U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-18-2010, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Tyrone, GA
126 posts, read 184,855 times
Reputation: 53

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
So let me make an observation and ask these questions.

First, I fly in and out of Hartsfield all the time, at all hours walking to and from my car, and I have never felt unsafe or thought I might be in the slightest danger. Never...not once. I have never seen anyone except employees, cops or TSA, and other travelers with baggage. Who are these nefarious people that gun zealots are so worried about at the airport and where are they hanging out? It's not at the South Terminal or the South Parking decks, I can tell you that.
neil, it's not about feeling safe. it's like a seatbelt, it's there when $hit happens. as you know, some people feel safe with or without a seatbelt. just because many drivers don't follow safe driving laws doesn't mean all cars should be banned from public roads. i like to compare motor vehicles to guns because of the death toll and cops often cite cars as deadly weapons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
Now, let me ask questions. So we ascertained that not much gunfire is being heard at Hartsfield. What crime is occuring? Pickpocketing? Petty larceny? Can you legally shoot someone for that in GA?

How many armed robberies or use of a weapon in a crime has occured at Hartsfield in the last year? 1/hr? 1/day? 1/wk? 1/Mo? 1/yr? None? In the interest of not sounding like the sky is falling, can you tell us what is the true scope of the violent crime problem at Hartsfield?

I would submit...wholly anecdotally of course, that the greater risk is from idiots with legal guns who don't use them or store them properly, than from any risk of violent crime at the airport.

The issue here is politics and not safety.
the sky isn't falling...

there are no laws in vermont that prohibits carrying/conceal in airports. i searched the interweb for any airport shootings there and found none. i can reasonably ascertain that guns in airports aren't a threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
Now, at the same time, I'd be curious to know how many people were killed or seriously injured with legal guns in GA, due to improper use or care? I would bet that number by far exceeds the total number of violent felonies committed at Hartsfield in the same period.
you are correct...
but comparing accidental guns shot deaths and violent crimes committed in the airport are apples and oranges. we already know that not all rapes are reported.

CDC report in 2006: (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html - broken link)
20 accidental gun shot deaths in GA population 9,318,715.
motor vehicle deaths of the same year 1,759
582 deaths from falling (told you that you have a higher percentage dying in your bathroom than owning a gun).

vermont, where no licensing is required, 0 accidental gun deaths

FBI violent crime stats (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_04.html - broken link) to show you how safe society is. ask the victims if they ever thought they would ever be involved in a violent crime against their person or family. in 2006, there were 44,106 violent crimes in GA, as oppose to only 20 accidental gun shot deaths.

the sky only falls when you become a victim...

-a|ex

Last edited by a|ex; 05-18-2010 at 01:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-18-2010, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,844 posts, read 14,552,036 times
Reputation: 3484
Quote:
Originally Posted by a|ex View Post
neil, it's not about feeling safe. it's like a seatbelt, it's there when $hit happens. as you know, some people feel safe with or without a seatbelt. just because many drivers don't follow safe driving laws doesn't mean all cars should be banned from public roads. i like to compare motor vehicles to guns because of the death toll and cops often cite cars as deadly weapons.
Sorry, but that's a terrible analogy. Apples and oranges to the tenth degree.

The difference is that your statistical chance of getting in a car wreck is large, and you may be driving in varying locations and in varying conditions, and the state can't predict where you may be driving, under what weather, road, and other conditions, and what kind of vehicle you have or how well you've maintained it. Someone can smash into your vehicle without you doing anything. You can't measure or predict a specific risk and correlate it to any specific vehicle trip.

Carrying a firearm into a specific location is a totally different thing. If you're going to the airport, you can predict the risk of being faced with a violent crime. Today, that risk is very, very low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by a|ex View Post
there are no laws in vermont that prohibits carrying/conceal in airports.
So what? What does anything done in VT matter to this discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by a|ex View Post
but comparing accidental guns shot deaths and violent crimes committed in the airport are apples and oranges. we already know that not all rapes are reported.

the sky only falls when you become a victim...
No...my point is that going the airport is not risky. You do not currently face any risk of violence being done to you, and the instance of any kind of violence at the airport is practically non-existent. Don't you think if there was an issue with people being attacked at the airport that these pro-gun groups wouldn't be all over that story?

The truth is that going to Hartsfield is safe, and going into a space like an airport terminal with a gun, in 2010 after all that we've experienced with terrorism, is irresponsible and unnecessary. The real question is does having untrained and in some cases reckless citizens carrying firearms into an airport make us more or less safe? I say less safe, and doing so is demonstrably unnecessary and risky.

This whole argument is that people going to the airport need "protection" in the form of a gun, and my point is that's complete BS. How many "victims" have there been?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2010, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Tyrone, GA
126 posts, read 184,855 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
The truth is that going to Hartsfield is safe, and going into a space like an airport terminal with a gun, in 2010 after all that we've experienced with terrorism, is irresponsible and unnecessary. The real question is does having untrained and in some cases reckless citizens carrying firearms into an airport make us more or less safe? I say less safe, and doing so is demonstrably unnecessary and risky.
violent crime in hartsfield is very low. there's no argument here. but you still haven't provided any data that allowing legal responsible gun owners will pose a danger to the airport. it's already illegal to be reckless with a firearm. banning them from the airport will not stop these reckless lawbreakers. but an armed responsible citizen can take down any crazed reckless lawbreaking gun owner.

guns don't make people crazy... sane people will still be sane when they purchase a firearm. unless purchasing a firearm itself is considered insane.

hmmm, i just remembered what it was like when i was anti-gun. it is insane for anyone to own a gun.

the reason i brought up vermont is because people carry/conceal in airports there and no incidents of crazed gun owners were ever reported.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
This whole argument is that people going to the airport need "protection" in the form of a gun, and my point is that's complete BS. How many "victims" have there been?
you are correct, by your logic, we need to see more people reporting violent crimes to justify the fears for public protection. in reality, once a person has become a victim, they will always have that fear everywhere they go. ask a woman that's been raped in college if she feels safe waiting alone at hartsfield airport. if she carry/conceal, would you tell her to leave that gun at home so she can go pick up her friends at the airport? careful how you answer. you don't know what it's like to be a victim.

and no... hartsfield is not as safe as you think. criminals/murders also fly on planes. they may not do violent crimes at the moment, but to think it's safe to be standing next to one at the airport is just careless.

ATLANTA (AP) -- Authorities have arrested an Illinois man accused of flying to Atlanta to have sex with a nine-year-old girl has been arrested as part of an FBI operation to catch pedophiles.
FBI spokesman Steve Lazarus says 27-year-old Ronuk Genge of Oak Park, Illinois, was arrested Saturday at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport just after his flight landed.

everything i post will not sway your stance on guns. that's to be expected. since more people are becoming victims of violent crimes, laws are starting to repeal the knee jerk laws prohibiting them from carrying (hartsfield).

even though i'm licensed to carry/conceal, i chose not to. the reason is because the public has too much fear of guns and i don't want to be labeled as a lunatic carrying citizen. when society accepts guns for what they are (not instruments that make men evil) then i'll start carrying.

it seems like you believe guns make responsible people irresponsible. shouldn't there be a law to prevent irresponsible people from owning guns? there is. but how can one tell if a person is irresponsible? there isn't. so should all guns be banned? this is the heart of the debate. everything else like no gun zones is irrelevant.

-a|ex
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2010, 06:36 PM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,844 posts, read 14,552,036 times
Reputation: 3484
Quote:
Originally Posted by a|ex View Post
you are correct, by your logic, we need to see more people reporting violent crimes to justify the fears for public protection. in reality, once a person has become a victim, they will always have that fear everywhere they go. ask a woman that's been raped in college if she feels safe waiting alone at hartsfield airport. if she carry/conceal, would you tell her to leave that gun at home so she can go pick up her friends at the airport? careful how you answer. you don't know what it's like to be a victim.

and no... hartsfield is not as safe as you think. criminals/murders also fly on planes. they may not do violent crimes at the moment, but to think it's safe to be standing next to one at the airport is just careless.
You bring up completely unrelated and subjective points. So because some people live in fear or have previously been a victim of a crime in an unrelated place, we should allow guns in airport terminals? How's the price of tea in China?

So because criminals get on planes....we all need guns in the terminals. Let's not even mention that you can't get on a plane with a gun, so are these criminals mugging and being violent in the parking lot, ditching their weapons, and then going through security and getting on planes. It's ridiculous.

Look, I'm not against people owning guns, but there has to be some common sense. The politics here is being dominated by a fringe group that believes we should all be armed to the teeth and society should be like the wild west, with every citizen packing heat. These groups reject common sense in pursuit of their agenda.

We need a common sense approach to weapons ownership that starts with training and licensing of gun owners, and a common sense approach to not allowing guns where no threat exists and where more of a risk is posed by the gun than by the lack of a gun. Bars and airports would be two of those places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2010, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Tyrone, GA
126 posts, read 184,855 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
You bring up completely unrelated and subjective points. So because some people live in fear or have previously been a victim of a crime in an unrelated place, we should allow guns in airport terminals? How's the price of tea in China?
it's completely relevant, why do you think people carry/conceal at the airport? they carry because they do not want to become victims (again)... why can you not understand this? i'm glad you brought up china, most of the guns seized from the drug gangs in mexico were bought from china, not the u.s. (this has nothing to do with hartsfield, but so was your comment)

Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
So because criminals get on planes....we all need guns in the terminals. Let's not even mention that you can't get on a plane with a gun, so are these criminals mugging and being violent in the parking lot, ditching their weapons, and then going through security and getting on planes. It's ridiculous.
you mentioned that harstfield is safe. i proved that it wasn't. don't get ahead of yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
Look, I'm not against people owning guns, but there has to be some common sense. The politics here is being dominated by a fringe group that believes we should all be armed to the teeth and society should be like the wild west, with every citizen packing heat. These groups reject common sense in pursuit of their agenda.

We need a common sense approach to weapons ownership that starts with training and licensing of gun owners, and a common sense approach to not allowing guns where no threat exists and where more of a risk is posed by the gun than by the lack of a gun. Bars and airports would be two of those places.
yes, you are against people owning guns, you already mentioned it a few times. responsible gun owners have already received training and practice gun safety.

what you are asking is to make more gun laws to force those that don't follow current gun laws to comply. tell me this isn't so.
it's already illegal to be intoxicated and carry/conceal. why add more laws to prevent these lawbreakers from going into bars? you think they will comply to no guns in bars if they disregard drinking and carrying? there are already guns laws against pointing loaded guns carelessly at people. why add more laws to keep these lawbreakers from going into airports? they already broke the law being careless, you think banning guns in airports matter to them? are you so afraid of guns that you feel uncomfortable not knowing if the person next to you is a lunatic?

it's frustrating to hear people say we need more gun laws because irresponsible people are not complying with current gun laws...
if you look at other states that listened to your cries, they keep passing gun laws to the point that it's almost impossible to own a gun. guess what... it didn't solve the problem. they even tried banning guns. it still didn't solve the problem.

GA doesn't have a problem with responsible gun ownership. so why add more gun laws to fix a problem that doesn't exist?

you are succumbing to the fear of guns... therefore, your judgment is emotionally biased.

-a|ex

Last edited by a|ex; 05-18-2010 at 07:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2010, 08:06 PM
 
705 posts, read 919,145 times
Reputation: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
You bring up completely unrelated and subjective points. So because some people live in fear or have previously been a victim of a crime in an unrelated place, we should allow guns in airport terminals? How's the price of tea in China?

So because criminals get on planes....we all need guns in the terminals. Let's not even mention that you can't get on a plane with a gun, so are these criminals mugging and being violent in the parking lot, ditching their weapons, and then going through security and getting on planes. It's ridiculous.

Look, I'm not against people owning guns, but there has to be some common sense. The politics here is being dominated by a fringe group that believes we should all be armed to the teeth and society should be like the wild west, with every citizen packing heat. These groups reject common sense in pursuit of their agenda.

We need a common sense approach to weapons ownership that starts with training and licensing of gun owners, and a common sense approach to not allowing guns where no threat exists and where more of a risk is posed by the gun than by the lack of a gun. Bars and airports would be two of those places.
Man, I'm sorry, but you sound so confused I dont know where to begin. Either you have totally ignored som eof the ther posts or you're so closed minded that you are not seeing the trees through the forest.

People have the right to defend themselves. That means being allowed to carry a handgun if they choose. You keep focusing on places where you use the arguement that are crime free and therefore pesent no need for a citizen to be armed. Yo are completely missing the point. Guns, airports, bars are not the issue, and neither is whether or not to allow guns in such places. The issue is criminal behavior and the prevention of victimization.

You are entitled to your opinoin and I see where you are coming from, a completely different place than a lot of folks. No problem, more power to you.

As for me, I will always be armed and I will always encourage other law abiding folks to do the same. I will also support my elected representitives, who happened to have supported this legislative action, as long as they loook out for my interests. When they stop representing me I wont vote for them and I'll support a candidate that has better sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2010, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,844 posts, read 14,552,036 times
Reputation: 3484
Quote:
Originally Posted by axemanjoe View Post
The issue is criminal behavior and the prevention of victimization.
I'm not the one who's confused. The issue is criminal behavior and prevention of victimization, but yet folks are advocating for carrying guns in a location, the airport, where no criminal behavior or victimization is taking place. I get carrying in high crime areas, but not at the airport, where someone with a gun can be confused for a bad guy in a location where people are on edge looking for bad guys.

As for the misguided notion that guns = safer streets and less crime, that's been proven to not be true. All you have to do is look at Georgia and Atlanta, and compare them to where I used to live in Massachusetts, a state with the most restrictive gun laws in America. The crime rate in MA is very low. Just look at the stats here on City-Data of the safest communities in the US. Many of them are in Massachusetts. Hardly anyone has a gun, yet the streets are safe.

I'm amazed at the constant gun violence here in GA. It was not like this in MA, again a state with the most restrictive gun laws in the US. If your theory was correct, GA would be safe as can be and MA would be a cesspool of crime. There is a reason why countries like the UK and Canada have a fraction of the gun deaths that we have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2010, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Tyrone, GA
126 posts, read 184,855 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
I'm amazed at the constant gun violence here in GA. It was not like this in MA, again a state with the most restrictive gun laws in the US. If your theory was correct, GA would be safe as can be and MA would be a cesspool of crime. There is a reason why countries like the UK and Canada have a fraction of the gun deaths that we have.
constant gun violence here in GA? but didn't you just say hatsfield airport is crime free? please make up your mind.

you need to check your gun laws in MA, no registration of firearms, carry/conceal is allowed. it's not as restrictive as other states like IL, NJ and NY which have a much higher violent crime rate.

I didn't know MA is relaxing their Licensing:

Beginning August 1st, 2009, all new and renewal non-resident temporary licenses to carry firearms (LTC) in
Massachusetts will be issued through the Massachusetts Instant Record Check System (MIRCS). MIRCS is a
computer based application used to manage, process and monitor firearms licensing statewide.
What this means for applicants:
(1) Applicants will no longer be required to obtain fingerprints from their local police departments;
(2) Applicants will no longer be required to obtain a passport size photograph;
(3) An LTC will be issued on a wallet-sized, digitally printed, plastic card;
(4) To complete the application process, all applicants will be required to appear in person at the following:
Firearms Records Bureau
Criminal History Systems Board
200 Arlington Street, Chelsea, MA 02150

i want one of them digitally printed plastic cards. mine is cheaply laminated.We still have to be fingerprinted here in GA to get licensed. one has to be 21 in GA to get a GFL, but MA allows 18 year old to get an FID and 21 for LTC A or B (LTC A allows for carry/conceal, B for non-large capacity magazine). there's alota responsible gun owners in MA, keep up the good work cutting down violent crimes!

The new FID card permits the purchase, possession and carrying of NON-LARGE CAPACITY RIFLES, SHOTGUNS and AMMUNITION ONLY. You must be at least 18 years old (or 15 - 17 years old with parental consent) to apply for an FID card.

A firearms safety certificate is required for MA gun licensing. I like that idea. This really isn't restrictive nor does it disqualify applicants from owning guns. it's an option in GA and i know many that opposes it being mandatory. but ask any responsible gun owner in GA if he knows the basic rules of gun safety.
  1. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. (treat all guns as if it's loaded)
  2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
  3. Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
the more i read about MA's gun laws, the more i like em...
just recently, GA just allowed carrying in state parks, it has been allowed in MA all this time.

Carry In State Parks/State & National Forests/WMA/Road Side Rest Areas
Carry Allowed in these Areas:
State Parks: YES
State/National Forests: YES
WMA’s YES 321 CMR 3:01 NO Wildlife Sanctuaries 321.7:01
Road Side Rest Areas: YES per MSP


you're gona have to correct me on this, it states that guns are prohibited in the secured areas of the airport (logan's) but doesn't say if it's prohibited in the non secured areas. hunting next to Logan airport is legal? woah... that's something i don't agree with. a stray bullet can hit an aircraft.

i'm having difficulty getting the number of registered gunowners in MA. but i've already read the FBI report of the increasing number of registered gun owners across the U.S.

i'm glad to see responsible gun ownership reducing violent crimes in MA...

oh, about the UK, England's violent crimes increased after they banned guns. violent crimes in the u.s. decrease each year whereas England is increasing. don't get me started on comparing country statistics on guns and violence. i already proved that MA isn't as restrictive as you said it was. it was more lenient on some areas compared with GA. but, MA has more detailed classifications of firearm licensing which really doesn't restrict gun ownership, just classifies the group of guns that are owned.

-a|ex

Last edited by a|ex; 05-19-2010 at 12:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2010, 07:32 AM
 
705 posts, read 919,145 times
Reputation: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
I'm not the one who's confused. The issue is criminal behavior and prevention of victimization, but yet folks are advocating for carrying guns in a location, the airport, where no criminal behavior or victimization is taking place. I get carrying in high crime areas, but not at the airport, where someone with a gun can be confused for a bad guy in a location where people are on edge looking for bad guys.

As for the misguided notion that guns = safer streets and less crime, that's been proven to not be true. All you have to do is look at Georgia and Atlanta, and compare them to where I used to live in Massachusetts, a state with the most restrictive gun laws in America. The crime rate in MA is very low. Just look at the stats here on City-Data of the safest communities in the US. Many of them are in Massachusetts. Hardly anyone has a gun, yet the streets are safe.

I'm amazed at the constant gun violence here in GA. It was not like this in MA, again a state with the most restrictive gun laws in the US. If your theory was correct, GA would be safe as can be and MA would be a cesspool of crime. There is a reason why countries like the UK and Canada have a fraction of the gun deaths that we have.

As for the misguided notion that guns = safer streets and less crime, that's been proven to not be true.

I'd disagree with that statement, read the John Lott book More Guns Less Crime.

Even having considered the stats for MA I'd hardly call MA safe;

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2010, 08:19 AM
 
Location: East Cobb
2,206 posts, read 5,961,057 times
Reputation: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
I'm amazed at the constant gun violence here in GA. It was not like this in MA, again a state with the most restrictive gun laws in the US. If your theory was correct, GA would be safe as can be and MA would be a cesspool of crime. There is a reason why countries like the UK and Canada have a fraction of the gun deaths that we have.
Can't rep you again, but as a person from Canada, I agree. Having lived in a low-gun-ownership, low-gun-death jurisdiction, the solution to gun violence seems obvious: don't have so many guns in the hands of people. Obviously - to judge by the daily news around here - when lots of people have guns, some will use them. Identity checks on gun purchasers can't ensure that every gun owner will use good judgment at all times.

However, as another of your posts stated, those on the other side of the argument quite clearly hold as their ideal a "wild west" style society, in which every citizen is armed and ready to shoot at all times. There's just no resolving this ideological conflict.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top