need to fix your sig. That's a dan quayle quote, not an al gore one.

Duly noted, it was listed on 2 different Al Gore fansites. Upon googling the quote in unquestionably was falsely attributed to Gore on 9/15/95.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Mulligan, what's the possible benefit for people bringing to work? Sure they can't bring them in the building, but don't you think that increases the danger of work? Particularly when incidents occur involving an aggressive person who has a gun sitting in his/her car?



PAD, you need to fix your sig. That's a dan quayle quote, not an al gore one.[/QUOTE]
I think in reality, anybody who was a nutjob already brings a gun in their car anyway.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I think in reality, anybody who was a nutjob already brings a gun in their car anyway.[/QUOTE]
Spoken like someone who lives safely in the suburbs.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Mulligan, what's the possible benefit for people bringing to work? Sure they can't bring them in the building, but don't you think that increases the danger of work? Particularly when incidents occur involving an aggressive person who has a gun sitting in his/her car?[/QUOTE]

That's a fair question I don't think I have an answer for. Except that any violent prone person who would shoot up his place of employment and knowingly bring a gun to work to commit murder will do so regardless of whether it's legal to do so or not. Perhaps if he knew that someone else might be armed, or could be within moments, he would think twice about brandishing his own.

I guess we'll never really understand until someone starts shooting up a McDonald's and a law abiding citizen takes the bastard out before he has a chance to reload.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I think in reality, anybody who was a nutjob already brings a gun in their car anyway.[/QUOTE]
So, we may as well just legalize it to appease the nutjobs?
 
[quote name='kakomu']So, we may as well just legalize it to appease the nutjobs?[/QUOTE]

No, we legalize it to let the crack shots eliminate the nutjobs.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']No, we legalize it to let the crack shots eliminate the nutjobs.[/QUOTE]
And let the grandmas with .38 specials eliminate the crack shots?
 
[quote name='kakomu']And let the grandmas with .38 specials eliminate the crack shots?[/QUOTE]

As long as she remembers to bring her reading glasses.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Classic.

I love Florida. Maybe the criminals will think twice before brandishing their illegally obtained weapon when they know grandma's got a 38 in the glove box.



As opposed to the criminals who like to pack heat whether it's illegal or not. You're the real nut job.[/QUOTE]

Or maybe instead of simply taking her purse or car, they'll shoot first and not even give her the chance to either reach for the gun or to simply give them the items they seek.

And for the record, I'm a gun owner but that has to be the worst argument for concealed carry laws out there.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Spoken like someone who lives safely in the suburbs.



That's a fair question I don't think I have an answer for. Except that any violent prone person who would shoot up his place of employment and knowingly bring a gun to work to commit murder will do so regardless of whether it's legal to do so or not. Perhaps if he knew that someone else might be armed, or could be within moments, he would think twice about brandishing his own.

I guess we'll never really understand until someone starts shooting up a McDonald's and a law abiding citizen takes the bastard out before he has a chance to reload.[/QUOTE]
Just so you know, I don't live in the suburbs. I have no problem with this law, I was just saying that anyone who was going to really bring a gun is going to bring a gun anyway, regardless of the law.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Just so you know, I don't live in the suburbs. I have no problem with this law, I was just saying that anyone who was going to really bring a gun is going to bring a gun anyway, regardless of the law.[/QUOTE]

gotcha. Then I guess we're in agreement.

And as far as Speedy is concerned...

So you think that expanding right to carry laws will cause more murder ? I'm sorry to disagree with you but the facts tell a different story.


http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=60

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

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm
 
I don't find much credibility in those numbers.

Look up a study by Dan Black and Daniel Nagin. According to them, removing Florida from the equation produced NO CHANGE in murders and rapes.

ALso, the junk science in Lott's analysis covers up a few facts. First of all, the places with "shall issue" laws are places that already had really lax firearm laws. Second, the same places were not and still aren't epicenters of crime. Last, the variance is far too marginal to derive much of anything at all!

Frank Zimring and Gordon Hawkins also write a lot on the issue.

I wish I could link to the article I read, but I found it off of Infotrac. If someone has it and wishes to check it out, the article is:

Myths of murder and multiple regression. by Ted Goertzel. Jan-Feb 2002, vol 26, pg 19
 
More evidence against those theories:

Poor Data Hampers Gun Policies by Fox Butterfield

A comprehensive study released yesterday by the National Academy of Sciences says a major national effort to improve knowledge about firearms is needed before anyone can judge the effectiveness of a variety of policies, from gun control to laws allowing people to carry concealed handguns.

The study, by the academy's National Research Council, found that accurate research on what works to reduce gun violence had been made impossible by a lack of information on gun ownership and by scholars' lack of access to information like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' data on guns traced to crimes.

The National Rifle Association and its supporters in Congress have long opposed collecting information on gun ownership and sharing the bureau's gun-tracing data, describing such steps as an invasion of privacy.

Charles F. Wellford, chairman of the committee that wrote the report, said that among the major questions that need answers are whether gun violence could be better controlled if there were more restrictions on who can buy firearms, whether customers should be limited to buying one gun at a time and whether safety locks work.

''These and many related policy questions cannot be answered definitively because of large gaps in the existing science base,'' said Mr. Wellford, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Maryland. ''The available data are too weak to support strong conclusions.'' He spoke at a news conference in Washington, where the report was released.

The report was particularly skeptical of research claiming that homicide rates fall in states that pass laws permitting its citizens to carry concealed weapons. ''The committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases violent crime,'' it said.

Thirty-four states now have such laws, some of them based on research by John R. Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Lott has written that allowing people to carry concealed weapons does reduce violent crime, but his findings have been disputed by many other researchers.

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the N.R.A., which supports the right to carry concealed weapons, said, ''I think these laws have been tremendously effective.''

Mr. Arulanandam said: ''This is not rocket science, but common sense. The whole purpose of these laws is to allow people to defend themselves when the need arises.''

The report also cast doubt on research about how often guns are used to deter crimes. Some research has found that guns are used 100,000 times a year to defend against a crime, but other research has put that figure as high as 2.5 million times a year, the report pointed out.

Such a wide variation calls the accuracy of the findings into doubt, leaving it unclear what is actually being measured, the study said.

But it also questioned some favorite findings by advocates of gun control. It said, for example, that there was not enough evidence to conclude, as gun control advocates say, that owning a gun increases the risk of a gun injury.

In addition, the report cast doubt on the effectiveness of some law enforcement programs to reduce gun violence that have been widely praised, like a Boston gun project in the 1990's that focused on juvenile gun possession, and Project Exile in Richmond, which gave stiffer federal sentences to criminals arrested in possession of a gun.

These programs seem to have reduced gun violence, but they were confined to a single city and there is not enough evidence that they could be replicated nationally, the report said.

''My sense is that people on both sides of the debate won't like the report,'' said Jens Ludwig, an associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University. ''The main thrust of it is, we don't know anything about anything, and more research is needed.''

The report was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, a branch of the Justice Department; the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Joyce Foundation; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.


http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0E17F63F540C748DDDAB0994DC404482
(I know the link leads to only part of the article, but I got the full article from LexisNexis/EBSCO).
 
I can understand the lack of conclusive evidence becuase of faulty data models. But the 'study', or lack thereof, plainly states that there is no conclusiveness to either claim of increase or decrease of gun violence. In the absence of proof, I'll opt on the side of allowing people to protect themselves.

Interestingly, the article quotes the unavailibility of some data from the ATF on gun ownership and implies that the NRA is hampering the study as a result. Being in the second and third parragraph of the article, it gives weight to this part of the analysis that the study did not. The study itself states that "The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed" for both sides of the issues.

Then the article uses different phrasing to frame the points of the report:
The report was particularly skeptical of research claiming that homicide rates fall in states that pass laws permitting its citizens to carry concealed weapons.
compared to a more passive statement:
But it also questioned some favorite findings by advocates of gun control.

Which tells me there is a glaring bias in the article written about a report that was very balanced and objective. In any case, I will concede my point due to lack of evidence and suggest SpeedyG give us some enlightenment on his own argument for or against right to carry laws instead of just lambasting others'.
 
bread's done
Back
Top