Should gun laws apply to private property?

[sunken]

There is a big argument between the NRA and Walt Disney World over a new law that requires that employers allow their workers to keep guns in their car. The law does say that places that manufacture or store fireworks or explosives are exempt from this law. Now, everyone knows that Disney shoots up a ton of fireworks every night, but that's a small part of the property. The NRA thinks they are using the excuse to circumvent the law.

I don't agree that property owners should be forced to allow guns on their property, especially areas where families gather like Disney World. I doubt seriously Disney is concerned that someone may accidently shoot a fireworks storage place, but more concerned with keeping security in their parks and guest areas.

I said in another thread about protection using guns and I do believe that, but having a gun in your car, which is usually a mile or more from your location at Disney is not going to help. A rampaging guy is not going to wait while you take a bus to get the gun.

What do you all think?

[Mike_115]

I don't think the law applies as much to being able to get the gun in case of an attack, but to having it before and after work. Depending on how far you live from work there is a lot of time spent between leaving work and arriving home. So in a state that allows concealed carry I think you should be allowed to keep guns in your car.

As far as Disney is concerned I'm not sure. They probably are just using the fireworks as an excuse. I suppose if the law says that places that store fireworks are exempt then Disney can do what they want, even though I don't think it's right. The law and right and wrong have little to do with each other.

[IdioEspalon]

With the current gun problems around the world at the moment, I don't think condoning any sort of legality pertaining to concealing weaponry will benefit at all.

Sure, it's a good premise but surely there's a way in which security can be ensured whilst keeping the public as safe as possible.

There will always be the case where either someone innocent gets shot or the person who gets shot files a lawsuit - causing hassle. There was a case in the UK a few years ago where a farmer shot a burgler in the leg, and got sued.

[Mike_115]

(09-06-2008 09:24 AM)IdioEspalon Wrote:  With the current gun problems around the world at the moment, I don't think condoning any sort of legality pertaining to concealing weaponry will benefit at all.

Sure, it's a good premise but surely there's a way in which security can be ensured whilst keeping the public as safe as possible.

There will always be the case where either someone innocent gets shot or the person who gets shot files a lawsuit - causing hassle. There was a case in the UK a few years ago where a farmer shot a burgler in the leg, and got sued.

Your logic is disgusting. The solution to getting sued for defending yourself is to roll over, maybe getting killed yourself? Just to avoid a hassle. That "logic" is horrible. Besides in the UK you can get charged with carrying a weapon if you have anything (bicycle chain, baseball bat, knife, etc.) without being able to demonstrate why you have it (bike broke down, baseball game). So yeah, you are pretty much screwed over there if you defend yourself.

Here's some real logic for you. Crime rates drop in areas that legalize concealed carry. Crime rates rocketed after Australia implemented it's gun bans. This trend has been demonstrated over and over again. It will be interesting to see what happens in DC as their citizens become better armed. Crimes committed by individuals while carrying a concealed firearm legally are virtually nonexistent.

[BlueNose]

(09-06-2008 11:34 AM)Mike_115 Wrote:  Here's some real logic for you. Crime rates drop in areas that legalize concealed carry. Crime rates rocketed after Australia implemented it's gun bans. This trend has been demonstrated over and over again. It will be interesting to see what happens in DC as their citizens become better armed. Crimes committed by individuals while carrying a concealed firearm legally are virtually nonexistent.

And here is some more logic, in a country where there are no guns there are no gun crimes - simple.

IMO, the only way to reduce gun crime is to reduce the number of people who carry guns (be they legally held or illegally held guns) and not to increase the number that carry them.

I understand that in a country like the US where the right to bare arms is seen as a fundamental freedom of liberty my logic is an anathema however desperate times require desperate measures.

[Mike_115]

BlueNose Wrote:In a country where there are no guns there are no gun crimes - simple.

Look, if It where possible to eliminate every single gun, as well as the technology, and knowledge to make them, then I might be persuaded by your half assed argument. But it isn't. You can't un-invent them. And as long as they exist people will get them. Prohibition didn't work, the war on drugs isn't working. All they do is create more violence. During prohibition alcohol running was a profitable and violent activity, and they couldn't stop the alcohol. The war on drugs is causing death and crime, but not stopping the drugs. What makes you think we can stop guns either? Sure with no guns there are no gun crimes, but with fewer guns there are more. And all we can get to is fewer, not none.

Their are certain realities of the world, and they aren't changeable. Where there is a demand, someone will fill that demand. The more you outlaw something the greater the demand, and the greater the reward for filling it. Often there is also much more violence associated with that market. Do you know how simple it is to make a gun? Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator at the time they cost a little over 2 dollars to make. Anyone that is semi decent with machining tools could make a firearm out of an engine block without hardly trying.

So you don't like guns. Fine, good thing you don't have any. I'm not going to force you to get one. But if you think it's your right to impose your view on others, while making them less safe, think again.

[BlueNose]

(09-06-2008 01:17 PM)Mike_115 Wrote:  So you don't like guns. Fine, good thing you don't have any. I'm not going to force you to get one. But if you think it's your right to impose your view on others, while making them less safe, think again.

Hey Mike, I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone, all I am doing is posing an alternative viewpoint to your own.

If you look around the world, there is it would appear, a direct correlation between the numbers who carry guns and the number of gun crimes.

I am not also saying I have the answers but I am sure that arming the population of a country WILL NOT make that country any safer and is not the answer.

Education, adequate social provision and better career opportunities will help to reduce crime and a reduction in crime will by definiton bring about a reduction in gun crime - again IMO.

[sunken]

The problem is that the cork is out of the bottle. You can't really put it back in. It would be impossible to get rid of all guns in the US. And no one would trust that it's happened even if you could. It's kinda like countries with nuclear weapons. In theory, if everybody disarmed, the world would be a safer place, but the problem is that there is no guarantee that the other guy would and so no one will because of the danger of not having them (even though it's just as dangerous to have them).

And so the phrase is applicable...

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns..."