You Can Boycott The Restaurant; You Don't Get To Ban Them From Boston
I'm an atheist and although I'm straight, I joke that I'm so pro gay rights, I should have a girlfriend. I'm also pro constitutional rights, and it is the right of the mayor of Boston to not patronize any restaurant with an owner whose anti-gay politics he disagrees with. It is his right to organize pickets outside that restaurant. It is not his right to keep that restaurant out of his city. As @WalterOlson tweeted:
No, Mayor Menino, in a free country you can't keep out a restaurant because you dislike its owner's politics
Greg Turner writes in the Boston Herald:
Mayor Thomas M. Menino is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from bringing its Southern-fried fast-food empire to Boston -- possibly to a popular tourist spot just steps from the Freedom Trail -- after the family-owned firm's president suggested gay marriage is "inviting God's judgment on our nation.""Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We're an open city, we're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion," Menino told the Herald yesterday.
"That's the Freedom Trail. That's where it all started right here. And we're not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail."
Amazingly, the mayor of a major American city doesn't understand freedom. Freedom doesn't mean that you have the "freedom" to shut down whatever you disagree with; quite the contrary. It means you have the freedom to speak up against it.
I've eaten Chick-fil-A about twice. Not out of protest but because of hours, days open, etc.
The mayor needs a lesson in what the Constitution and free speech means.
Jim P. at July 20, 2012 7:11 AM
By now, pretty much everybody knows the official stand of the president of Chick-fil-A. If the people of Boston don't want the restaurant there, they will not patronize it, and it will fail all by itself.
I wonder if all mayors think they're wearing an invisible crown, or it it's just the really mouthy ones.
Pricklypear at July 20, 2012 7:25 AM
"You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population..."
Does Chick-fil-a refuse to serve gays? If so, I haven't heard about it. The fact that the company's higher-ups don't support gay marriage doesn't mean they're "discriminating" against anyone. It's a political/religous position that people are allowed to have. Does Menino want to ban all Mormon-owned businesses?
ahw at July 20, 2012 7:52 AM
I would consider pickets to be more constructive, anyway. Maybe, just maybe, the owners of Chik-Fil-A would revise their stance with outside pressure, especially from the first state in the Union to recognize gay marriage.
Patrick at July 20, 2012 7:55 AM
Maybe, just maybe, the owners of Chik-Fil-A would revise their stance with outside pressure
Doubtful. It's the principle of the thing. You know, those things you won't compromise on?
Now, if I were the head of Chick-Fil-a, I'd remind the good mayor that MIT is know as the Georgia Tech of the North.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 20, 2012 8:33 AM
Principles are malleable in the minds of reasonable people if they can be persuaded of the error of their ways.
Nothing about the shooting in the Aurora, CO movie theatre, Amy? Some of my Facebook friends from high school seem to think we need stronger gun control laws because of it.
Sigh … nothing like a healthy dose of fear to make us sign away our constitutional rights in the pretense that we're actually doing something constructive.
Patrick at July 20, 2012 8:56 AM
Some of my Facebook friends from high school seem to think we need stronger gun control laws because of it.
How sad is that? I think everyone over the age of 18 who doesn't have a criminal record should be required to carry. "An armed society is a polite society" donchano. If someone in the theatre had a permit and was carrying, not as many people would have died. And yes, I know the shooter had body armour but they still could have gone for his head. I would have.
Flynne at July 20, 2012 9:31 AM
The solution to offensive speech .. is eat more chikin.
gcotharn at July 20, 2012 9:32 AM
"Doubtful. It's the principle of the thing. You know, those things you won't compromise on?"
Chick-Fil-A is a business. A businessman's only principle is making money; everything else can be compromised.
And that's the angle opponents of this should take. Organize a boycott. That is their right. It shouldn't be hard, considering how substandard Chick-Fil-A's shit product is anyway.
Ginkgo at July 20, 2012 9:33 AM
Flynne: How sad is that? I think everyone over the age of 18 who doesn't have a criminal record should be required to carry. "An armed society is a polite society" donchano. If someone in the theatre had a permit and was carrying, not as many people would have died. And yes, I know the shooter had body armour but they still could have gone for his head. I would have.
Me, too. It's the way of the future. We don't like Scientology or the Westboro Baptist Church, so the obvious solution is to do away with the First Amendment. We're afraid of terrorists, so we should allow cops to search us any old time they feel like, whether in the street or in our homes. Who cares about the Fourth Amendment? We gotta protect ourselves from terrorists!
Patrick at July 20, 2012 10:07 AM
I think everyone over the age of 18 who doesn't have a criminal record should be required to carry.
Are you kidding? Have you seen the way people drive? And you want them to carry guns?
Steve Daniels at July 20, 2012 10:30 AM
"Chick-Fil-A is a business. A businessman's only principle is making money; everything else can be compromised."
If this were true, Chik-Fil-A would be open on Sundays.
go at July 20, 2012 10:53 AM
Come to think of it, looking at LA, DC, NYC, and now Boston, most big city mayors tend to be idiots.
lsomber at July 20, 2012 10:57 AM
You have to understand, Amy, Menino is quite possibly the stupidest man in politics in the entire world. And I don't make that statement lightly. He is a moron. We had a shooting last year in a park, where a small child was shot at dusk. Two kids on motorized scooters were seen fleeing the area. Menino's policy proposal? Ban the motorized scooters. I'm not kidding.
M at July 20, 2012 11:36 AM
Express disapproval. Fine.
Use the letter of the law against them if needed.
Boycott.
But do not ban or outlaw.
Reminds me of the some news from a few years ago. It was a bunch of mayors asking for the banning of Canadian oilsands oil. Yes, it has it's environmental problems. Yet the the same cities and mayors ignore all the other places oil comes from.
Sandia Arabia such a nice country, treats women worse then cattle. Funds terrorism. free speech is non existence. Will the mayor from Boston call for Ban of Saudi oil and with the countries treatment of homosexuals.
Venezuela. Some troubles with environment, politics, saber rattling, nationalizing companies (aka government theft), and so on.
Nigeria. Let's just say death, destruction, and a environmental disregard that would give a greenie a heart attack if they gave a good god damn.
What do these people, mayors, companies calling for bans have to say about those countries. Little or nothing.
Sorry if the oil is little of topic. Just think people need to be careful of the battles they pick. McDonalds is not any better, Same with KFC, many other companies have skeletons in their closets. Just maybe not anything sexy or politically relevant.
Or as usual not too big of a target or threat. Chick-a-fil is a small target that can be handled. Would the major pick the same battle with a bigger company.
John Paulson at July 20, 2012 11:46 AM
What bullshit from an idiot. Chickfila doens't discriminate. It will hire and sell to anyone. The founder of the company is against gay marriage. So what?! They're closed sunday for church, too. He doesn't even own Chickfila, most are independently operated franchises.
We had lunch there today. They had the usual double-line wrapped around the building at the drive-thru. I don't think this is keeping people away from incredibly tasrty chicken and waffle fries at all. Boston's loss.
momof4 at July 20, 2012 11:55 AM
Way to take my post out of context, Patrick. But then again, I expect nothing less from you.
Flynne at July 20, 2012 1:01 PM
Are you kidding? Have you seen the way people drive? And you want them to carry guns?
Well, I never said the idea wasn't without flaws!
But I do think if more people exercised their Second Amendment right, there would be less people thinking they could get away with just opening fire on a crowd. If they had the presence of mind to think that someone BESIDES themselves were armed, they might think twice about it.
(Although I've secretly always wanted a rocket launcher that shoots paint balls from my car, so I can mark the assholes that do stupid shit when they're driving so others can avoid them!)
Flynne at July 20, 2012 1:08 PM
You can't be serious Flynne. Suppose 10 people in the theatre had guns. Do you think all (any?) of them would have had the skill and calmness in the moment to hit only the shooter? There might have been fewer deaths but there might have been more. In trying to get off enough shots to kill or even stop the shooter could you really know there was a bullet proof vest given the darkness, panic and teargas in the room, without a fair amount of collateral damage? How about deciding which of the other shooters were on your side? You're probably a better than average driver too. It was a terrible event but multiple shooters would probably ended up in a massacre larger than the tragedy that happened.
Ray at July 20, 2012 1:43 PM
I don't know what you're so bent out of shape about, Flynne, since I was agreeing with you. My post was sarcastically addressing the mindset that gun control should be the solution to every single shooting, whether we have the facts in hand or not. There is no reasonable restriction that would have kept a gun out of James Holmes' hands. He was enrolled in a PhD program and had nothing on his record worse than a traffic violation.
Nothing I said was directed to you, personally. Only to those who feel that gun control is the solution every time some lunatic shoots someone.
Patrick at July 20, 2012 3:34 PM
Yep Ray, that's right. We're too stupid to protect ourselves, so just lay down and hope you get lucky? Fantastic job stating of the progressive position on self defense.
momof4 at July 20, 2012 3:34 PM
What's so tragic is that Mumbles will be reelected.
I'm jonesing right about now for a toasted chicken salad sandwich and some waffle fries....Chick-Fil-A does them right. And those little breakfast biscuits they make. Outstanding.
roadgeek at July 20, 2012 5:15 PM
momomof4, where did I even infer stupidity? I questioned the presence of mind to rise above the panic of an unbelievably tense situation, analyze it enough to know if, had more than one person been shooting, who was the bad guy and I questioned whether any of those 'good' guys who were carrying had the skill to accurately hit a moving target in a dark, panic ridden, smoke filled room. I suggest that the person to do this would have to be someone who was able to suppress their emotions and one who had spent many hours learning and maintaining their skill with their weapon. How many people like that do you know who are not police, military, etc? How many of them do you think would have been at a midnight show of a Batman movie? With your ability to jump to conclusions in the assumed calm of your home I hope you are not carrying.
Ray at July 20, 2012 5:30 PM
"Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population."
Refusing to serve a population is one thing. But the president's opinion about same-sex marriage, as ludicrous as it is (quite typical of religious conservatives), doesn't mean the business refuses to serve same-sex couples, or individual gays and lesbians.
JD at July 20, 2012 5:35 PM
Ray: "Suppose 10 people in the theatre had guns. . .multiple shooters would probably ended up in a massacre larger than the tragedy that happened..."
Hey yeah, I totally hear what you're saying!
Why, in a country like the U.S.A., where millions of private, law-abiding citizens carry guns and often fight back against violent criminals, innocent bystanders get massacred by mistake all the time! Right?.
To drive your point home, go ahead and give us a few real life examples where that actually happened.
Of course such cases are hard to find because YouTube and the main stream media, being controlled by the Tea Party, censor the information for obvious political reasons. Right?
Ken R at July 20, 2012 6:33 PM
I don't carry anymore, Ray. I have little kids at home and kids shoot themselves more often than psychos let loose in public.
BUT, I have more faith in people who have trained to carry guns than you. I don't think they would have popped off and started shooting at anything that moved. I'd like to think if I were in that situation, I could duck for cover and assess the situation. I don't know, though, till I'm there. But I'm not going to say it's good no one there had a gun because they would have made it worse.
If it were likely someone there WAS armed (which it's not in this country anymore) things like this might happen less regularly. I'd rather arm the entire citizenry than disarm all of them, which is the way we're currently headed.
momof4 at July 20, 2012 7:52 PM
Ken R, I pull a number (10) out of the air as an example and say massacre for effect and you want evidence. You are right to point out I can't prove it but I do believe there is a high probability there could have been more deaths and also a possibility that there might have been less. We can only speculate. I might be wrong but hope never to find out one way or the other. My analysis tells me one thing yours another.
Emotionally I'd love to think that John McClane (Die Hard) was always at hand but of all the people I've met in my life I can't think of one who could pull it off or even be effective in the case we are discussing. Maybe you can but I, and I bet you, can easily name dozens of people we would not want to carry a gun. So, who gets to carry? What tests do they have to pass? How often do they have to re-certify? What are the guidelines today?
According to the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners site "You must have proof of some form of firearms safety training within the last 10 years." and not have a criminal record. The rest of the rules are paperwork. See http://www.rmgo.org/concealed-carry-guide/step-by-step-instructions-for-getting-your-concealed-carry-permit
Good enough? You tell me.
momof4 glad to see you recognize the dangers. Are the Colorado rules enough to give you confidence in anyone who can pass the test?
Ray at July 20, 2012 8:25 PM
JD makes a good point I hadn't thought of before. Sure, maybe you think Dan Cathy's position is bigoted/wrong, and it's your personal right to avoid doing business with CFA if that bothers you.
But, the statement itself doesn't harm anyone, nor does it make the company de-facto bigoted against anyone. CFA's ultimately doesn't have any legal say who gets married to who, anywhere, and they're not in the marriage or legislative business (thank God). They're in the sell-chicken-to-whomever-walks-in-the-door business.
qdpsteve at July 20, 2012 8:50 PM
"Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We're an open city, we're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion," Menino told the Herald yesterday.
Interesting. I guess that means since they are trying to exclude someone based on a difference of beliefs there is no place for them either.
The Former Banker at July 20, 2012 10:22 PM
Menino: "We're an open city, we're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion".
Inclusion. He gives this as justification for excluding someone.
Ken R at July 20, 2012 11:59 PM
Is it good food?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 21, 2012 4:10 AM
Nothing I said was directed to you, personally. Only to those who feel that gun control is the solution every time some lunatic shoots someone.
Sorry, Patrick. I read the sarcasm before I got what you meant. Thanks for the agreement, then. And Ray, I was totally serious. If more sane people carry and have proper training, as my BF and I do, there would be less occurances of idiocy like the Colorado shooter. "Joker", my ass. The kid was supposedly a "brilliant" student? He had a few loose screws, and believe me when I tell you, had my BF or I been in that theatre and realized what was going on, we both would have dropped, got out our pistols, and aimed for that kid's head. And no one else's. I would never want to be in a situation like that, but I'd rather have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it, like that old guy in Florida who shot at those 2 black kids who were trying to rob the internet cafe. Or would you rather watch everyone cower to idiots like them?
I'd rather arm the entire citizenry than disarm all of them, which is the way we're currently headed.
Momof4 is exactly right.
Flynne at July 21, 2012 7:30 AM
Flynne, I respect your opinion but of course don't agree with it. As things stand all you need to get a concealed carry permit in Colorado is prove you took a safety course in the last ten years. Maybe you are one of the very few people that I'd be happy had a gun but the present regulations do not require any training in what to do and as I've said before I think it is a skill that needs to be learned and kept up to date. How often should one practice to keep their skill honed? 100 rounds a week? More? Less? What to you do so you don't lose your edge? Do you think it's enough? Do you leave your gun at home when you've had a particularly emotional day and your nerves are on edge?
momof4, arming all the citizenry will never happen and no one wants to disarm all of them but those who are armed need more than a safety course. Arm the police and the military not the butcher and the plumber.
I live in Toronto where we have had, what many claim is a disastrous year so far with respect to homicides and there are calls for banning hand guns. This call is the result of 30 homicides so far in 2012. Toronto is often compared to Chicago because we share so many things in common. Population size, geographic location, population diversity, economy, etc etc. We do not share the same attitude and laws about guns. The number of homicides in Chicago this year was 263 at the end of June. How do you explain that?
This is a great discussion. I'm glad it's got us all thinking about this.
Ray at July 21, 2012 8:09 AM
Wow, Ray - you named the American city with the most restrictions on concealed firearms carry in the USA as if you want to emulate them.
You, so to speak, have just shot yourself in the foot.
As you did when you assumed that the solution to the criminal use of firearms is to ban their possession by the law-abiding.
Nice job.
Radwaste at July 21, 2012 9:43 AM
Good questions, Ray. I am a card-carrying member of the NRA, and as such, I like to shoot at least once a month, more if time allows. Practice makes perfect, you know. There are ranges we go to here, and you MUST take a class before you are allowed to receive your permit. The people who apply are vetted by the local and state police, and there's a wait of about 6 months now, if I'm not mistaken. And apparently more women are applying than ever before, but I can't remember off the top of my head where I heard that, and I'm too lazy right now to go looking for the stats. As for when I carry, well, I don't usually carry to work, but BF carries all the time. When we go to visit a friend, he'll leave his piece in the car, usually under the seat or in the glove box. I leave mine in the glove box, as well. I wouldn't carry if "[my] nerves were on edge", unless there was a known threat in my immediate area, and even then I'd be reluctant to pull the trigger. Having a permit and carrying a gun is not about wanting to kill people, it is about protection. If you want to get a permit to carry just to be able to show off that you have a piece, well, that's certainly the wrong reason. But when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and that puts the citizenry at a serious disadvantage. Wanting to be able to protect yourself and your property should not be so damn difficult to do. Protecting my family and what I've worked hard for all of my life from some scum-sucking shithead with a gun who thinks he has a right to take whatever he wants from whomever he wants seems to me to be fairly reasonable.
I live in Connecticut, where there are 3 major cities that have, on average, a dozen to several dozen homicides a year. Usually they're mostly robbery and gang related, same as Chicago. I can't explain it, except to say that too many kids are growing up without any kind of decent influence in their lives and they're going to hell in a bucket. How to change that? Teach them about personal responsibility. But that has to be done by their parents, who all too often are involved in the gangsta life themselves. I have no idea how to fix that.
Flynne at July 21, 2012 9:43 AM
Radwaste, what is your point? If we ban handguns in Canada we will have 10 times more shootings person? You are going to have to supply more evidence to support that. I haven't verified the numbers but I believe this statement is pretty close to accurate "In one year, GUNS murdered 35 in Australia, 39 in England &Wales, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, & 9,484 in the United States." Those are not per capita numbers but based on Canada/US ratios one would expect either 2,000 for the US or 950 for Canada. You can claim that Chicago's restrictions are higher than elsewhere but if that means that in Chicago you have to fill out two more pieces of paper than you do in Colorado it's a meaningless claim.
Also I never assumed the solution was to ban guns. I've suggested it and some of us are discussing it. However, if law abiding citizens don't have guns that makes guns less available to crooks. See my response to Flynne below.
Flynne, you have convinced me that you are a responsible person and that I would not be overly worried to have you around. I think I'd enjoy your company. Still, by the description you've given above it sounds like you would not have had your gun with you at the midnight screening of Batman. I am a little concerned that you leave your gun, and sometimes two guns, in your car. Isn't car theft high on the list of mostly likely crimes?
If law abiding citizens have guns it will encourage crooks to have guns (so they can defend themselves ironically) and put them in a situation where they are more likely to use them as they will assume the citizenry are armed.
Great discussion. I hope Amy doesn't mind this thread being hijacked.
Ray at July 21, 2012 10:24 AM
I'm a former Torontian myself, Ray. Back in the 1930s/40s/50s/60s when Toronto was Toronto the Good, Canadian firearms laws were much less restrictive than they are now. Lots of guns were on sale in stores and shops all over the city. Yet mass shootings at the Eaton Centre in broad daylight, shootings of children and toddlers in the street like this week's Danzig Street incident, and the shooting of kids in their schools (like Jordan Manners) were unheard of. Why do you suppose that is?
Note that the shootings I've listed have something in common - they were all committed by thugs from the black underclass, like so many shootings in the city are. It's not random Torontonians blasting away at each other on the streets. According to the 2006 census, blacks were 6.9 % of the population in the Greater Toronto Area. According to the 2010 census, blacks were 32.9 % of the population in Chicago. I don't have handy statistics for the number of black gangstas & wannabe gangstas in these two cities, but the black underclass is certainly much larger, and the thug culture more deeply entrenched, in the South Side of Chicago than in Regent Park or Jane & Finch. I think that accounts for much of Chicago's higher homicide numbers.
Like Radwaste said, the laws put in place by Mayor Daley Junior were the most draconian, and came the closest to a ban on private gun ownership, of any gun control laws in the US. Fat lot of good they've done. I have yet to hear anyone explain why they believe that scumbag criminals willing to commit mass murder on the streets in broad daylight will obey gun control laws. In the meantime, I'll stick with my conclusions that gun control laws on either side of the border do squat at keeping guns out of the hands of criminal scum, and that cowardly, craven politicians pushing for more gun control on either side of the border are taking the easy way out and demonizing inanimate objects, instead of dealing with the legions of fatherless, soulless young men who are doing most of the shooting and killing.
Martin (Ontario) at July 21, 2012 11:00 AM
"former Torontonian" gack!
Martin (Ontario) at July 21, 2012 11:05 AM
Do you advocate re-tests for a driver's license? Why not -- because it is used daily? Do you have any friends that bike to work daily and only drive once a week to go grocery shopping? Do they need a re-test every time they renew their license? What about the guy that grew up in the country, but has lived in the city, walking distance to work, for 15 years and only rents a car twice a year while visiting relatives - does he need a retest?
The one that I noticed missing in your stats is the Swiss. The Swiss essentially are required to have a firearm in every home. What is their handgun or firearm murder rate?
No, it isn't. There is a legal technicality that operates in the U.S. The words "must", "shall" and "will" have a legal force that compels the bureaucrat or politician to take action. The words "can", "may", and "allowed" does not force the bureaucrat or politician to do anything. The state of Illinois is a "may" issue state.
So the person fills out the "two more pieces of paper" and is still not issued a carry permit. But court rulings have said that until the legislature changes the law form "may" to "shall" the Sheriff or other official doesn't have to do crap. Illinois is a may issue state.
I'm going to start here and pick the rest apart. Canada has had strict gun bans for 20+ years (give or take). Where did the ~200 criminals get their firearms? They were all law abiding citizens, right? Also another missing portion statistic is the number of other injuries from other weapons. Added in how many muggings, etc. compared to a similar city?
Most responsible people who carry firearms in the U.S. will observe the gun buster signs regardless of whether they have the force of law. IIRC, the AMC Theaters all have them. Wonder if that will change?
Also while car theft is a possible look at the numbers "Fresno, California was the worst in the nation, with about 8.1 vehicle thefts per 1,000 residents. Give me the odds, but I think it is in the chances of being killed by a tornado.
If the bad guy decides he wants to be armed, he will do it regardless of the whether the law abiding are armed, hence the 200 gunfire murders in Canada. Another anecdotal statistic -- i.e. I don't know where to cite it -- the number of CCW licenses are climbing in the many U.S. states. The crime rates in those states are dropping.
I want to compel you to see the problems with your arguments. Accepting facts is always hard.
Jim P. at July 21, 2012 12:05 PM
Some other cross-border stats that have a bearing on this discussion - North Dakota has very liberal gun laws and guns are almost everywhere, yet this has not led to endless murder & mayhem:
http://disastercenter.com/crime/ndcrimn.htm
In 2008, there were just 5 murders in the state (0.8 homicides per 100,000 people). In 2009, there were 12 murders (1.9 per 100K) and in 2010 there were 10 (1.5 per 100K).
Martin (Ontario) at July 21, 2012 12:57 PM
Now lets compare those numbers to the stats for Manitoba, right across the border. In 2008, Manitoba (which has less than twice the population of North Dakota) had 54 murders (4.4 per 100K), in 2009 57 (4.7 per 100K) and in 2010 (3.6 per 100K):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal12a-eng.htm
So despite all those guns, North Dakotans are less likely to be murder victims than Manitobans, and indeed their homicide rate is lower than that of Canada as a whole. Canada is a safe country by and large, and I'm glad of it. But the notion that strict gun control is the reason for this is not borne out by the facts.
Martin (Ontario) at July 21, 2012 1:14 PM
That's 45 murders in Manitoba in 2010.
Martin (Ontario) at July 21, 2012 1:16 PM
Still, by the description you've given above it sounds like you would not have had your gun with you at the midnight screening of Batman. I am a little concerned that you leave your gun, and sometimes two guns, in your car. Isn't car theft high on the list of mostly likely crimes?
Just got in from weeding the garden. I like Jim P.'s and Martin's responses to you, and totally agree with them. That said, I think if BF and I had been at the theatre and hadn't been armed, likely we would have tried to find a way to disarm the shooter either by one of us creating a distraction and the other going to the car while using a cell phone to call 911, or trying to help others get out of the theatre, or most likely, a combination of both. I say likely because both he and I can be pretty level-headed in emergencies when others are panicking. We kinda like that about each other, among other things. We tend to keep each other grounded. More likely, we wouldn't have been at the midnight showing though.
As for car theft, I'm not worried about my car being stolen, it's older and paid for. And we don't always leave our firearms in the car. Most of the time, but not always.
Flynne at July 21, 2012 2:35 PM
If Canada had her violence together, she wouldn't be expecting the United States to defend her borders.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 21, 2012 3:03 PM
"Arm the police and the military not the butcher and the plumber."
Wow. Where to start. 1) general law enforcement shooting exams are shockingly lax IMO. 2) I passed the Marines Sharpshooter requirements back in college and I have no doubt that many if not most butchers and plumbers could as well with a little practice. Shooting is merely hand/eye coordination and repetition. 3) if only the police and military are armed, who will protect you from them when they coming storming in without a warrant?
My dad was a marine, my FIL was a marine, my little brother and stepdad are police, every uncle I have on both sides was military in some branch, my DH was air force. The culture of my life has always been, since birth, that guns are to be respected and are tools. Not evil. My 18th bday present was a Kahr .40 semi. The notion that guns should be locked up only for those in power just goes against the grain of all I believe America stands for.
momof4 at July 21, 2012 5:34 PM
where to start? How about in reverse order of sensible responses.
Crid, You appear to be a troll. Good-bye.
JIm P. You seem to get the gist of the discussion we have been having but you present almost self-combusting strawmen. Thank you for taking the time to prepare a long if rambling response but comparing guns to cars and bicycles is nonsensical. Sure someone can be killed by either and any number of other ways but they cars and bicycles have useful purposes. The only purpose for a handgun is to kill people. Yeah, I know there are gun clubs but that's not a valid excuse. That's taking the killing machine and using it otherwise. A gun would make a fine hammer too but so what?
Wow, I quoted someone else about murder statistics around the world and you jump on that because it doesn't include every jurisdiction and you still ignore the point that the Canadian and US stats are so out of whack when you take their populations into account. Way to miss the point.
Chicago, I was simply questioning what it meant that Chicago's restrictions were higher. No detail was provided. What does it mean to say they are higher? Three hundred feet one inch is higher than three hundred feet. Is it significant? That probably depends on other factors. I don't know what the restrictions are in Chicago exactly nor what they are in Toronto for that matter. I also don't have details on gun ownership but would confidently assume it is higher in Chicago than Toronto until proven otherwise. Would like to do the investigation or do you think you might agree?
You seem to think that because Canada's murder rate isn't zero then my argument is no good. Seriously? Are you proposing an all or nothing situation. Do you distinguish at all between 200 and 9,000? Would you be just as happy with a tenth of your current income?
The injuries from other weapons is nothing but a distraction. We are discussing guns here but since you brought it up I'd much rather be in a crowd where a madman was slashing at people with a knife than randomly spraying bullets from an assault rifle.
"Most responsible people who carry firearms.." now you are moving the goalpost. If we only had to deal with responsible people we wouldn't be having this discussion. As a matter of fact I would remove the modifier most by saying that those who don't observe the signs give up their claim to be called responsible.
Then you take on the guns in cars and somehow dismiss it because the numbers are low. How many cars are stolen in the US each year? How many have guns in them? If even a tiny percentage of those end up in criminal hands it's more than if people didn't leave the guns in their cars.
Yes bad guys will get guns if they want them. I suggest that they get them because they feel they need them. If they expect their victims to be armed they are more likely to feel the need to be armed and therefore want a gun. Bad guys aren't all, or even most of them, stupid. Getting caught commiting a crime with a gun will get them in more trouble than if they don't have the gun. I suggest that they bring the power they think they need to give them just enough edge. Most criminals are not armed.
Yes the crime rate is dropping in the US as it is in Canada. So? Corelation does not imply causation.
Thanks for trying to make me see the problems with my arguments. I am happy to accept facts. Please present some relevant ones.
--
Flynne, I like that you are taking a reasoned approach to this. If we were all in the same location I think you, momof4 and I could have a great time thrashing this out over dinner. Does my response to Jim P meet with your approval? You claim to be level-headed and calm and your posts here make me think that probably is the case and I also think that makes you a very unusual exception. If everyone was like you we would not be having this discussion.
--
Martin, Torontian - I like it. I've been here since the 60s and agree in part with your assesment. While we have seen horrible things like the Eaton Centre shooting on the whole crime is down and Toronto is basically a safe city, as is Chicago although Chicago is not as safe.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head if I read between the lines. Guns are not the problem in and of themselves. The problems are greater in certain areas due to socio-economic problems. In my socio-economic class there is very little chance that I will be the victim of violent crime. If I felt there was an area where I would be threatened I would avoid it. I certainly wouldn't arm myself and go there.
Criminals will not obey gun laws but I have argued above that criminals, those who take a gun to a robbery for example, do it for the ironic reason of self-defense. Many of the problems we see are young hoods who carry guns as a show of their manlyness and then end up using it in panic mode. I don't know what to do about those who need a gun to be cool but outreach and education will do more than having everyone armed.
--
Here's a thought experiment for all of you. If all the people not in the South Side of Chicago, Regent Park or Jane and Finch and other such areas were armed would I be safer?
Personally I'd be scared shitless. The chances of me being accidentally shot would be astronomically higher than that I would be shot at all in the present situation.
Again Amy, thanks for the forum for this ongoing experience.
Ray at July 21, 2012 6:25 PM
momof4, looks like we were preparing posts at the same time. Sorry for the lack of detail in this response, it's been a long night of responses, but I think you've posted a case of worst-first thinking.
There is risk in everything. The trick is to not overreact. I don't know where you life but your bathroom is probably more dangerous than Chicago.
ray at July 21, 2012 6:31 PM
Where you live momof4 not where you life. OK. No more reading this thread until tomorrow.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
ray at July 21, 2012 6:55 PM
I live in round rock tx. Not a bastion of crime and decently liberal. I've been to Chicago, and had a fine time, public transport, parks at night, no problems. I was in college. I saw the air show over the lake. My crim prof at UT liked to showcase his mugging in chicago as an example of simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which is, mostly, what crime is.
Of course, you can up your odds of being in the wrong place at the wrong time by doing really stupid things. The people in Colorado did no such thing. They really were just the victims of shitty luck. I say arming the prols can lower the risk of shitty luck. You say it ups it. I see no common ground there.
Criminals don't carry guns to save themselves during crime. They carry them to COMMIT crime. Nothing you do is going to convince a crackhead that he doesn't need a gun to rob a store. Nothing. If you could, Britain would have no gun crime.
And in the end, even if you were completely right and I was completely wrong, I have no intention of making some ass feel safer robbing me, so that he doens't feel a need to bring a gun. Making the victim of violence the cause of it is simply insane in my world.
momof4 at July 21, 2012 9:54 PM
"...but I have argued above that criminals, those who take a gun to a robbery for example, do it for the ironic reason of self-defense."
Where did you get that nonsense? Criminals take a gun to a robbery because it gives them an overwhelming advantage against their unarmed victims. They can intimidate and subdue more victims at one time, their victims are much less likely to resist or run away, and they can easily kill if they choose to.
Do you think that if the government disarmed all law abiding citizens, which is pretty much the situation in places like Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington DC, criminals wouldn't bother to acquire guns? Imagine what would happen if a couple of punks without a gun tried to rob an internet cafe full of customers without any guns. How do you think that would go down? As astoundingly stupid as most criminals are, even they are not that stupid.
Ken R at July 22, 2012 1:14 AM
"If all the people not in the South Side of Chicago, Regent Park or Jane and Finch and other such areas were armed would I be safer?"
Yes, you would. Areas in which a large number of law abiding citizens are armed are very dangerous places for criminals to commit crimes in. Like everyone else, criminals prefer to work where it's safer. It's kind of like if every third house in a neighborhood has a big, mean dog lurking inside there will probably be very few if any burglaries in that neighborhood. The two out of three that didn't have a dog would benefit because of the ones that did.
I once had a middle aged, college educated, female coworker who was adamantly opposed to any private ownership of firearms. I once suggested that she put a sign in the flower bed near her front door stating something like, "This is a gun-free family", or a bumper sticker on her car that said, "Guns kill" or "Citizens Against Gun Ownership". She told me she wouldn't because, as she put it, "I'd be targeting myself for armed criminals." Well, duh!
Ken R at July 22, 2012 1:49 AM
"I'd much rather be in a crowd where a madman was slashing at people with a knife than randomly spraying bullets from an assault rifle."
Do you think that prohibiting law abiding citizens from carrying guns will cause a madman to choose a knife instead of an assault rifle?
As you said, "Criminals will not obey gun laws..." and "Yes bad guys will get guns if they want them."
Ken R at July 22, 2012 2:15 AM
"Bad guys aren't all, or even most of them, stupid."
I've worked in a couple of places that had lots and lots of bad guys (and gals) in them - about 5,000 at any given time, and a lot of turnover. One thing that it is impossible not to be constantly reminded of is the astounding stupidity of the majority of them (not all, but almost).
"Getting caught commiting a crime with a gun will get them in more trouble than if they don't have the gun."
That's true. But they are not the least bit concerned about it - never even give it a thought - because they honestly do not believe they're going to get caught. And most of the time they don't.
A lot of the criminals I interacted with had been chased down by police dogs, or chased and collared by a single cop, or subdued by some angry citizen who decided to fight back. I used to wonder why none of the criminals carried something as cheap, concealable and easy to get as a small can of pepper spray to use to slow down a police dog, a fast cop or an angry citizen. An obese coworker who was more street smart than I told me, "Well, Ken, they don't think they need sumthin' like that cuz they don't think they ever gonna get caught. They think they too smart to get caught, even after they been caught a hundred times before."
The kinds of criminals who commit robbery, murder, assault, rape, burglary... they want guns... really bad... Guns substantially increase their power, expand their horizons, and open up whole new worlds of potential victims. Sticking a gun down the front of their pants practically gives them an orgasm. A skinny 5 foot 7 inch, buck-toothed criminal with a gun, any gun, can completely dominate a hulking, 6 foot 2 inch, unarmed convenience store clerk.
Ken R at July 22, 2012 3:32 AM
Looks like we, me included, have descended into the minutia of this discussion. On the whole a good job has been done defending our positions. We have not resolved the situation and won't. I can't accept the idea of wanting a gun driven by fear. Some are afraid they are going to be the victim of a criminal. If all the law abiding people in my neighbourhood carried guns I'd be much more afraid of being shot accidentally and my owning a gun would not prevent or deter that.
Thanks for an enjoyable trade of ideas. I hope those of you who have guns never need to use them. I don't understand the unease that makes you feel you need them.
ray at July 22, 2012 6:45 AM
Criminals don't carry guns to save themselves during crime. They carry them to COMMIT crime. Nothing you do is going to convince a crackhead that he doesn't need a gun to rob a store. Nothing. If you could, Britain would have no gun crime.
This, Ray. Momof4 is absolutely correct. If criminals thought they could overpower someone through shear physical force, why would they need a gun?
It's not unease on my part that made me think having a gun is a good idea. It's the fact that there are so many criminals out there, that I felt the need to even the playing field, so to speak. The Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, and as I said before, I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. Call me a patriot, I guess. Because if this country ever experiences an invasion (not the illegal immigrant one, that's a whole other ball of wax and argument), I'll be on the front lines, defending my country, me and mine.
Flynne at July 22, 2012 9:36 AM
Damn. I said I was finished but I can't resist one more, slightly tongue in cheek, response Flynne. Would you rather wear a bullet proof vest and not need it that not have one? Do you?
ray at July 22, 2012 10:14 AM
Ray, you crack me up! No, I don't have one, and if I could get one in purple light-weight Kevlar, I just might wear one!
Flynne at July 22, 2012 12:27 PM
PS - Tongue firmly in cheek!
o.O
Flynne at July 22, 2012 12:28 PM
I don't feel any unease, either. I've been maybe one place in my life that I felt unsafe, and I spent time with some very unsavory people in some very unsavory places in college. To me owning a gun is like, say, owning an electric carving knife. I use that carving knife once a year, but when I need it, nothing else will do.
I can't understand your feeling of unease about people HAVING guns. DO you think the guns will shoot themselves as you walk by? Do you think your neighbors are such idiots as to shoot a gun to, say, swat a fly and get you by accident?
Plus, I enjoy target practice and I enjoy NOT having to feel unease. The thought of my neighbors having guns doesn't worry me a whit. And I'm certain they do, one's in the army and all of them live in Texas with me.
In the end, it may just be a deep distrust of authority that makes me want to be armed. Who knows. If so, I'd fit in with the people that founded our country and protects yours.
momof4 at July 22, 2012 3:28 PM
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
Unix-Jedi at July 23, 2012 12:07 PM
Eh, but towns can ban things if they want to. There are dry towns, chain-free towns. They tend to be wealthy tourist places.
NicoleK at July 23, 2012 4:53 PM
Great article, Unix. Thanks for posting.
prawn toe at July 24, 2012 9:05 AM
Y'all knew I couldn't resist this. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/07/24/Texan-accidentally-fires-shot-at-Walmart/UPI-45371343147222/?spt=hs&or=tn
No comments needed or expected. Just posted for amusement. I know it's an isolated case.
ray at July 25, 2012 1:38 PM
Leave a comment