Friday, January 29, 2010

It must suck being him.

The guy who penned the editorial for yesterday's Indianapolis Red Star, that is. I can't imagine going through life quaking in my piss-filled boots like that.

Of course, given the number of bogeymen infesting his world, a counterargument could be made that he exhibits immense courage simply poking his head out from under the bedclothes and scuttling to the head every morning.

Bobbi hauls him behind the woodshed at her blog.


Comrade Misfit said...

I'm kinda sorta thinking that the cops or the courts cross-check the CCW registry with those who have either restraining orders or convictions for domestic violence.

There are no shortage of studies showing that the overwhelming majority of CCW holders are a law-abiding bunch. If we weren't, we wouldn't bother with applying for a CCW permit.

Shrimp said...

I love how the comments section on the article has devolved into a discussion on where one can find .380, and if it is a sufficient round for self defense, as well as other things that completely ignore the article.

From the book of Simpson, Nelson 1:1, "Ha Ha!"

Anonymous said...

I sincerely doubt the police ever look at the lists of restraining orders, domestic violence convictions, or permit holders until well after someone is arrested. I don't believe they have the time, energy, or inclination to be that pro-active in preventing crime. Their primary job, the only one they're legally obligated to do, is to investigate after the crime is committed. They are not obligated to prevent crime or protect you.

Le Bolide said...

I bet that poor fellow would be shocked... *shocked!* to find out that a far greater number of people with a history of violence carry guns without a permit!!! <:0

Tam said...

But... but... that would be illegal!

Anonymous said...

Funny how "open government" has morphed into divulging private citizens' personal information.
-- Lyle

Anonymous said...

The opening sententce is good-used grass, and it's all downhill from there...

Le Bolide nailed it pretty well.

Me, I'm anti-violence. I really don't like it. I see it as proper to end violence ASAP. Methods, vary, of course.

I once faced the potential for violence. I blathered on in public about the methodology of my drug-smuggling next-door neighbors and their half-ton to one-ton monthly efforts. They were not amused.

But I certainly didn't have to worry about media exposure. No CHL laws or registry at that time. I-and many others--merely toted as need be.

Q: You reckon that little opinionator would have spoken publicly about such neighbors?


staghounds said...

I'm kinda sorta thinking that the cops or the permitting authority are SUPPOSED TO cross-check applicants.

I'm also kst that they sometimes foul up, forget, or "forget" to do so. At both ends, the checking end and the original prohibited person database creation. (My friend who shares his name and almost date of birth with a felon knows from bitter experience.)

I'm of two minds about this in principle. Privacy is important.

And so is our ability to check on government's operations. It bothers me that some slug in the permitting authority can misgrant a permit and there is no one outside "the only ones" to check his work. The balance is close enough that it's a political question to me.

The Star's investigation, which I've read on line, does show some abuses and incompetent failures. Not a huge number, but some. And it wasn't a particularly thorough or complete investigation, especially since the Star's checkers only had access to local records of permit holders in two counties- no out of state records, psychiatric committal records, etc.

It also shows the interesting fact that local law enforcement has objected to permitting some people, and that the State Police have uniformly ignored those objections.

I don't know that I'm comfortable with the idea that no one outside law enforcement can know about the issuance of the permits.

The only ones got caught. If what they do is concealed, how will we catch them? Why give the roaches a place of concealment?

Justthisguy said...

Dang, Staghounds! Those are some disturbing thought-provoking questions you are posing there! Are you some kinda troublemaker, or what? Snork.

WV: tumstop. A new law forbidding cheap antacids for the stomach?