Michigan Votes Forum

 For many years, the anti-self defense people have been infringing on the rights of gun owners little by little. Only recently has there been a change in the other direction, with most states allowing concealed carry, (by imposing a license, tax if you will, on those who want to carry.) This bill is just one more small step in the direction of trusting the legal, law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves.

 This bill is long overdue; colleges and universities will be safer. We all appreciate the efforts by Senator Richardville and the other sponsors.

Now we need to eliminate the remainder of prohibited areas (except courts).

This is a ridiculous bill, as would be the case for eliminating restrictions in other gun free zones. The claim that an armed society is a polite society was disproved in the "wild west". Even Wyatt Earp saw the danger of allowing guns in saloons. I imagine he would also see the sense in not allowing them in schools, and other public forums.

If we continue down this insane path, there will be no need for courts. We can just settle disputes with gun duels. No need for police either. Right would be decided by might, (firepower). Anyone get the feeling we are reverting as a society, rather than progressing?

I've carried concealed now for years. Only at work and at college am I prohibted from carrying. Gypsy, just an FYI, I haven't had to shoot anyone in all these years. Its really not all that wild. Your fears are unfounded. Don't let the vicitims of crime be the only ones unarmed.

I've not carried concealed for years. Never have I felt the need to, and I've travelled extensively. Been to colleges, saloons, sports arenas, etc., in this country and other countries, and not once have I needed a gun, or been afraid because I didn't have one. Maybe people who carry guns are the ones with unfounded fears.

 gypsy, your argument about the wild west is an age old argument going back to the original Florida CPL law that has never materialized.  The argument you have for never needing a gun and thus not carrying is a good one for you if that makes you comfortable.  The beauty of it all is that criminals don't know if you are carrying or not.  One thing they do know right now is that the gun free zones make for easy targets for mass shootings.  We saw in Isreal that once EVERYONE was carrying a gun, suicide bombers became the only way to wreck havoc.  That won't happen here on a large scale.  I do know that if people like you and me were carrying a gun in church, there would be no more risk to the parishiners than if we weren't.  In fact, they would be safer, not from the standpoint of one of us saving them, but because a criminal would be wary since there MAY be armed people inside.  Wyatt Earp was wise in that people in bars should not carry while they drink.  That will never be allowed in this country.  You need to give us CPL holders a bit more credit.  Overall, we have a better criminal record carrying guns than the police community does.

 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

BillR, I'm not as confident as you are that suicide bombings will not happen here on a large scale. I need not mention 9/11. Desperate and religiously fanatical people will resort to any means to further their cause. Guns will not protect us, as they have not protected the Israelis.

As for carrying guns at college, call me a crumudgen, but I don't have a lot of confidence in young people who do beer bongs and hazing using discretion with firearms.

I know this sounds a little sarcastic, but really, won't God protect his followers in church? If people need a gun in church, maybe our society is in need of a redo.

I don't doubt the common sense of most people, and if they need to carry a gun to feel save, as long as they meet legal criteria, (not a criminal, abuser, or mentally ill), I'm ok with them carrying. But I'm also a realist. When I see a man carry a weapon to a politically heated event, I doubt his common sense, and the common sense of laws that allow that. And comparing the criminal record of civilians carrying guns against police is not apples to apples. The job of a policeman is to protect all the citizens. A civilian is only protecting himself, and family. The policeman will encounter many more serious situtations than a civilian, hence much more training and discretion is needed.

For starters there Gypsy, Did you know that you can loose your CPL for unpaid parking fines??? If you were to read up on the laws concerning CPL's you would realize that those of us who have them have to go through rather rigorous checks and balances. As for the whole cops are the protectors of the people.... when I'm issued my own personal police officer I'll give up my conclealed carry. All it takes is *draw* *click* *bang* for the bad guy to do what he wants, how long does it take for the police to arrive???

gypsy:

I've not carried concealed for years. Never have I felt the need to, and I've travelled extensively. Been to colleges, saloons, sports arenas, etc., in this country and other countries, and not once have I needed a gun, or been afraid because I didn't have one. Maybe people who carry guns are the ones with unfounded fears.

I'm sure many people feel the same way as you--until they becomes the victims of a violent crime. The argument that because you've never needed one, you never will, is naive. There wasn't a mass shooting at Virginia Tech, until April 16th, 2007.

gypsy:

As for carrying guns at college, call me a crumudgen, but I don't have a lot of confidence in young people who do beer bongs and hazing using discretion with firearms.

All this bill will do is allow those who are already legally allowed to carry a concealed pistol to do so on campus. We're talking about productive, law-abiding citizens, not hooligans. You've made the mistake of stereotyping all college students as binge drinkers with no control.

CPL holders are some of the most upstanding citizens in our society. They're already allowed to carry in most places in public, so what changes when they enter a college campus?

gypsy:

I know this sounds a little sarcastic, but really, won't God protect his followers in church? If people need a gun in church, maybe our society is in need of a redo.

Do I really need to list all of the mass shootings that have occurred at churches in the past decade alone?

You can pray and hope the bullets will stop flying if you want...

gypsy:

The job of a policeman is to protect all the citizens. A civilian is only protecting himself, and family.

Not true. The courts have ruled time and again that it's not the job of the police to protect individuals.

A civilian with a CPL has the potential to protect more than just himself and his family. Again, countless times, we've seen CPL holders stop a crime in progress and save an innocent's life, who was not family.

Beretta8045:

I'm sure many people feel the same way as you--until they becomes the victims of a violent crime. The argument that because you've never needed one, you never will, is naive. There wasn't a mass shooting at Virginia Tech, until April 16th, 2007.

I was making that particular argument to the previous poster who claimed because he/she carried a gun, they have never been victimized. Just as naive a position.

Beretta8045:

All this bill will do is allow those who are already legally allowed to carry a concealed pistol to do so on campus. We're talking about productive, law-abiding citizens, not hooligans. You've made the mistake of stereotyping all college students as binge drinkers with no control.

CPL holders are some of the most upstanding citizens in our society. They're already allowed to carry in most places in public, so what changes when they enter a college campus?

This bill will allow those already with, and those who in the future will get a CPL to carry on campus.

There is no requirement one applying for a CPL be productive or not a hooligan. They just can't be a criminal or insane. Michigan is a shall issue state.

There is no documentation CPL holders are anymore "upstanding" than non-CPL holders.

There are many public venues; courts, churches, stadiums, schools, that are off limits to weapons.

Beretta8045:

Do I really need to list all of the mass shootings that have occurred at churches in the past decade alone?

You can pray and hope the bullets will stop flying if you want...

I was being sarcastic. Guns in church might calm down some of the heated rhetoric included in many sermons.

Beretta8045:

Not true. The courts have ruled time and again that it's not the job of the police to protect individuals.

A civilian with a CPL has the potential to protect more than just himself and his family. Again, countless times, we've seen CPL holders stop a crime in progress and save an innocent's life, who was not family.

To be more specific, it is the job of police to enforce the law. The laws are for our protection.

I am not opposed to legally carried weapons, but do not believe it is prudent to allow weapons at colleges.

I would much rather depend on trained police protection than vigilantes. Makes for a much more orderly society. I imagine Marshall Earp would agree with me.

gypsy:

There is no documentation CPL holders are anymore "upstanding" than non-CPL holders.

It's not my intention to say non-CPL holders aren't upstanding, but I think you and many others with the same train of thought believe CPL holders are somehow more dangerous than the rest of society. You said it yourself--we're not criminals, and we're not insane!

gypsy:

There are many public venues; courts, churches, stadiums, schools, that are off limits to weapons.

Yes, and these areas are "criminal empowerment zones" as well, and CPL holders should be allowed to carry there.

gypsy:

I would much rather depend on trained police protection than vigilantes. Makes for a much more orderly society. I imagine Marshall Earp would agree with me.

We're not vigilantes. We're not taking the law into our hands--we're taking our self-defense into our hands, not relying on police that are never there when you need them. 

Our country was outraged when a teen was brutally beaten and sexually assaulted for hours, and none of the people standing around watching it tried to help. If a CPL holder had intervened, would you rather they hadn't, because they were being a "vigilante?" If so, I feel sorry for you and your lack of compassion for your fellow man/woman.

Beretta8045:

Our country was outraged when a teen was brutally beaten and sexually assaulted for hours, and none of the people standing around watching it tried to help. If a CPL holder had intervened, would you rather they hadn't, because they were being a "vigilante?" If so, I feel sorry for you and your lack of compassion for your fellow man/woman.

First, you have no right to speak for "our country". You were outraged, I was outraged. Apparently the people watching were not. There may have been some CPL holders watching, and doing nothing. Being a CPL holder in no way makes you morally superior to anyone else.

You should not personalize this discussion. It doesn't contribute to your argument. If a CPL holder, or a non-CPL holder had intervened, they would have been doing the right thing. Neither happened. I assume not all of the bystanders were non-citizens. So much for "our country".

gypsy:

Being a CPL holder in no way makes you morally superior to anyone else.

In no way did I say we're morally superior. I posed a hypothetical, hence the word "if."

gypsy:

If a CPL holder, or a non-CPL holder had intervened, they would have been doing the right thing.

Thanks for finally getting it.

Let me explain what I "get". I get that weapons should not be allowed in many public venues, college campus' being one. If the idea is to prevent an incident like Virginia Tech, increasing security is a much better and safer way, in my opinion.

I also "get" the Second Amendment, but owning and bearing arms doesn't magically transform people into saints. Laws and limits are still needed to make this society work.

I therefore oppose this bill.