Why not outgun them with a mandatory-carry law?

[proud2BlibKansan]

<skip>

Here's what we're thinking, now that the National Rifle Association is in town for its annual convention: The NRA says it's "all in" for the 2012 election. Shouldn't some Missouri House member propose an "all-in" bill for guns?

Missouri would be the first state to pass a mandatory-carry law. Not just 18-year-old members of the military, but every 18-year-old. Every 12-year-old, every 6-year-old. Even, considering the Legislature's staunch opposition to Roe v. Wade, the unborn.

If everyone riding public transit had a gun, there'd be no need for Mr. Schieffer's bill. If every psychiatric patient had a gun, preferably a Hawken rifle, there'd be no need for Ms. Riddle's House Bill 1319.

Now that's all in.

Sure, you'd have to keep everyone safe. But Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, already wants to require school districts that sanction activities like football, basketball and cheerleading also to allow "the disciplines of archery, pistol, rifle, shotgun, and muzzleloading." They could do firearms training at the same time.


Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-why-not-outgun-them-with-a-mandatory-carry-law/article_cdddc90b-ea74-59c2-b45d-59a221879bf3.html#ixzz1sCl6VNNi

[Scuba]

1. Each firearms training course will be required to have....

.... a political commissar to ensure doctrine purity.

[Fumesucker]

2. I was on the rifle team in HS, it was completely non-controversial at the time..

Our firing range was actually in the basement of the school..

I was too small to be any good at things like football, basketball and baseball, the rifle team was really the only "sport" I had a chance at because it didn't depend on size, strength or speed..

FWIW, I'm by no means a gun nut, I'm really ambivalent about the entire issue..

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. This would be like a Viagra/Cialis OD at NRA headquarters.

Their dreams come true.

[trusty elf]

4. Sounds good to me

[IMG][/IMG]

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. LOL

[madrchsod]

5. i like the crossbow option

although not as fast as a gun it`s silent and deadly.

[HereSince1628]

6. Re: the section of 1319 that deals with persons adjudicated to be [psychologically] disqualified

Last edited Mon Apr 16, 2012, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The provision to remove the disqualification depends upon "clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting the removal is not contrary to the public interest. "

It is my personal experience that when dealing with persons in mental distress, due to either illness, chemicals or combination, the Establishment (law enforcement, hospitals, and the courts) frequently make determinations justified under 'an excess of caution.' The application of the term excess should alert everyone that sometimes decisions using excess are wrong.

Getting things wrong at least some fraction of the time seems to be a given regarding human endeavors. Even the argument against removing a disqualification seems to rely on concern for getting the 're'-qualification wrong. So, I stipulate that a mistake could (and probably ultimately would) be made in correcting what is deemed a (ultimately probable) mistaken disqualification. It is of course, impossible for a rational mind to absolutely rule out the possibility of mistakes.

Yet, if there isn't a mechanism for correcting that mistake, then miscarriages of justice will be allowed to stand. Is that OK? Is it OK because society should accept what would be an admittedly fractionally small miscarriage of justice on this particular issue? Or, is it OK because society has general misunderstanding and an abundance of excess of fear about the mentally ill?

Is it because society accepts as truth the stigmatizing taint that every person who has been involuntarily committed has a dangerous condition that can never be cured or put in remission

I am not a proponent of carrying guns for personal protection from other people. I am not a proponent of dropping disqualification for reasons of mental illness.

I do see an arguable issue in this part of bill 1319. Particularly, I think an open-minded person would consider whether people may indeed be wrongly disqualified and whether reason(s) for disqualification may not be permanent. The pros and cons of this part of the bill should be argued on merits, which should include consideration of accurate statistics, expert testimony, and specific examples. Both sides should be argued rationally, not merely from fear, be it fear of the mentally ill, or fear of regulation of a constitutional right.

[pasto76]

7. lemme tell you, if people didnt handle their weapons like they were on an Army shooting range...

I would be letting them know in an extremely forceful manner, resulting in drawing my "mandatory carry" weapon if they did not see the light. Man, if I ever saw somebody pulling a weapon in the park across the street, I would definitely have to get involved. I dont want people pulling guns on guys in hoodies, or have any risk of stray bullets coming within 5 miles of my house and my daughters.

To me, that is being dangerous. The attitude that "i have to carry to be safe" is dangerous.

[cbrer]

8. Hell, I'll just buy a sniper rifle

And settle the issue before we meet...

What have we become?