Michigan Votes Forum

 We know that CPL holders are among the most law abiding of our nation’s citizens. We also know that violent criminals strongly favor the existence of “gun control” and gun-free zones which provide safe working environments for them to do what they will.

 The police, as dedicated as they are, cannot serve as our personal protectors. No place, not even schools or places of worship, is ultimately safe.  We do remember the lack of protection provided by the “no-gun” rule at Virginia Tech in the spring of 2007 and the successful defensive action taken by a female security volunteer at a Colorado Springs church later that same year.

I am a community college teacher, but I cannot legally carry in the classroom.  Obeying the law leaves me unprotected, any school or college could well have its own version of Seung- Cho.  It is even more likely that there will be a student bent on retaliating against a teacher or other school representative for a well-earned but less than satisfying grade.  I have been threatened, and several teachers have told me of having received death threats. Further, since I have no secure storage for my firearm, in the college yet out of the classroom, I must leave it locked in my car, where it is in danger of being stolen.  Sometimes my gun protects me; sometimes I protect my gun.

I will be very appreciative when HB 4348 is passed. Michigan will be a safer place.

sincerely,

cambeul41

With this law, the would be criminals and shooters will have a higher risk factor in performing there crimes, with out no gun free zones, what will they do? Gone would be the days when some one would be guaranteed the fact that you could walk in a school and at gun point or a knife do what you please until the police got there. Someone might have a gun to stop them. This could save lives. Or prevent lives from being lost. Any law that raises the risk factor in the job of being a criminal is a good law. Most important it allows law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves without a zone where they can be a guaranteed soft target..

 I agree there need to be a change in this law because oftentimes I also feel unprotected because of these restrictions. Thanks

This bill should pass.  Legal carriers are like having another layer of protection against the bad guys around all the time. 

There are many laws that attempt to make criminals from honest citizens. In Michigan citizens that have passed the mandatory course and issued a CPL are not the problem. As stated "Any law that raises the risk factor in teh job of being a criminal is a good law".

For those of us that carry concealed pistols and pick our kids up from school after a day of work, or just sitting in the parking lot waiting for them to arrive at the vehicle when picking them up are made criminals by the way the law is written that is in affect at this time. It isn't usually the places of worship, or places where people gather that the thread comes from. It is in the parking lot, or a criminal breaking into a vehicle that may have a hand gun hidden while the owner attends these functions that are problems. Some stores restrict personal carry, but as of late there sure is alot of robberies within the parking lots of the malls in the Detroit area.

We are honost law abiding citizens. It is the law at times that make us criminals and for some years now CPL carriers have proven their integrity.

 "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

 So called "gun-free zones" only encourage anyone choosing to do harm to have a greater confidence that no one will fight back. How pathetic can you get when good solid citizens who have had some training, holding a Concealed Pistol License,  are not allowed into an area to possibly fight back a determined criminal who doesn't uphold the law and chooses to do harm. Indeed, there should be no area that should be restricted. When the government makes some of your most solid Patriots and freedom loving people criminals simply because they choose to possibly give up their own life to save others, our leaders must be the most paranoid and self serving people there are. When it's illegal to fight back against armed aggression, something is very wrong with society today. No gun free zones for the Concealed Pistol License holders is a good thing, aiding in the safety of everyone everywhere.

I am not sure I buy the argument that “gun-free” zones necessarily attract mass murderers.  In most cases, those zones – churches and schools – simply represent minimally secured places where fairly large numbers of people congregate.  I don’t necessarily equate “armed” with “secured.”

The reason I’m skeptical of that claim is that mass murderers have moved well beyond the world of reason when they choose to act out their … whatever it is.  So I am not at all persuaded that eliminating gun free zones will deter mass murderers.  I do not think we ever can know the truth or reality of that proposition, no matter what we do.

I am not here, by the way, to argue over that point.  I merely wish to state my point of view on it, since so many others have used it as a jumping off point for their expressions of support for this bill.

Nonetheless, I do think repealing the “gun free zone” provision in Michigan’s CCW law is a reasonable thing to do. 

Mostly, this is for the sake of simplification, both of the law and of life for the CCW permit holder.  I think it has the additional advantage of possibly placing legitimately armed people in places like schools and churches, perhaps to ward off attackers when they decide to strike.  The real effect of the latter is a matter of pure speculation.

   I can understand you not equating armed with secure here is part of the definition of secure:  not worried: untroubled by feelings of fear, doubt, or vulnerability well guarded and fortified: well guarded and strongly fortified or protected safe: safe, especially against attack or theft.

    “The real effect of the latter is a matter of pure speculation”. Some people live life thinking it can’t happen to them. No one will rob them and no one will hurt them. The, wait until it happens mentality only creates victims. I need proof that it will first.

     Do you actually think that an arm teacher or adult couldn’t have save lives in the school where the shootings took place? Or no that is just speculation

confed:

     Do you actually think that an arm teacher or adult couldn’t have save lives in the school where the shootings took place? Or no that is just speculation

What school are you writing about?

Don't bother to answer.  I'll take the Virginia Tech massacre as an example.

In that case it certainly is possible that an armed teacher, or armed adult student, might have saved one or more lives.  And I do not discount that possibility.  It also is certainly possible that an armed teacher or adult student might not have saved any lives in the Virginia Tech massacre.  I cannot and do not discount that possibility, either.  There are a lot of "ifs" involved that could push it either way. 

The real point is that we just don't know, and we never will know if an armed teacher or adult student would have saved lives that day at Virginia Tech.  All we are left to do with that question is speculate.  It is not wise to mix up the results of speculation with reality.  It is wise to know and respect the differences between speculation and reality.

As stated before, I support this legislation.  My reason is very straightforward.  I think there is no proven benefit to maintaining the "gun free" zones, and I think maintaining the "gun free" zones in the law unduly complicates both the law and life for CCW permit holders.  I support simplification.

By the way, I am well aware of life's little and big hazards, threats, etc.  I simply am in no way persuaded that running around armed with a gun is my only or best protection or security against them.  The fact that I've managed to survive to senior citizen status with that belief persuades me I have the right view of this, for me.  You may have a different idea, and you are welcome to it. 

 ONE armed teacher would have saved several lives. most of the teachers being armed would have saved even more. a goodly number of armed students with those armed teachers would have saved every student and teacher's life, and possibly been able to take the shooters alive.

your anti-gun sentiments are showing.

there was a time when kids showed up to school armed, stacked their weapons in the corner and began lessons. only to go home and hunt along the way. this time wasn't so very long ago either. and yes, it happened here as well.

gun control didn't save one life at either of the school shootings you mention, nor at any other school shootings you can name, and any others there may be.

i think it's time to end the failed experiment called gun control.

 look at all the lives saved by ONE armed individual at that church shooting.

THAT criminal didn't obey the sign that said he couldn't bring his gun into that church, nor did the law abiding citizen who shot him.

crazycajun:

 ONE armed teacher would have saved several lives. 

How predictable you are, crazycajun.  

The fact is, you don't know that statement is true, and can't know it is true.  It is pure speculation on your part.  

You can speculate with all the "what-ifs" you want to bolster the apparent probability of your statement being true, but it does not change the fact that it remains pure speculation on your part.  You can't prove what did not happen.    

gun control didn't save one life at either of the school shootings you mention, nor at any other school shootings you can name, and any others there may be.

Your tin hat must be buzzing extra furiously today.  I only mentioned one school. You never get anything right.

 so, insane...

how many of those children's lives, and teacher's lives did gun control save?

NONE.

thus, the gun control experiment has failed miserably at saving lives. it hasn't saved a single life yet, and it doesn't look like it's about to start anytime soon.

if you think i'm wrong, prove that it saved any lives at the shootings we are discussing.

crazycajun:

 so, insane...

how many of those children's lives, and teacher's lives did gun control save?

And so, what is your point?  (We don't even know what incident you are posting about, you know.)

Your statement proves nothing that is contested in this thread and addresses no fact that has been contested in this thread.  Are you attempting to change the subject or just bring in another of your stupidly dishonest strawman arguments?

Don't bother to answer. We have you figured out.  

Have a good day in your twisted up little LaLa Land, crazy.

 you obviously DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ AGAIN. or are being intentionally ignorant.

pick a school shooting, there have been several.

name one where gun control saved a life.

any one.

the truth is YOU CAN'T because it HASN'T SAVED A SINGLE LIFE YET.

crazycajun:

 you obviously DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ AGAIN. or are being intentionally ignorant.

The question for you, crazycajun, is this:  Why are you pursuing an argument with someone who has declared support for this bill?

Don't bother answering.  Nobody wants to read it.

Have a nice day playing with your own little twisted up self in your own little twisted up LaLa Land.