INDY STAR: Allowed to Carry Guns in Public

[jd3772000]

Nothing like some mugshots to play on people's bias'!

Exactly...

 

[IndyBeerman]

I just sent an email to the NRA about this article and a link to it.

I think the system is flawed, but the article is very biased. Which is no surprise.

Agree on this 100 percent, if it would have real journalism it would have pointed out the overwhelming amount of permit holders are law abiding upstanding citizens and at least have a few examples of it.

I

 

[Bill of Rights]

Front page...

Better question: Should people like these:
Mark Alesia, Heather Gillers, Tim Evans and Mark Nichols

be allowed freedom of speech and the press?

Just sayin'....

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jblomenberg16]

I'm not. I'm all for keeping bad guys away from guns. And knives. And pointy sticks. And rocks.

And depending how bad they are... from air.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill-

That is much better said than the way I said it.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Ok...I'm going to take what might be a somewhat unpopular stance here and make a few comments.

Collectively we express a lot of outrage about our current political system, how it seems like it is always a battle between two parties and every major piece of legislation, propoganda, etc. has a clear winner and a clear loser.

The unfortunate thing is that when we continue to make very blanket statements such as "that libtard paper, etc." we're just widening the every growing rift in society. I know that is a very pointed comment from me towards some of the folks that have posted. I won't appologize for it, but I do hope you at least take a few moments to think about what I'm saying here.

We should stand up for our rights, and not allow our freedoms to be infringed on. But this is where we, as the freedom loving, silent majority, need to stand up and be the bigger person. We need to resist the urge to fight back with petty name calling, or jump to conclusions - quickly dismissing everything that doesn't seem to be 100% in line with our thinking as wrong. Does that actually do any good, or does it in fact just make things worse?

Isn't this the very behavior the left is exhibiting that is so infuriating to us??? How often do we get upset when we're called "Right Wing Extremists?" What about when comments are made about how our beliefs and values are no longer valid in a modern society.

I'm not saying we need to just go with the flow and let this stuff just roll off our backs. We need to stand up, write very professional letters to the editors, make meaningful, databased arguements to support our points, and demonstrate the behavior we want to see, rather than mirror the behavior we don't. When we lower ourselves to the tactics being used, we just provide further fuel for their fire.


There were certainly some strong political undertones in the article, along with some sensationalization to grab readers' attention. To some extent that is surely part of the author/publisher's agenda. And, to some extent, that is also a journalist doing what he can to ensure his article is read. It is not unlike trying to sell any product - you need to grab someone's attention with the headline so that they read the rest of it.


Would any of us have even given the headline a second glance if it was written like this: ISP should review internal procedures on liscensing? Unless you new the background, worked for ISP, or just had nothing better to do, you probably would have skipped over that headline an onto the next page.


I belive that there are clearly right ways and wrong ways in life, and in most cases those are very black and white. It is the grey areas that often challenge us to really look to our core and determine our values and what we believe in. Once we determine what we believe in, how will we stand up for them? Will we hope that by calling people names, not even listening to their point, or by just saying that "I'm right and you're wrong" that we'll be able to spread our beliefs?

 

[JBob77]

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the rift between libs and conservatives grew so wide that it creaded two seperate countries. I would be willing to move if necessary

 

[PatMcGroyne]

STAR shotts itself in the foot

Right at the front-page fold, the second sentence should have ended the article: "the state ignores 'good character and reputation...' and grants permits", and that ends it. The Evil Gun Syndrome is busted! It's just a problem with enforcement. "We have the surrounded and out numbered."

 

[minuteman32]

My reply to the (red) Star article;

Had to be broken into 3 posts due to size restriction.

A problem w/ letting the local LEO's have more authority in issuance is that it would depend upon, in addition to other things, what the political makeup was in your area as to whether you would be issued a license & what the requirements would be to obtain/keep one. We would end up like CA, NJ, NY, etc. Ask the law abiding folks of Orange Co., CA that were issued permits under the former sheriff, who had them revoked by the new sheriff when she came into office.

Also, if the ISP were to use the 'good character and reputation' clause, as intended from the 1930's, they would not issue to blacks. Maybe they should do this, judging from the pictures included in the story!? Would those of you on the left be conflicted? At least you would get some folks disarmed. One race @ a time, just like the other supporters of gun control like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. Since all gun control is meant to disarm one segment of society, this would seem logical, even though I vociferously disagree with it!

You will also find that statistically, law abiding citizens with carry permits are the most law abiding members of society, across the country (hence the term, "Law Abiding Citizen")! More than priests, teachers, doctors, even police! I see this all the time as a local LEO, who has had a license to carry from IN since I was 18 years old, and am also a certified firearms instructor for another state. Maybe the (red) Star should do a story on that!

In conclusion, can you imagine the uproar if we needed to get a license to worship as we chose, vote, or any other inalienable right enumerated in the Bill of Rights of either/both Constitutions of the United States and/or Indiana Constitution (Article 1, section 32, "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.")! As far as only police & military having guns, Article 1, section 23 seems to have something to say about that, as well, "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."

 

[indianajoe]

Ok...I'm going to take what might be a somewhat unpopular stance here and make a few comments....

Well said. Reps, sir.
joe

 

[Eiffelman]

The Indy Star did not help responsible gun owners by publishing that article. Where I come from the locals were almost universally against private citizens being allowed to have a license to carry a handgun. If the State Police go by the recommendations of locals, I am afraid that will greatly reduce the number of licenses issued.

 

[Michiana]

Throwing stones at the wrong person, aren't you?

The Indy Star did not help responsible gun owners by publishing that article. Where I come from the locals were almost universally against private citizens being allowed to have a license to carry a handgun. If the State Police go by the recommendations of locals, I am afraid that will greatly reduce the number of licenses issued.

The Indy Star is reporting the facts and they are that undesireables are slipping under the radar and getting permits they should not be getting from the Indiana State Police. If the local and state law enforcement people cooperate and weed out these few rejects every gunowner will benefit. I read INGO posts from admitted (former??) pot heads and dopers who have LCH's with no outcry from members so obviously many of us also look the other way. You reap what you sow.

 

[MrsGungho]

I am at the live chat now and it is very dead.. is anyone from here monitoring this?

 

[SilentWarrior1]

Can you link the Live Chat, MrsG?

 

[MrsGungho]

Chat live now about gun permit story | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

 

[Roadie]

I am there, it is heavily moderated. The reported is only posting questions he wants to answer. So far, none of mine have been posted.

 

[Roadie]

Ugh.

[Comment From Doug ]
How many gun permit holders commit crimes of any kind?

12:23
it's impossible to know for sure. Record-keeping at the local level would make that difficult even for the state police.

Yes, cross referencing the databases would be SO hard. Even though the State of Texas has done so...oy

 

[MrsGungho]

so that would explain why they put up a disclaimer earlier saying the chat was slow... so he would have time to weed through the questions

 

[Roadie]

so that would explain why they put up a disclaimer earlier saying the chat was slow... so he would have time to weed through the questions

Apparently.

I asked this:

The question is, is this really an issue? The states that do not require a permit do NOT have more gun crime. Chicago has a gun ban, and has one of the highest gun crime rates in the country. So logic would dictate that permitting is not the answer.

Nothing yet...

 

[Lucas156]

what a bunch of bs. I put up some pretty good questions about his article and the "moderator" never posted them.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I wonder if you can write an open letter to the editor about the heavy moderation?

I'm sure some level of moderation is needed to help buffer the amount of questions, and make sure some a-hole doesn't come in and blow it up with a bunch of spam.

But at the same time, moderation and CENSORING are a bit different, and if he is cherry picking, that is something worht calling out publically.