Dude, you've got so much mixed fruit up in the air here, it defies serious and reasoned inquiry. Your argument is completely a "straw man" in both character and content.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man

Remember, public health and safety isn't about individual rights. In fact, it is just such considerations that limit or otherwise qualify individual rights, e.g., seat belt and no-texting-while-driving laws. It's not all about YOU! It's about securing a compelling government interest in public health, safety and welfare by controlling collective behavior in a defined environment in aggregate, through as judicious, unobtrusive and unintrusive means as constitutionally-consistent public policy allows.

Here's an argument I can deal with:

You don't need to know every law; you just need to read the signs.

Most of you need to re-read by follow-up post, which states in pertinent part:

This provision would cover those fond burger joints, pizzerias and other alcohol-serving establishments that, if you're willing to take your families there, chances are they aren't prone to violence to begin with. And, if they are violence prone "hot spots", chances are they will have airport-styled magnetometers at the door like Club Karma in Minneapolis does, or they will have a similar inspection mechanism (if they are as responsible as many rowdy clubs are). Local government control of posting gun bans is designed to impose a modicum of responsibility on those exceptional establishments that simply don't want to incur the costs of violence mitigation.

Adding guns to youth, improvidence, inexperience, raging hormones and the immaturity that characterizes college students as a class, is simply adding fuel to the fire. Expecting enough pistol-packing college students to drink in bars and stay at or under .04 BAC, such that the threat of a shots-fired incident in a crowded area is rendered negligible, is not only pollyannish and idealistic, it's ludicrous.

College students are nonviolent compared to whom, The Hells Angles? (no hyperbole intended)? Are you forgetting about the Spring Jam riot at the University of Minnesota in both 2009 http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/26/uofmriot/ and 2003? http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/26/uofmriot/

How about the U of M Student shot while leaving an campus-related Halloween party? http://www.bridgelandnews.org/7507

How about the collegiate soccer players who were shot before a game? http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/2008-06-25-853934265_x.htm

Any cursory review of the worst school shootings in the last 10 years http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266371,00.html suggests that school gun violence without alcohol doesn't stop at the high school doors, thus ensuring that college-bound students, many of whom are leaving home and learning to drink in earnest for the first time, suddenly and miraculously become pacifists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks#College_and_university_school_incidents

Besides purely pejorative characterizations and off-the-cuff commentary made by the less wel-reasoned among you, can any of you detractors produce a cogent, well-researched argument like your thoughtful counterparts? What are your sources and bases of support for your points? Spurious and irresponsible allegations of "anti-freedom", "elitism" and other ideologically-based labels and buzzwords of right-wing demagoguery do nothing to advance the state of knowledge regarding concealed carry.

If nothing else, local control of gun carrying, when consistent with the strictures and rubric of state law, is the most liberated form of government available. Everyone who approaches a posted establishment while possessing a gun is treated equally. Your rights to where you can carry are already determined by state law. Giving local governments the authority to revoke the arbitrary discretion of individual property owners is not discriminatory within the purview of Title II of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§2000a et seq. ) (as amended):


Please note, however, the distinction of "private clubs":

Hi, Uncle Harley.

You've got a lot here to read and think about, all right. But first, tell us a bit more about yourself.

What do you carry? How?

When did you start to carry?

Who was your instructor?

What do you shoot for fun?

What do you do for a living?

You will find that "liberalism" is no barrier to full membership and consideration here.

Some of us less "wel-reasoned" individuals were expressing opinion and not necessarily engaged in argument.

I don't care to engage you in argument, I don't agree with you. (I can cite that opinion if needed.)

I may be a little crabby from lack of sleep but let me just say it now. Bull shit. Oh, and welcome.

Since you're calling out logical fallacies, this is a hasty generalization.


http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/general.html

Do you have some statistics to back your statement, or simply anecdotes?

It's a very "textured" opinion, indeed, UH.

But I fear you are so busy admiring the lumber in your forest, you can't see the trees.

First, a healthy liberal believes in the power of the individual, and that the collective power of all the individuals in a society trumps the power of the state.

All RKBA advocates believe that the right of self-defense is universal, and incumbent upon citizenship.

Therefore RKBA should apply wherever state power applies, because in a free society, the state exists to serve its people. The state should use its power to enforce RKBA, not to inhibit it.

All your excursions into law and policy do not address this fundamental difference in philosophy. Allowing state policy to pick and choose who has self-determination and self-defense rights is not liberalism, but its opposite, elitism.

Yakking on about your policy ideas, and so early in your membership here, whilst name-calling others you have not yet even met in person is in bad form, and can get you labeled a troll. While healthy, spirited discussion is welcome here, you will find argumentativeness is not.

_______ are natural _________ are good, not everybody feeds them, but everybody should. Apologies to George Michael. ah, well, another crack at it -



Yuppers. The signs, the law right now allows signs & specifies their content, legal weight, and the procedures relevant to them. The problem with local governments putting up signs like private entities can right now is . . . it is illegal. Sorry Uncle Harley, you are advocating breaking the law, passing municipal laws in violation of a state law that has a clause nullifying such actions . . . or changing state law. Now if we go changing state law, if we crack this open, you've got to be aware that the winds of change are blowing against you. We might more likely end up with a more permissive system. Maybe something like PA where open carry is legal for any adult who can legally posses a firearm & you only need a permit if you want the option to conceal. Of course we could always go the distance and do away with permits altogether, if you can legally own a gun you can carry it as you please. . . the couterpart of that would be to give the laws pertaining to folks not supposed to have firearms sharper teeth. You know, freedom for the law abidding and actually punishing the law breakers It is a fabulous can of worms. maybe while we're rooting around in the tackle box we could get some reform on NFA. Maybe shoot for "Shall Sign Off" NFA transfers - If a person isn't prohibited by law the CLEO must sign off. While we're at it howabout we drop the C&R requirements for Machineguns and Short Barreled Shotguns and open the door for Silencers. If we are going to go poking around and changing state law, punishing law abidding folks isn't the only direction we can go. We can leave the law as it stands or . . . we can open things up and see how things pan out. I like the way the winds are blowing right now, Uncle Harley . . . it sounds like you are a bit late. The wind stopped blowing in a direction that favors your position a few years ago.


(per Andrews request on page 4, _______ references removed)

Nope. Fundamental human rights are fundamental human rights. The right to self defense is such a right, and one explicitly recognized by the Constitution.


I don't grant the premise. That's a statist view.

Well, seat belt laws are clearly nanny-statism, because if I die in a car crash, that hurts only me. Texting while driving poses a clear risk, unlike the malum prohibidum offense of owning a scary-looking gun.


As long as we're talking fallacies, you're "begging the question." You presume that some form of gun control can benefit "public health, safety and welfare." You're demonstrably wrong. Just ask the CDC. They couldn't find ANY conclusive evidence that ANY gun control law had reduced crime, injury or death (well, as I recall, they found a faint correlation to gun control and middle-age-white-guy suicide).



Public health and safety might be greatly served by proactively locking up all young black males, too, wouldn't it? After all, they commit crimes far out of proportion to their population. So let's do it!

Oh, wait... that wouldn't be judicious, unobtrusive, unintrusive nor constitutionally-consistent.

Neither would your proposal to unevenly infringe people's civil rights on the basis of age, proximity of colleges, population density or socioeconomic status.


I agree that it is much easier to stick to arguments you think you can refute, but that's going to have to be your issue to deal with.

I had no idea I would ever carry, otherwise I would have never gotten rid of my Colt 1911A1 .45 ACP. That just about says it all. Economical, easy to find ammo for, easy on the ears in confined space, and they finish the job that the Army got rid of their 9mm's for. I only carry concealed, and you don't want to know what that is.

I started carrying in January '09 after one of my next-door neighbors was brutally ambushed at gunpoint by two assailants just after she parked in her detached garage. Since then, I've been watching the local police statistics, and we average a robbery about every other week out here.

My initial instructors were the U.S. Army Military Police School when it was at Ft. McClellan, AL. I was later trained in "shoot-don't shoot" and other nuances of lethal force by a host of Metro Area police department training instructors that were in my National Guard unit in St. Paul. Bill Finney coached me on the proper grip, sight picture, sight alignment, etc., associated with combat shooting. My CC permit instructor was Patrick Farrell.

I don't shoot for fun, only proficiency, and I wish I could afford to do it more.

I'm semi-retired (code for put out to pasture) due to structural unemployment, age, and health conditions that even with "reasonable accommodation" considered, they make me a very unappealing job candidate benefits-wise; not to mention the fact that I have a penchant for speaking truth to power and telling the emperor when he isn't wearing any clothes. Please see my blog at http://www.blogs.myspace.com/uncleharley50. I'm currently engaged in the public interest research referred to in my initial post. Hopefully, I'll go back to school and breath new life into my criminology credentials, and then do crime analysis and crime prevention work.

Pointlessly argumentative. It's common knowlege. Give your ego a rest. The literature is so replete with statistics THAT INSURANCE ACTUARIES BANK ON IT. Insurance companies are so highly regulated that they'd never get away with charging different rates for drivers under 25 if the issue wasn't a well-settled matter.

Start with google, you can't help but find something. It's well-known scientific fact that most people's brains aren't fully physiologically developed until their early to mid-twenties, particularly in the areas governing the cognitive functions of reason and judgment. Start here with this excellent overview from the National Juvenile Justice Network. ---> http://www.njjn.org/media/resources/public/resource_242.pdf

I've never quite understood the point behind passing laws concerning the possession of firearms in certain areas, because discharge of firearms in those areas would be unsafe. I'll fully agree that discharging a centerfire rifle in an apartment complex is far too risky to allow. But if the problem is discharge, why not regulate discharge? Minnesota statute allows local communities to pass ordinances that regulate discharge, why is that not enough?

Pointlessly argumentative. It's common knowlege. Give your ego a rest. The literature is so replete with statistics THAT INSURANCE ACTUARIES BANK ON IT. Insurance companies are so highly regulated that they'd never get away with charging different rates for drivers under 25 if the issue wasn't a well-settled matter.

That is actually rather funny. Give your ego a rest. Good advice for all methinks.

However, your "common knowledge" and auto rates is just plain wrong as it applies to permit holders...and that is the point...not cars. Besides, I do not give a rats ass about cars...that is not a fundamental constitutional right that you abrogate by some statistic.

In the States that allow residents 18+ to get a carry permit, there is not one iota of statistical basis to show that the younger permit holders are more of a danger to themselves or society. It is common knowledge in the carry community. You sir, are no friend of gun owners. Either you are a troll, and it looks like you are having fun being one, or so horribly misguided and uninformed as to not be worth arguing about.

You see, people in the main (here anyway) are not looking for more reasonable ways to infringe on fundamental rights as apparently you are. You won't find anyone here up to your intellectual arguments because no one accepts your premise. It is common knowledge.

Crap...I just tripped on my ego.

Since you enjoy baiting, I just want to let you know that some of us are done fishing. Enjoy your day.

I'm a college student, just 21, have my permit, never even been .001 BAC while carrying. I do go out quite a bit, but its just a no-issue for me, no carrying if I'm drinking, and no drinking if I'm carrying.

No difference between a college freshman and an 18 year old US Army Private, except one can carry a gun during everyday activities...

College students are adults. Some of them may not want to act like it, and then they find out that the courts don't give a shit about their tuition dollars or GPA. That's fine. But the rest shouldn't get penalized...

-Mark

The issue isn't fundamental rights. The issue is your reasoning. You interjected subjected matter (e.g., voting rights) into a context which is logically incongruent.



And that's self-serving ideology run amok.


Again, your view on seat belt laws is clearly self-centered. The waste of taxpayer money used for excessive emergency medical services, and other medical treatment rendered to underinsured scofflaws due to their belligerence, is well documented. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. All that expense has to factored into insurance premium rates that everyone else has to pay. You haven't even considered the economic loss to dependents due to disability or loss of life.


As long as were talking fallacious reasoning here, you have shifted both your level of analysis and your units of analysis to American society at large instead of a target population in a defined context. My reasoning was based on reasonable generalization of known facts about youth being paired with inherently dangerous instrumentality and alcohol. Moreover, my reasoning didn't "beg the question".




Age is irrelevant. If you're 100 years old, you still can't carry a gun into a college town bar.

There is no causal relationship of skin color to a predisposition toward criminality. The correlation of an independent variable and a dependent variable does not prove a casual relationship. Again, you've made a "straw man" argument.

Your other objections are purely specious, and the subject matter thereof do not represent protected classes of individuals under the U.S. Civil Rights Act.



A reasonable person simply can't rationally argue with dogma, ideology and inanity. That's your issue to deal with.