published Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Locked and loaded vs. jobs

Tennessee's far-right legislators in cahoots with the National Rifle Association are wrongly pushing for the latest piece of the NRA's guns-everywhere agenda -- a new state law that would require both public and private employers to allow their workers to keep their locked and loaded guns in cars in their employer-provided parking lots. Employers, mindful of this nation's tragic history of armed and angry employees who charge into the workplace to shoot, kill and wound fellow employees, reasonably oppose the law. The state's saner GOP leaders in the Legislature and the governor's office are locked in a stalemate, and in search of a compromise.

Here's the problem: The NRA and its lackey legislators don't want a compromise. The NRA just wants its way.

The NRA and its legislative lackeys are used to winning. As in other states, they've gotten Tennessee's controlling Republicans, aided by some scared Democrats, to accept newly every new piece rolled out by the NRA in its national guns-everywhere agenda.

Gun-carry advocates have won gun-carry rights -- concealed or visible -- in national parks, state and county parks, and local parks in consenting municipalities; in bars that serve alcohol, and in most public spaces.

And they're continually pushing the envelope. Some want school teachers, professors and even students on college campuses to be able to carry guns to class. They're also working for broad reciprocity of gun-carry rights with other states under the sway of the NRA, so people with gun-carry permits can claim gun-rights in other states when they travel -- never mind that some states require little or no background tests or training.

Tennessee's largest employers, collectively employing more than one million Tennessee workers, and including FedEx and Volkswagen here, rightly oppose the proposed law to allow workers to store their loaded guns in employee parking lots. They also oppose a companion bill that would give gun owners the right to sue employers and most any other agency or institution for monetary damages for blocking employees' rights to store their guns in their employers' parking lots or lots owned by other agencies.

As VW's general manager of security, Reid Albert, told Senate Commerce Committee members on Tuesday, "gun violence in the workplace is a real and ever-present threat." Passage of the law would jeopardize employers' rights to control their property, he said, would "interfere with our ability to take necessary actions to ensure the safety of all our employees." His view is self-evident.

The increasingly vitriolic controversy (one leading gun-rights advocate said state leaders seeking a compromise were "an axis of evil") shouldn't be hard to resolve in the public interest.

The current gun-friendly U.S. Supreme Court, which proclaimed a personal right under the Second Amendment for citizens to own guns in its 2008 landmark 5-4 decision overturning Washington, D.C.'s district-wide gun ban, emphasized in that ruling the legitimacy of government rights to prohibit carrying guns in sensitive public places and to establish reasonable gun-control regulations.

Thus the state's and employers' interest in protecting their own property rights clearly has legal weight. The Legislature should respect that balance, and block laws that would bestow unbridled rights to gun owners at great risk to the common public good. The question is whether the Legislature will at last recognize such reasonable boundaries on gun carry.

Hanging in the balance, of course, is not just public safety. Also at stake is the state's ability to attract new businesses, national and foreign, that believe a balance must be observed. If the Legislature can't bring itself to protect broad public interests, it will jeopardize our job base, and public safety.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
joneses said...

I will use the same logic you disgusting liberals used when you thought Obama's attack on religous freedom was about contraception. You liberals screamed "Catholic women are already taking contraception". With this in mind the people who own guns already have them in their cars so what difference does it make?

March 8, 2012 at 6:10 a.m.
moon4kat said...

joneses, can't you have a civilized discussion without resorting to name-calling and gross exaggeration? Why must you call fellow citizens "disgusting" just because they disagree with you? Also, I don't recall anyone "screaming" about Catholic women.
Your views are undermined by the use of distortions and ad homimem attacks.

March 8, 2012 at 7:51 a.m.
conservative said...

"The current gun-friendly U.S. Supreme Court, which proclaimed a personal right under the Second Amendment for citizens to own guns in its 2008 landmark 5-4 decision overturning Washington, D.C.'s district-wide gun ban"

This writer habitually displays the arrogant Socialist mindset of Lieberals. Notice the sneer when he uses "current gun-friendly" describing our Supreme Court. The Second Amendment clearly gives citizens the RIGHT to own a gun but he wishes that there were at least one more Lieberal on the court to rule otherwise and take away that right.

Lieberals have contempt for the original meaning of our Constitution and will always reveal this contempt when they speak or write on the matter.

March 8, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.

If I'm going to wish for a person on the Supreme Court, it'll be for somebody to overturn Citizens United (the right of Corporations to buy elections) or Kelo (the Right of Corporations to buy the government into seizing your property).

I'm not concerned at all about Heller or McDonald, except to say how they show that the US Constitution is not a good model, since the writing in the Second Amendment is not sufficiently unambiguous. Certain states do a much better job of expressing the sentiment. But I've no concern for them as a legal matter.

March 8, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
tipper said...

On one side there are those who declare individual gun ownership is too liberal and leads to more killings simply because a gun is obtainable. On the other side there are those who see the 2nd Amendment as a sacred right to own and bear arms. This issue has been debated for decades. There will be no conclusive solution that will favor either side. It is a wedge issue that is intended to distract people from the real issues at hand--the economy, energy policy, foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, political system overhaul, and on and on. Deaths attributed to guns are tragic, but they are usually initiated by people who are imbalanced and dysfuntional. We should look at the real reasons in our country that create fertile ground for some of these problems.

March 8, 2012 at 11:53 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Good commentary and I agree with FedEX and Volkswagon. Employers have a legitimate right, need and legal responsibility to create a safe work environment for their employees. Since gun violence in the workplace is a real life safety issue, responsible employers like FedEx and Volkswagon are forced to address the problem, and a policy prohibiting guns on the employer’s property is the safest, most efficient and cost effective way to resolve the problem.

March 8, 2012 at 12:08 p.m.

I partially agree with the author of the article. This legislation is not right. I disagree with the author by saying it doesn't go far enough. It would be perfect legislation if it lifted completely the ban on firearms at work or anywhere else. It is the helplessness of the "armed and angry employees'" co-workers that embolden them to come into work guns blazing. If each and every one of his co-workers were armed, it would be the rare psychopath that took this tack. Have you ever heard of it happening at a police dept or some other place where most of the employees are packing? Ever heard of it occuring at a gun club?

The real problem is an overabundance of helpless sheeple. There will always be psychopaths that will kill people with or without guns. Just about anything at all can be a weapon as demonstrated by our ancient ancestors through centuries of pre-gun warfare. It is people/societies who make themselves hapless targets for the predators. These killers will always exist no matter how many laws are passed. If someone is going to ignore murder laws, gun control laws aren't even going to be an afterthought.

So the real problem is defenseless people who can do nothing to defend themselves due to legislated weakness.

March 8, 2012 at 2:49 p.m.
joneses said...

So Fed Ex and Volkswagen do not agree we should be able to protect ourselves going to and from work?

March 8, 2012 at 4:14 p.m.

Of course not. We have the police only minutes away to stop that bullet only seconds from your heart. Leave the cleanup to the professionals.

March 8, 2012 at 4:26 p.m.
EaTn said...

joneses....Fed Ex and Volkswagen are simply protecting their constitution rights to prohibit whatever they want from being brought onto their property--just like you have the right to prohibit someone from coming onto your property armed.

March 8, 2012 at 4:35 p.m.

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater: The people engaging in violence at their workplaces right now ARE the violent psychopaths. It is a rare situation already. Changing the system by adding guns to everybody to prevent a rare problem...what are you going to do if it doesn't go your way?

You'd better be sure about your solution actually working.

It's like domestic violence homicides. The vast majority of them are completely avoidable, not simply with a firearm, but by numerous courses of conduct that could be changed to avoid the problem. There's certainly a pathology involved, but there's other solutions to the problem besides firearms, many of which would work better if you could change them first.

March 8, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.

EaTN, Have you not seen the news stories about homeowners being sued by burglars after being shot or injured in some way while robbing them? You shouldn't assume common sense will prevail in this day and age. There are forces in the country now bent on it's destruction and you defending yourself is a detriment to their plans.

March 8, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater, and the other side is the news stories about a homeowner who shot someone they only believed was an intruder, but was a family member or neighbor, even a police officer.

There's tragedy on both sides.

Besides, anybody can file a lawsuit. Winning one is another matter.

March 8, 2012 at 5:17 p.m.


I agree that there are better ways that would work in certain situations, but they won't work for all situations. While I am not certain my solution will work, I know more anti-gun laws definitely won't work. Criminals and psycopaths don't care about laws. Only honest men obey the law. Why would you wan't to keep guns out of the hands of honest men?

MtnLaurel, Anti-gun laws have never convinced a criminal/psychopath to put his gun down and choose a knife or club or lead pipe or candlestick. The lack of a law prohibiting it won't encourage criminals or psychopaths to trade their various blunt objects or sharp pointies for a gun. Killers are going to kill no matter what laws are in place. Prisoners don't have guns in prison, and yet they still find ways while being restricted and watched to kill other prisoners. Only an armed man can defend himself properly against another armed man. Laws that restrict people from being prepared to defend themselves only allow criminals to do what they want with minimal risk.

Thankfully, honest men still outnumber the dishonest. A majority of armed, honest men, go a long way toward keeping the criminally inclined honest.

March 8, 2012 at 5:41 p.m.
Lr103 said...

joneses said... "With this in mind the people who own guns already have them in their cars so what difference does it make?

What a childish, immature and ignorant observation you have sir!! When has someone gone into the workplace and killed several co-workers with a box condoms or package of birth control pill?

Don't forget, it was conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia appointed by Rondald Reagan in 1986 who helped craft the rule in Employment vs Smith that "religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws” in 1990. His son, Paul, would be admitted to the priesthood in 1996. Friar Paul is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington and is currently assigned as Parochial Vicar of St. Rita parish in Alexandria, Virginia. According to Catholic Profiles.

Here's an example of some of you law abiding license to carry fruit loops, quick with the trigger nut jobs.

** 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by a Neighborhood Watch captain inside his own gated Orlando, Florida community where he was living with his father(some news outlets say he was visiting his father and soon to be stepmother), stepmother and little brother, according to the family's lawyer.

>Martin was shot after returning home from a local convenience store, where he bought snacks including Skittles candy requested by his 13-year-old brother, Chad.

Read more:

If you'll kill an innocent child innocently walking through a neighborhood under nothing more than a suspicion, only the Gods know what you'd do to a fellow co-worker you've bumped heads with!

March 8, 2012 at 5:49 p.m.

HWNB, The instances of accidental shootings is rarer than the co-workers scenario. The more likely scenario is a criminal gets surprised and killed or scared off and the homeowner receives an even more solid testimony to the wisdom of owning and using a gun to defend your property and person.

March 8, 2012 at 5:50 p.m.
Lr103 said...

Actually, Flyin' Most gun owners are killed by intruders with their own guns. The rest usually in situations of murder suicide, when that responsible gun owner cracks; murderhin his entire family then himself. I purposely use the gender him because most all murder suicides by guns are committed by the responsible, gun toting male in the family.

March 8, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.

Lr103, It seems there is more to that story than the portion you pulled out. Seems a witness is describing it as a matter of self defense.

" A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Read more:

Seems you might have made my argument for me. Only time will tell.

March 8, 2012 at 6:04 p.m.

Really lr103? MOST gun owners are killed by inturders with their own guns? That's like saying most intruders are black murderers. Completely made up with no basis in fact.

March 8, 2012 at 6:08 p.m.
Lr103 said...

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater said... Lr103, It seems there is more to that story than the portion you pulled out. Seems a witness is describing it as a matter of self defense

Witness or friend covering for a friend? It doesn't matter. The watch captain had no reason to stop an individual because he's naturally suspicious of people who has a different shade of skin than his own. As a neigborhood watch captain he's to only observe the situation and call police. If patrolling a neighborhood they're suppose to go in groups of two or more. Even then they're not allowed to carry weapons, such as a gun. Rules! Rules! Must be followed at all times to avoid such a tragedy or the purpose of having a neighborhood watch is lost.

BUT OF COURSE!! You'd have to go to more than one news site, unlike you running to faux news.

Tell us, enlightened one, if you were stopped by someone, other than LE, and they attempted to detain you with a gun, what instinct do you think would kick in? You have no idea if the individual is friend or foe? What if it were YOUR child being stopped and possibly held at gun point for no logical reason? Think about that.

March 8, 2012 at 6:17 p.m.

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater, your solution won't work for all situations either. But your solution does have some intrinsic risks to it, and that's why it warrants consideration. I think you mistyped that last question, but it does lead to a situation...the honest fool. A fool can be honest, but do very foolish and dangerous things.

Which is why you're mistaken about the effectiveness of gun control laws. Like any number of safety rules, they are more about avoiding incidences than they are about direct prevention. People habitually obey the rules, no warning label or stop sign will make you STOP but if you get into the habit, it's less trouble all around. Is it going to stop the dedicated criminals? Perhaps not, but neither might your campaign of self-defense. Most criminals already want to avoid such dangers, that's why they will burglarize an empty house instead. Somebody who chooses violent confrontation has already gauged such risks, and decided what they want to do. I am just not convinced it would reduce crime sufficiently.

And I am not at all confident that the number of responsible exceeds the number of fools. That means weighing whatever benefit might come from your standard versus the price of fools with more guns may not come out in balance for gun use.

Finally, if you want to argue for a look at statistics, you really ought to offer some sources. I was just pointing out the stories of LAWSUITS are matched with stories of shootings in MISTAKEN self-defense. If you're going to say there is more of one or another, please tell us which sources you used. I was just pointing out their existence, and deliberately avoided any comparative statement myself.

Which wasn't even about co-workers with guns, but about news stories involving lawsuits. You brought something else into the discussion. I didn't even see a reason for such comparisons, isn't the thought of killing somebody in a mistake bad enough on its own? It certainly ought to at least weigh more heavily against lawsuits than 1:1.

March 8, 2012 at 6:20 p.m.
Lr103 said...

FlyingPurpleSheepleEater said... Really lr103? MOST gun owners are killed by inturders with their own guns? That's like saying most intruders are black murderers. Completely made up with no basis in fact.

Really? And please DO TELL how did you arrive at such a comparison? It's already been long proven. That's not my observation. That's fact. Try in on for size. I'm still LOL at your silly little comparison. Such juvenile antics!

March 8, 2012 at 6:22 p.m.

Lr103, I think you might want to qualify that statement of yours about most gun owners who killed with their own guns, though I think that intruders is a bit lower than suicide, accident, or family member. Kellerman's study wasn't a very good one.

I do agree that Kleck's numbers are a bit of a stretch as well though.

March 8, 2012 at 6:29 p.m.
Lr103 said...

happywithnewbulbs said... Lr103, I think you might want to qualify that statement of yours about most gun owners who killed with their own guns, though I think that intruders is a bit lower than suicide, accident, or family member.

It's based on past studies in situations where a homeowner confronts the alleged intruder. The intruder still has the element of surprise working in his or her favor. Most are already prepared and have anticipated the worst case scenario. We hear about the homeowner who killed the intruder, but those instances are just as rare. Where we might hear about the homeowner who killed an alleged intruder, we don't always hear about the accidental killings like the father who mistakenly shot and killed his own daughter when she jumped from a closet and shouted BOO! as a prank. When family murder suicides occur they almost always take place at the hands of individuals who were licensed to carry a weapon. This is not an attempt to take away from anyone wanting to own a gun. I've owned a few myself in my lifetime. But people have a false sense of safety that owning a gun will always protect them. When in reality, some owners are itching to use a gun no different than a criminal. They just need to go ahead to feel justified. Those are the individuals more likely to use deadly force even when it's not warranted or even against innocent citizens. There's no way to determine which license gun owner is just as likely to be trigger happy than the alleged criminal who is most likely to commit a crime.

March 8, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.

Sorry, let me be clear, I think you might want to give a source for the study.

I do agree that the sense of safety is false, though.

March 8, 2012 at 6:55 p.m.
Lr103 said...

New England Journal Of Medicine is a great source of information. Many honest studies have been overshadowed by gun rights advocates. It's a myth that increase in gun ownership decreases crime. Many people who legally own guns are no different than criminals set out to commit crimes. If and when they see the opportunity either a likely to take advantage of it.

The risks associated with household exposure to guns apply not only to the people who buy them; epidemiologically, there can be said to be “passive” gun owners who are analogous to passive smokers. Living in a home where there are guns increases the risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%. Young people who commit suicide with a gun usually use a weapon kept at home, and among women in shelters for victims of domestic violence, two thirds of those who come from homes with guns have had those guns used against them. Legislatures have misguidedly enacted a radical deregulation of gun use in the community (see map State-Specific Firearm-Related Mortality per 100,000 Persons (2005) and Current Policies Regarding Expanded Use of Lethal Force and Permissibility of Carrying Concealed Weapons. Thirty-five states issue a concealed-weapon permit to anyone who requests one and can legally own guns; two states have dispensed with permits altogether. Since 2005, a total of 14 states have adopted statutes that expand the range of places where people may use guns against others, eliminate any duty to retreat if possible before shooting, and grant shooters immunity from prosecution, sometimes even for injuries to bystanders.

Such policies are founded on myths. One is that increasing gun ownership decreases crime rates — a position that has been discredited.2 Gun ownership and gun violence rise and fall together. Another myth is that defensive gun use is very common. The most widely quoted estimate, 2.5 million occurrences a year, is too high by a factor of 10.3

March 8, 2012 at 8:23 p.m.

Such studies are riddiculous. If the aggressor/suicidal person didn't have a gun, they might have used a knife or a bat or some other equally deadly object like sharp scissors. You can't argue with the fact that criminals don't rob places where there are well armed and trained individuals. I am not suggesting everyone be allowed to carry one in public, but for those that are trained, they should be allowed to carry one. Everyone should be allowed to own one regardless of training. It's just like having a license to drive. Someone could kill you and your entire family just as dead with their car as they could with a gun. It is legal for them to own a car even if they don't have a license to drive it. Yet, only a license stands between them and the ability to wield such a deadly weapon. In fact, the chances of you dying in a car accident are so much higher than your chance of dying from an accidental/deliberate gunshot wound that cars should be considered far more dangerous than guns and be far more regulated. Why aren't they? Because cars can't defend you against tyranny. The right to own a gun is guaranteed by the second amendment. If that makes this country too dangerous for you to live comfortably in, there are always England and Australia. Please enjoy your trip.

March 9, 2012 at 9:39 a.m.
chatt_man said...

I have to agree with FPSE's statement that the above study is rediculous. It is obviously written subjectively, and even though it is the NEJM, I am suspect of how they obtain their statistics. "Living in a home where there are guns increases the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%"? Really? So my risk of commiting suicide is only 90% if I don't have a gun in my home???? I would like to know in these cases how long the gun had been in the home. I think suicide is something that someone considers over some period of time.

I also think privately owned businesses have the right to determine they don't want firearms on their premises. I also have the right to not visit, or work at those businesses. Because, I also agree that when you tell a law abiding citizen that they can't exercise the right to protect themselves, that you have created a safe-zone for criminal activity. You can be sure they don't hesitate to bring their gun to these places.

This study says that 35 states issue permits for concealed carry. This is because other recent studies have shown it to decrease crime in general. The study goes on to say that gun ownership and gun violence rise and fall together. I can believe that, the way it's written, only because it doesn't take into account there is a huge difference between gun ownership and carry permits. If you have a handgun carry permit in Tennesse (it's not called a concelaed carry permit in TN because you can carry it in plain site, how many of us do you see doing that?) you have gone thru a strict background check by the TBI and the FBI. If you had ever been caught carrying one without a permit, you will be denied your permit. If you get arrested for DUI, domestic abuse or assault, or get caught carrying it anywhere you are not supposed to, your permit is permanently revoked and you can be prosecuted.

I would rather be judged by twelve, than be carried by six. Or, see my wife and daughter taken, abused, or hurt, (in my home or out) and me be defenseless in that situation because of being outnumbered.

March 9, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.

FPSE, actually criminals DO rob such places. Usually through non-violent means instead of a pointless confrontation...but then that's what most criminals prefer to do anyway.

Why start a fight when you can surreptitiously take what you want and avoid trouble? Or even convince somebody to HAND you what you want?

Still, I've had relatively few people threaten me with a car, and it's a big stretch to twist that analogy into working. You might as well complain about rocks or sticks. They can break bones you know! And a broken bone can kill! Maybe we should just move everybody into a land of fluffy pillows...oh wait, couldn't they be used to suffocate people?

However, you just complained about a study being flawed. But so is your rhetoric regarding the statistics of vehicle deaths. Why? Because you're not comparing the usage of vehicles versus the usage of guns. I don't know about you, but I see a lot more cars used than I do guns. Almost continually. How many people won't see a gun fired this year? How many guns will sit idle in some armory? So what's the ACTUAL risk of death by car in terms of exposure versus exposure to guns? Or were you just throwing out a number without thinking about what it really meant?

Don't try to complain about somebody else's statistics when you're going to throw your own poorly considered comparisons out there. Especially one that's already been dismissed in the numerous prior arguments.

chatt_man: Please do cite those studies more specifically. And while you might prefer to be judged by twelve, guess what? To get that judgment, you would be choosing to make somebody else be carried by six. Sorry, but I'm going to prefer seeking ways to avoid those outcomes period.

Speaking from personal experience, I've never been in a situation where a firearm would have contributed anything to the situation. Even in the military. I have been in quite a few situations where it was nice to have a cell-phone though.

March 9, 2012 at 11:46 a.m.
chatt_man said...

I could not agree more with seeking ways to avoid those situations. Unfortunately, these days, they can find you easier than in the past. I too have thankfully never been in in a situation where I had to use mine. I've had a concealed/carry permit for over 26 years, and I can honestly say, it has never made me bold or act differently in any way.

I think a lot of people expect we would be "too quick to pull our gun", or "can't wait to use it". I tell people all the time... if someone was to get aggravated at me in a roadrage type incident, I would rather get my tail whipped than shoot someone. But, if there were four of them....

I'm glad you have your cell phone, and I hope you never have to use it to get someone to come 10 minutes later to fill out the report where one of your family members has been intentionally injured, or worse, by some thug or unstable person.

March 9, 2012 at 12:11 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Happy, I found this one Wiki. I agree, it's hardly where I normally go for facts.

In a 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, economics researcher John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate reduction of 8.5%, rape rate reduction of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%.[91]

In a 2003 article, Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott's conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott's tests with more complete data (and nesting the separate Lott and Mustard level and trend econometric models to create a hybrid model simultaneously calculating level and trend) yielded none of the results Lott claimed.[92] However Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence.

According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages.[93] During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009.[91] The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting.[91]

In reporting on Lott's original analysis The Chronicle of Higher Education has said that although his findings are controversial "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime.

March 9, 2012 at 12:57 p.m.

HWNB, I thought we were discussing gun crime. Why bring theft by fraud in as if it invalidates the argument that armed robbery doesn't occur at police depts? Keep standing those strawmen up and I will keep knocking them down.

I never claimed to be comparing the frequency of gun use to the frequency of automobile use. I was making a point of how foolish it is to fear a tool like a gun so much when you have a much higher chance of getting killed on your way home today due to a texting teen or drunken idiot behind the wheel of a 2000+ lb. bullet. We let 16yr olds out on their own with these death machines completely unsupervised and yet you want to deny a responsible honest adult access to a less dangerous handgun. How does that make sense? Rocks and sticks and broken bones? Really? In the top 10 list of ways you are most likely to die, none of the three make the list. How about we stick with reality instead of juvenile banalities.

March 9, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.

chatt_man, the only time I've had to use a cell phone regarding somebody being injured with a firearm was when they shot themselves by accident. It was not fatal, but yes, I certainly would have been glad to avoid it.

As for the studies, there's flaws in the ones you cited as well. In fact, if you go to Wikipedia, you can find them listed, such as for More Guns, Less Crime. They even say the Donahue one comes to a conclusion of more violence. (I dislike the focus on crime, as I've said to FPSE, non-violent crime far exceeds violent crime anyway!) Who to believe, who to believe?

FPSE, we've been discussing a lot of things. You said criminals never rob such places. I was pointing out that they do, since violence is not the only tool criminals engage in. A lot of people forget that, and focus entirely on what is really a small subset of crime.

But yes, you didn't mention such a comparison, but that does you no credit, rather is discredits your statement. You can't say "You're more likely to be killed by X" without the incidence of X mattering. Not unless you want to be completely oblivious to actual risk. Which is the kind of banality you're protesting against now.

Don't want me saying stuff that's silly? Try to avoid doing it yourself. Yes, you probably thought it was completely reasonable to say that it was more likely to die from a vehicular accident than a firearm, but it wasn't. I know it. I'm not fooled by it. If you are, shame on you for not thinking a bit more, and take a chance to learn from it.

If I had to pass as many people using guns as I do using cars, what do you think the risk of injury would do, go up or go down?

March 9, 2012 at 2:19 p.m.

Because in order to carry a gun you have to be using it? What are you talking about? You have no idea how many people you walk past or drive past that have a firearm in their cars. O.k. since you insist.... Let's take a look at the frequency of accidental shootings or murders in police buildings. Tell me how many have happened this year. How many people would you say are carrying guns in the average police building? Is it happening with enough frequency to be considered often enough for you?

As I said before, if the carriers of the handguns are trained, you will be far safer amoung a crowd of gun toting people than you will be on the road in your car.

March 9, 2012 at 3 p.m.

People carrying guns are still very infrequent, believe it or not. But no, I don't consider a simple carried gun to be of comparable risk to a car in use either. More like a parked car. Sure, accidents do happen, even with parked cars, but nowhere near as much as ones in use. I would therefore break them out separately if I were producing it.

Still, if you want to include them in your rigorous examination, go ahead and offer the statistics, just don't bundle them together without noting it.

But without even that number, you're still throwing out invalid comparisons, and expecting people to swallow it without question. But while what you're saying is true in some sense, the meaning is not what you claim it to be if you don't even bother to produce any kind of comparison to the actual incident of risk.

And if you've ever been in a police building, you'll see they go to considerable effort to keep their firearms secure. If such were done on the roads, then yes, we'd have fewer accidents and fewer fatalities, much like if all cars were driven on racetracks in specially constructed vehicles, we'd have fewer vehicular deaths.

Strangely, that's not going to happen.

Anyway, the more you make statements that don't stand up to even the most passing scrutiny, the less credible your arguments are going to be. Don't expect me to ignore it. Your rhetoric is not new, it's a trite phrase already, and it's not persuasive because I've actually thought about it, and realized how it comes up lacking.

If you want to make an argument about the risk of vehicles versus firearms, you will have to compare the actual incidence, not just proclaim the number of deaths as a bit of rhetoric and expect us to ignore the particulars. Whether or not you compare "guns being fired" or "guns being carried" well, that doesn't matter so much to me as the initial problem, which was just throwing out the deaths on its own.

March 9, 2012 at 3:19 p.m.

All the rhetoric is on your side. You counter my common sense arguments with statements that they are invalid and completely fail to invalidate them with anything that makes any sense. You use words like a politician. You use a whole lot of them and say very little. I have established that exposure to firearms handled by trained carriers does not in fact increase the chance that you will find an accidental or deliberately aimed bullet in your chest. You counter by telling me that my examples don't apply and completely fail to support your side with anything but your opinion. Blah blah blah. Let's agree to disagree and end by saying, If you give up essential liberties for temporary safety, you deserve neither.

I prefer to provide for my own safety and respect my fellow community member's rights to do the same. I trust them to use their tools safely and hope they trust me to do the same. I trust freedom far more than the police state you wish to live in. I can provide for myself. Your statements seem to indicate you want someone else to take care of you. Good luck with that. I hope your speed dialing skills save you when you need them. I hope the criminal you face offers you the chance.

March 9, 2012 at 3:44 p.m.

All the rhetoric is on one side? My, that's a statement that is invalid, and repudiated by your own next sentence. Not to mention your prior ones.

You haven't established anything. You have asserted something, not established it. Establishment would require a real and actual analysis, not just your own proclamations. Your examples? Are faulty, and I've shown why. Instead of constructively addressing the concerns I brought up, though, you decide to shift targets and attack me instead. That's not going to do anything but convince me that you don't have any real reasoning behind you, just your own rhetoric that you think means more than it does. It'd be one thing if you admitted you couldn't do that analysis, but you'd rather just deny that it'd be important. Without ever once saying why.

And no, trite phrases and wise old sayings are not better logic either.

They're just rhetoric though, and I thought it was all on your side. Using one does invalidate your initial claim as well.

Try another way to look at that quote, if you demand excessive liberties, you end up with a paucity of safety.

But anyway, I prefer not to put my safety over that of others by engaging in conduct that only offers the illusion of protection, and I have found that trusting people to use their tools safely only puts me in danger, and I do not demand or expect people to trust me either, nor do I resent it if they don't. I only hope they don't resent that I can't trust them. I have found a lot of people DO get upset over that though, as if their ego was somehow more important than my life. This is why your training suggestion won't fly, there will be far too many people who will indignantly dispute any such thing, or any expectation that they keep their firearms in a safe state. I've had far too many people who just can't understand that guns don't forgive mistakes.

Why is that?

Anyway, despite your belief to the contrary, I don't want others to take care of me, I certainly don't want somebody like you putting words into my mouth. Take care for me, sure, but don't you want to take care for the well-being of others? Is that too much to ask? I ask for it with firearms, chemicals, vehicles and electricity. As for your hopes, in my life, I haven't ever had a use for a gun in any constructive way. No criminal has ever confronted me in a way that would merit use or even the threat of force. If you find yourself in that kind of situation, I don't know about you, but I'd prefer addressing whatever is leading to that to strapping on a gun.

March 9, 2012 at 4:36 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.