The safest place in Tennessee as far as gun violence s concerned is in a Tennessee Park.
I'm sure every individual mauled by a bear or stabbed would agree with you.

I can think of a place where one is even less likely to be shot or stabbed, and that's despite the number of evil, semiautomatic weapons and knives floating around an NRA Convention.

I'm likewise sure that CCW-owners -- individuals more law-abiding than the average folk or even police -- should be stripped of a right that they were stuck paying for and asking police permission for, on State or Federal grounds, because it's declared a *park*.

"We simply cannot be assured that every gun owner is a responsible gun owner."

So we should keep the law that disarms or turns away responsible gun owners, while doing jack squat to the folk who aren't responsible? Great Idea!

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams

How to balance the risk of attack with the risk of arming a nut?

If you were in the mountains hiking and were attacked by a bear then the gun would be a good thing to have. What if you saw a robbery or rape occurring you could possible stop it.

What about a federal permit requiring a psychological eval and a little more intensive scrutiny and training to be allow to carry like this? The gun bearer of course pays for all ths if he/she wants it.

What about a federal permit requiring a psychological eval and a little more intensive scrutiny and training to be allow to carry like this?

Because 12+ hours (and typically 100+ USD worth) of TN Carry License safety training as accepted by the State Department of Safety, two NICS checks, two checks of the TN version of the NICS, proof of lawful permanent residency, and fingerprinting, isn't enough?

I honestly don't believe your average nut is going to get his hands on a gun, plan to attack someone, and then suddenly decide that committing a violent felony isn't acceptable because the law says he can't carry in a park.

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams

Amen. When are anti-law abiding citizen carrying zealots going to get it. Every time we have a terrible gun crime, here come the cries for more gun control. Guess what? The criminal almost always violated gun laws to obtain the gun they used in the crime. Her come the shouts "let's pass a new law to prevent this from happening again." Great idea the criminal is going to make sure he/she obeys the law the next time. Hello! They are criminals they don't abide by the law. Question: How many gun crimes have been committed in TN by CCP holder vs. criminals who illegaly obtained and used a gun?

Probably a few carry permit people do get in trouble with their guns we may not hear about them. Such as a domestic where they brandish the gun or threaten someone. A case does come to mind about 7 years ago. It was a homicide on Kingston Pike committed by a carry permit holder. But this is not usually the rule not at all with people who carry.

I think you're probably right, if someone wants to kill another person they will find a way to do it.

Guns are already out there so the idea would be to figure what makes sense. Would you think it is okay to go drinking in a bar while wearing your gun? Would you want carry permits to extend into very crowded venues such as rock concerts?

If yes to these or other questions what would be your solution for security risks it would create?

From secure holsters to prevent someone from getting the gun away from the wearer, to a solution to keep people from putting the gun under the front seat of their car and having it stolen in a car burglary, This does indeed happen a lot. This puts another unsecured gun out on the street.

CCW advocates like to believe that carrying a gun is a sort of equalizer against all those gun-carrying criminals out there who might go on a Cho-style rampage, or might hold them up. Forget for a moment the greater likelihood of getting shot in a holdup if you pull out a gun rather than hand over your wallet. The real problem is that when you pack heat you feel like a superhuman. This isn't a question of training or being a law-abiding citizen. It's a question of ego. I love shooting guns with my father-in-law. It's great fun. But my goodness I feel like I can do a whole lot more than I can without a gun. I feel dangerous...to others. And I get a real thrill out of it. I've never committed a crime in my life so I don't exactly have a criminal's sense of exploitation in my heart. But if simple possession of a gun gives me that sense of omnipotence, surely it gives that sense to many others out there too. Is that really a good thing?

Let's be honest here. CCW laws have no effect either way on crime. But the knowledge that somebody is encouraged by the law to carry arms in a public place makes me feel less secure, despite the fact that CCW permit holders are vetted. Get rid of the shoot-out anti-Cho fantasies and accept the fact that the only reason people want to carry concealed weapons in public parks is to make themselves feel powerful.

... the only reason people want to carry concealed weapons in public parks is to make themselves feel powerful.

Heh. Who needs Viagra? You can always get a gun up, right?

____________________________

Georgia's in Florida, dumbass!

The "right to bear arms" means what? To possess a bazooka? To possess a cannon? If no then why not? Show we where it says you can't? Tell me why I can't under this thinking of the "right to bear arms" have anything I want?

Wouldn't we under the CCW rules just ad "bazooka / rocket launcher" to the verbiage on the card?

I was trying to make the point of when does it stop? When is enough? Carrying guns to the sauna in the gym in case of attack? Carrying a gun to a class in a school seemed like an odd thing until a few weeks ago.

A certain side of me agrees with the notion of self-defense and stopping a Columbine style killer. However, I wonder if we should simply make everyone qualified a member of the U.S. miliatary or a deputy U.S. Marshall? Isn't this what we are really advocating? Deputizing everyone in the U.S. that does not have a criminal past or mental issue?

Elrond
"Forget for a moment the greater likelihood of getting shot in a holdup if you pull out a gun rather than hand over your wallet."
:cough:
"But if simple possession of a gun gives me that sense of omnipotence, surely it gives that sense to many others out there too. Is that really a good thing?"
I am not you, you are not me. Be extremely thankful.
"But the knowledge that somebody is encouraged by the law to carry arms in a public place makes me feel less secure, despite the fact that CCW permit holders are vetted."
Is your argument seriously that, even though you believe there to be absolutely no impact on crime or public safety, you want to limit the rights of a group of people just to make you feel more secure even though it will have no effect on your security?!

River Dog, give up with the fascist 'if they want to help, they can get another permit' concept. Not only are those involved already trained and have received a permit, . CCW owners can't enter any building which gets too high a percentage of its revenue from alcohol, and even absolutists like myself, James Rummel, or Jeff Copper are pretty sure alcohol and firearms shouldn't mix (from a constitutional viewpoint, unless we are forced to drink it's not a violation of the 2nd).

I fail to see what Dooom carrying a gun, while following the law to the letter, would lead to, even in a gym sauna.

Your examples are also fairly heavily flawed factually. Bazookas, rocket launchers, and cannons, were all considered ordinance in the times of the Founding Fathers, not arms, and as a result probably wouldn't be covered under the 2nd. I'm a little doubtful there's a good reason to ban cannons, given the extremely low number of cannon-related deaths over the last few years, but that's a separate matter. On the other hand, the high costs and low utility makes me not care.
Carrying a gun in class has been a matter of public debate for years now, since before even Columbine nevermind VA Tech. It was once normal for kids to bring rifles to school around deer-hunting season, so don't be surprised by this.
The abilities CCWs ask for here aren't really comparable to being 'deputized'. The actual powers of citizen's arrest already exist, and can be carried out in a national or state park. Same for self-defense against a violent attacker, or violent animal. The only thing we're asking for is the ability to legally carry a weapon.

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams

The safest place in Tennessee as far as gun violence s concerned is in a Tennessee Park.

I'm sure every individual mauled by a bear or stabbed would agree with you.

I didn't expect rational discussion when I posted this but I was hoping for at least some common sense in making arguments.

Bears get the press but the chances of a bear attack are statistically even smaller than being shot in a Tennessee park, and the "stabbing" comment is even more assinine. Let's discuss this without you guys making shit up, ok?

And could everyone promise to actually learn the definition of "fascist" before using it in a sentence?

Since several of you didn't bother to read Commisioner Fyke's statement, let me quote it for you:

In Tennessee's State Parks there were 12 "crimes against persons" in 25 million visits. The records don't state whether weapons were used so that figure includes assaults of every recordable kind.

What appears to be advocated by the gun lobby is that there should be no place whatsoever where guns may be disallowed. I don't accept that. There has to be some place that my family and I can be safe from the gun advocate's paranoia. Little league baseball games, schools, and churches, for instance, should be safe from the idea that people need weapons to be safe.

Myth: The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a gun.

Fact: The Supreme Court has always interpreted this as a state's militia's right, not an individual's.

The state militia can give administrative rules governing the carrying of weapons on and off duty.

Learn the definition of "fascist"

RiverDogFact: The Supreme Court has always interpreted this as a state's militia's right, not an individual's.

Really? Care to explain why Miller, the only time the Supreme Court of the United States looked at the 2nd Amendment, held that a sawed-off shotgun would have been protected by the second amendment if only it were shown to be of military use?

If you want to just put out your own opinions or biases, feel free, but don't claim such as fact when the opposite is public record.

On the other hand, technically speaking, under the Militia Act of 1903, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia is part of the recognized unorganized militia. It's kind of a lost argument for you either way.

WhitesCreek

And could everyone promise to actually learn the definition of "fascist" before using it in a sentence?

Let's see... giving up your privacy and medical information in order to use an explicit right, emphasis on "safety" for society, and thinking only those who are under command of the state ("deputized", for those who just like to toss the word around, provides a legal geas to follow most commands from a sherrif)... it's not Mussolini's wank material, but it's pretty similar in methodology.

"What appears to be advocated by the gun lobby is that there should be no place whatsoever where guns may be disallowed. I don't accept that. There has to be some place that my family and I can be safe from the gun advocate's paranoia. Little league baseball games, schools, and churches, for instance, should be safe from the idea that people need weapons to be safe."

You just think you should be able to limit other people's constitutionally protected rights in a public area, because otherwise the evil gun advocates -- the ones less likely to violate the law than your friendly local police officer is, statistically -- will get you.

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams

"Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles." — Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger.[

He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.

Douglas Adams

Killers will always kill. They are very creative about finding ways to do it, but the very idea of everyone in America arming themselves in order to protect themselves seems to be gaining in popularity. What a dumb idea. What a fatalistic approach to the problem of violence. Militias can be great. Just take a look at how effectively they are destroying Iraq. They are nothing more than crazed roving gangs. Why are we trying to disarm militias over there if we think everyone owning guns is okay over here? This is not the Wild West anymore. We need to use our brains to solve the problem of senselss violence in this country, not lead.

Hunting is a long established sport, and most hunters are responsible. People who live in remote areas may need a gun because they have no real police protection, but to have everyone in a city armed against one another is just going to cause more senseless killing. The gun sales people don't give a spent shell about this problem.

Ordinary people who own automatic machine guns and flame throwers would seem to me to be weird and perhaps even scary. The gun industry, in spite of all its denials, refuses to recognize this.

It's all about money of course. Gun sales create huge profits.

This article by Brian Seibel explores the gun industry's role in selling guns to people who might commit crimes with them.

(link...)

"The gun industry’s “dirty little secret” is that it knows who these “bad apple” dealers are. It could stop selling them guns or force them to reform, but is unwilling to do so. The reason? Profits. Crime gun sales are a large percentage of the industry’s market. According to expert testimony in a recent federal lawsuit brought by the NAACP
against gun manufacturers and distributors,at least 15 percent of the handguns produced or imported for sale in the United States in 1995 were used in a crime by 2000. Crime guns are the industry’s third largest handgun market segment, behind only guns for personal protection and target shooting.

To avoid being held accountable for the crime caused by reckless gun sales, the industry has been lobbying Congress to pass a bill (S. 659) that would grant manufacturers,
distributors and dealers sweeping immunity from suits by gun violence victims. With a companion bill having passed the House of Representatives, and with 55 Senate cosponsors
of S. 659 — including Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who just signed on — the sad fact is that Congress is
very close to giving the gun industry unprecedented
immunity that will further hurt gun violence victims..."

I remember being horrified once as a teenager when a guy I was dating pulled up to a dark house. To my horror, he opened the glove compartment and took out a gun. He said the house belonged to a friend who was away on vacation, and he thought some kids might have been getting inside and werepartying there. When I asked him if he was planning on actually shooting them, he said," If they're there and they run, I will, but not to kill them. I'll just get them in an arm or leg." Needless to say I walked home. Even as a teenager I knew trying to shoot someone on the run in the leg in the semi-dark would be folly.

There's too many jerks running around with guns and we're all paying the price. The gun industry should stop being in denial and start helping to solve the problem of crime guns.

"You just think you should be able to limit other people's constitutionally protected rights in a public area, because otherwise the evil gun advocates -- the ones less likely to violate the law than your friendly local police officer is, statistically -- will get you..."

I have never advocated limiting consitutional rights except where tenets of the Constitution limit themselves. And you are stating as fact a questionable proposition with a false analogy.

CC permit holders are not less likely to commit gun violence than people who choose not to carry weapons. I would like to be able to go places, public places, where I know that weapons are either not supposed to exist, or are carried openly by highly certified enforcement agents.

Have you ever stopped to think what it means to advocate for people who want to carry weapons "Secretly"?

CC permit holders are not less likely to commit gun violence than people who choose not to carry weapons.
That's probably true, but not particularly a useful statistic. CCW holders are vastly less likely to commit any form of illegal violence than people who are not CCW'd, and are less likely to commit any illegal form of violence than police officers carrying openly. Unless there's something inherently more deadly to an innocent civilian about a CCW holder with a gun than anyone else with any other type of weapon, or a police officer with an openly visible weapon -- something not supported by any of the involved data -- it's a bit irrelevant.

I would like to be able to go places, public places, where I know that weapons are either not supposed to exist, or are carried openly by highly certified enforcement agents.

If I would like to be able to go places, public places, where I know that I won't be exposed to Muslims, or ranting atheists, or left-wing loons; that would be the infringement of a right, and a stupid way to violate the Constitution. If I would like to be able to go places, public places, where I know that I won't see two guys being lovey-dovey (this is just a hypothetical, I actually find it hot), that would be another infringement of a right, and a stupid reason to violate the Constitution no matter how many people's icks were squicked.

Understand exactly how stupid, unconstitutional, and just plain morally repugnant your viewpoint looks to me now?

Have you ever stopped to think what it means to advocate for people who want to carry weapons "Secretly"?

Let's see... I'm one of those people, and ethically required to carry a weapon of some form or the other around whenever possible, although I tend toward knives rather than guns for legal and political ease.

It means I advocate people being extremely lawful, while having responsibility rather than relying on other folk for protection?

If it's any help, I'd carry weapons openly if it wouldn't result in getting wrongfully arrested by bull-headed police with poor rifle handling and no knowledge of the law, losing my job, or deal with dozens of other similar problems.

I really don't see the inherent evil in letting individuals who obsessively follow the law the ability to keep a friggen tool on them.

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams

Oh, and RiverDog, that quote from Mr. Burger was written after he had left the judiciary. It applies no judicial precedent, never meaningfully reflected upon existing stare decisis, and was written as an opinion piece. Try something with substance.

I'll get around to rebuking Mrs. Borges' trype whenever I get time.

(Apologies for the edit)

Leaving aside your blathering name calling and the fact that my viewpoint is morally repugnant to you for thinking that the absence of weapons if preferable to everyone packing heat, I have to note that you are stating that the reason you want to carry a weapon "secretly" is so you won't be bothered by the Police.

I'm thinking you might be exactly the kind of person I want the police to bother if you come into a school with a weapon.

The real motive of advocates for CCW and more guns in more places:

I have to note that you are stating that the reason you want to carry a weapon "secretly" is so you won't be bothered by the Police.

I'm thinking you might be exactly the kind of person I want the police to bother if you come into a school with a weapon.

I don't mind bothering or being bothered by the police. I had to ask permission to get a CCW, and owning a CCW does apply a good number of obligations to help police officers.

On the other hand, I don't particularly want to be arrested on false charges (nor be arrested for accurate charges, either, but then again, I tend to follow the law). If wanting to stay out of trouble with the law makes me a dangerous individual in your mind, well, I think you're getting the definition of dangerous confused.

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams

"If wanting to stay out of trouble with the law makes me a dangerous individual in your mind, well, I think you're getting the definition of dangerous confused."

If making things up in your mind doesn't seem dangerous, then why were you granted a CCW permit? Do they test you for irrational tendencies, including the tendency to perceive a false reality?

I never used the word dangerous about you but I may have been wrong not to have.

Allowing you to carry a concealed weapon will NOT make anyone in a Tennessee Park safer, including you, gunsuru.

WhitesCreek

I wonder if this is the difference between being progressive and being a radical? I am an anti-war, democrat or Green voting,non-hunting animal rights supporting,free speech leftie. I have owned and usually carried (both legally and illegally)handguns since the middle sixties. My wife icc permitted but I have never bothered. I figure when big brother comes I best be ready.

Carole,

I see, only "crime guns" can kill people. If this makes you feel better about infringing on other 2nd amendment rights thats fine. But don't make the mistake of thinking any gun is safer than another. They can all kill people. Most of the guns in the assault weapons ban were banned because of the way the "look" while guns of the exact same caliber remained legal. I guess the logic was that it's O.K. to own a gun as long it doesn't look too scary.

If guns are so safe, why don't they let you carry them into the City/County Building and the Federal buildings?

Adrift in the Sea of Humility

"If making things up in your mind doesn't seem dangerous, then why were you granted a CCW permit? Do they test you for irrational tendencies, including the tendency to perceive a false reality?"

So, you are instead thinking I should be harassed by police officers because I'm not dangerous? It's a fairly binary choice, here, when you've already stated that "you might be exactly the kind of person I want the police to bother".

"Allowing you to carry a concealed weapon will NOT make anyone in a Tennessee Park safer, including you, gunsuru."

Maybe. Maybe not. I won't claim to be able to predict the future. On the other hand, I can pretty clearly look at data from other states which do allow CCWs on state parks, and tell you that none of them are less safe.

I think I've had enough of this. If you're content violating my constitutional rights despite that, enjoy yourself. I mean, it's not like defining away part of the Bill of Rights could possibly result in other parts going bye-bye.

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams

"I can pretty clearly look at data from other states which do allow CCWs on state parks, and tell you that none of them are less safe."

What data are you looking at? I haven't found anything reliable that states it either way.

Allow me to bottom line it for you. A concealed carry permit holder should be able to carry wherever as long as the PRIVATE property owner does not forbid it. Why? Because they have been trained and generally do not commit crimes. We all own public buildings. Our elected Representatives in our Representative Republic government should regulate public buildings under thier jurisdiction. We should elect people we trust to do what we wish. If this means allowing CCP holder to carry in public owned buildings/spaces, so be it. If not I will respect that as well.

I haven't found any particularly good third party source (the only group to even bother getting any numbers seems to be the NRA-ILA, obviously not a useful source), but the rate of injuries and deaths by year in state parks is publically available, as is the year that state park bans were removed. The only tricky part is finding if other regulations prevented park carry, such as in Ohio where the park rangers would fine you under their regulations even though the law itself said nothing.

I'll see if I can find or recompile the data, but it may very well end up being a long while. Work is promising to heat up soon. The numbers aren't particularly significant, as they really end up looking like statistical noise, but it's still useful whenever people suggest that concealed carry owners will result in blood in the streets or Wild West-style shooting every day, or that people should be disarmed for "safety".

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams

Dr. Mary Rosh, call your office.

Sven...Nails it again. Now we come down to the nonexistant peer reviewed study proving conclusively that...What was it we needed proving again?

A Lott of good recompiling the data will do.

Ha!

You need a peer-reviewed study to compare two numbers from the same data source?

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." - Douglas Adams

Even personnel who are trained (police, security, military) lose their guns, have them stolen, have accidental discharges, and do things they shouldn't with them.

Now take these same sets of circumstances and apply this to the population of the U.S. who want carrying permits.

They sit through a 3 hour Saturday morning safety class, and go shoot 30 rounds through their gun and then start packin. The gun goes under the front seat or left on top of the fridge or thrown in the glove box. Who knows if they can hit what they shoot at and if the thing will shoot at all? Or worse suppose they do start shooting at a shoplifter running through Wal-Mart and a stray round hits you. Do they even understand the use of deadly force continuum? I wonder if they understand you don't shoot at people running from minor crime.

Maybe we need to re-visit the training and types of guns and ammo used as well as who should get one. Under the premise that "everyone" has a God given right to a gun then we should arm all the patients at Lakeshore with Glocks to make everyone safe.

Kind of scary now isn't it?

Let me just say I don't trust anybody's data until the data and methodology is reviewed by competent academic authorities.

...Not that I think the NRA would fudge something or that you would quote it out of context, or anything.