Guns To Be Allowed In Playgrounds

[RamboLiberal]

Some mothers said Friday they disapprove of a controversial state law that goes into effect July 1, making it legal to carry guns in Indianapolis city parks and playgrounds, which is currently banned by a city ordinance.

The new law generally prohibits local governments from regulating firearms, 6News' Joanna Massee reported.

Mothers who brought their children to Garfield Park told 6News that they disagree with the law.


"Why would you need a gun at the park? You're supposed to come to the park to play with your children," said Eyvonna Hyatt, who has a 3-year-old daughter and a baby on the way. "Kids get shot every day with guns, because they're playing with guns. What are you going to do when you bring your kid to the park and you've got your back turned and your kid takes your gun?"

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/28198440/detail.html

[onehandle]

1. They don't call it the 'terrible twos' for nothing. Grown men need protection from these monsters.

[gejohnston]

7. I read that book quite awhile ago.

[slackmaster]

2. Everyone knows that nobody has ever been assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered in a park

:sarcasm:

[sasha031]

3. this is sad, so glad I'm in a state with decent gun laws

i feel sorry for the mothers and children.

[gejohnston]

8. I am glad I live in such a state too. Wait...

I think we have different definitions of decent.

[spin]

11. So your state has accomplished the disarmament of criminals in parks?

Gang ties probed in motive for fatal shooting at park
Originally published July 18, 2010 at 9:25 AM | Page modified July 18, 2010 at 10:26 PM

From outward appearances, the two groups were celebrating a warm summer Saturday in typical Northwest fashion: grilling food along a picturesque lakefront as children played. One group was gathered around a birthday cake on a picnic table.

Though separated by 50 to 75 feet at crowded Lake Sammamish State Park, several members of one group walked over and taunted members of the second group, King County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. John Urquhart said. The reason is unclear, though Urquhart said members of each group had gang affiliations. And many had firearms.

A fistfight erupted around 9 p.m., and someone from one group apparently fired a gun into the air as a warning. After that, "it sounds to me like everybody pulled out guns," Urquhart said.

Gunfire between the two groups sent their members and other park visitors scrambling for cover, some ducking into restrooms as up to 20 shots filled the air. When the gunfire stopped, two men had fatal wounds and four more were injured.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012388376_sammamish19m.html

Murder Charge Filed In Playground Shooting
June 9, 2011 9:08 AM

ST. LOUIS (AP) __ A St. Louis man now faces a murder charge after a girl hit by a stray bullet on a playground died.

Seven-year-old J’Nylah Douglas was shot in the head May 22 and died at a hospital earlier this week. The St. Louis prosecutor’s office has filed a first-degree murder charge against 48-year-old Elvis Smith. Police said in court
records that Smith had been shooting at another man after an argument over a prior drug deal when one of the bullets struck the girl.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/06/09/murder-charge-filed-in-playground-shooting/

2 girls hurt in playground shooting
Thursday, June 09, 2011

June 9, 2011 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- One person is in custody and police are looking for another in a shooting that injured two young girls on the Northwest Side.

Jocelyn Rodriguez, 7, is in critical condition at Children's Memorial Hospital. A 2-year-old girl is in fair condition. Witnesses say the girls were shot as they played near a sprinkler at Avondale Park.

***SNIP***

Police say someone got out of a purple van in an alley and fired shots after gang signs were flashed. Residents heard gunfire just before 8 p.m. Wednesday. Several children were spending a carefree night on the playground when the shooting started. The 7-year-old girl was shot in the back, and the 2-year-old girl suffered a graze wound to the head.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8179874

[X_Digger]

46. Or more apropos to the poster (whose profile lists MA as the state)...

http://www.tauntongazette.com/features/x31874735/Young-man-shot-in-right-leg-in-Taunton-s-Memorial-Park

Taunton —

A shooting took place at Memorial Park on Tuesday, leaving a young man with a wound to his lower right leg, according to the Taunton Police Department.

Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/archive/x31874735/Young-man-shot-in-right-leg-in-Taunton-s-Memorial-Park#ixzz1OzC9BgLS

There are more at google.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Do you honestly believe there are no guns in parks in Massachusetts?

I have an experiment for you to try, if you've a mind to-

Ask those familiar with Boston (for example) if they think Massachusetts' "decent gun laws" have kept guns out

of Franklin Park.


Tell us how many of them laugh in your face...

[tblue37]

31. In Kansas even blindness is not permitted to be used as a

disqualifier for a gun license. Neither is anyother physical or mental limitation.

[gejohnston]

33. there was a thread on blind people and CCW

check it out, not an issue I ever thought of.

[tblue37]

37. Link? Where would I find it? nt

[slackmaster]

39. You are mistaken. Anyone who has been adjudicated by a court of law as mentally incompetent...

...cannot get a concealed-carry permit in Kansas (or even buy a gun under federal law).

Blind people and people with other physical problems have civil rights just as everyone else does.

[ileus]

38. the mothers are carrying for their children.

[tridim]

4. Guns in the womb probably isn't too far off.

[lawodevolution]

17. How about guns in the sperm?

[tblue37]

32. I thought the sperm were in the gun. . . . nt

[gejohnston]

34. That reminds me of my drill instructers

The army ones, before I went to the Air Force explaining the difference between gun and weapon. Sorry, not meaning to be crude.

[tblue37]

36. This is your weapon, this is your gun. One is for fighting. . . .

I made the first crude joke about the gun anyway.

[rl6214]

28. Where, yours?

[slackmaster]

40. They'd be damaged all the sand in some peoples' wombs

:hi:

[jpak]

49. LOL!!11

:toast:

:hi:

[jpak]

50. If the GOP/NRA wants to piss off Security Moms with their stupid gun laws

that's OK with me

yup

[spin]

5. This will prove to be another non problem ...

where no problems are caused by honest people legally carrying firearms.

Concealed carry is legal in parks and playgrounds in Florida and I don't remember any incidents caused by people with concealed weapons permits.

[Travis_0004]

6. Why is that so difficult to understand.

Criminals have been carrying in parks for years. This law will not change that.

The only difference is now law abiding citizens will be allowed to defend themselves.

I see nothing wrong with it.

[PavePusher]

9. Stop with the logic. it bernz. n/t

[bigmonkey]

12. You must not count accidental shootings as problems.

After all, anyone or any circumstance that would suggest there be some restrictions on gun toting must be ignorable, isolated incidents.

[Euromutt]

14. Got any examples?

Specifically, do you have any examples of accidental shootings in parks or playgrounds in which the firearm involved belonged to a licensed concealed carrier who had carried it into that park or playground? Because that's the topic under discussion here.

[Travis_0004]

15. I agree there are some gun accidents

There are also auto accidents. Lets ban them!

Too many DUI's, ban alcohol.

Kid drowns in a bathtub, ban those. We can teach 3 year old's how to shower!

I'm not saying there have never been accidental discharges, but everything in life involves some risk. CCW holders shoot innocent bystanders at a much lower rate than cops, or the general population. If one person somewhere in time shot somebody accidentally, that doesn't mean we should just ban CCW.

[bigmonkey]

23. Oh, I agree.

If a kid at a playground is shot by a careless but free gun owner who voluntarily took such an inherently dangerous item into a playground, we should all accept that as a fair price for our gun freedom. Just as we should deregulate driving. Pedestrians, and little kids, need to be responsible for their own choices.

:sarcasm:

[Euromutt]

35. Again, do you have any examples of this happening?

There are a number of state with preemption statutes, where, as a result, legal forms of carry are not prohibited in municipal parks. My own state of Washington is one such place (as the Seattle Parks & Rec Dept. found out to its detriment). So surely if such an incident has such a high likelihood of happening, it should have happened a few times by now. So do you have any empirical evidence that it has?

[DonP]

41. Ah, he's another graduate of the "it stands to reason" school of gun control

No facts, no examples but plenty of bad feelings about it.

I mean everyone knows guns are bad, it stands to reason.

They don't seem capable of differentiating the law abdiing that surround them safely every day (except IL and WI of course) with CCW and criminals that get into shoot outs in parks. Anyone with a gun goes into the same stereotypical group for the small minded.

When others point out that it doesn't seem to ever occur anywhere else or they are asked for a single example, most of them quickly move on to another forum.

[A Simple Game]

43. The easiest way for me to understand a problem is to expand it

to it's extremes. So tell me is a society safer from being shot with a gun if everyone has a gun, or if no one has a gun?

I am a gun owner, but logic does not end at the trigger of a gun.

You know any idiots? Do you know any idiots that own guns? I do. In this very thread there is a person that would shoot at a dog attacking a child, pure idiocy in my opinion.

We are foolish to not accept some restrictions on gun ownership and use. If we make this an all or nothing game, we will lose in the end.

[eqfan592]

44. Pure idiocy in your opinion?

So you are telling me that there is no circumstance at all where you would shoot a dog that was attacking a child? None whatsoever? They all fall under "pure idiocy" in your opinion? You can't picture a single instance where it would be the logical thing to do?

And your first question does nothing to address the issue at hand. Society would be safer FROM BEING SHOT WITH A GUN if NOBODY had one, which is a massive DUH. But would society be safer on the whole? No. Criminals will still find ways to inflict harm on those they wish to do harm to, with or without a gun. And those who wish to defend themselves will find themselves at a significant disadvantage. A firearm is a force equalizer, pure and simple.

[A Simple Game]

45. A child is being attacked means the dog is right on top of or beside the child.

Of course your gun must be much more accurate than any pistol I ever shot. You must also be calmer under that kind of pressure than I obviously would be. You must also be able to know when the dog and or child would move. I doubt if yelling FREEZE would work in this situation. I stand by my opinion. Only an idiot would shoot in that situation. You have to do the brave thing, get in there with your own hands and body.

Of course criminals would be able to inflict harm on you if they were able. Most would have to be braver than they are now. Guns do make cowards brave, can we agree on that?

I don't want to lose my guns, an all or nothing attitude will cause that to happen eventually.

[eqfan592]

47. Wow, just wow.

Of course only an idiot would shoot the dog while he was still ON TOP OF THE CHILD. I don't really think anybody disagrees with that. That's why you do as you say and separate the two physically. But after you HAVE separated them, I wouldn't think twice about using the gun on the dog.

The reality is that concealed carry is something that is done by literally millions of people already, and none of the "blood running in the streets" predictions have come true. Yet for some reason every single time the idea of expanding CCW comes about, it's the same bullshit. "OH, we know we were wrong before, BUT THIS TIME THERE WILL BE BLOOD RUNNING IN THE STREETS/PLAYGROUND/SCHOOL/ETC." If we are willing to accept that people have a right and need to be able to defend themselves effectively when out and about, why does this right and need come to an end at a playground? I just don't understand the reasoning.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. Bullshit!

Of course your gun must be much more accurate than any pistol I ever shot.
Since you would be shooting an animal at a range of contact to two feet I doubt that you would need the extreme accuracy of a Thompson Contender. At super close range you could use a Bond Arms derringer and do fine.

You must also be calmer under that kind of pressure than I obviously would be. OK, I will accept that. I would likely be calmer than you.

You must also be able to know when the dog and or child would move. No, foreknowledge isn't required. Get in close and stick the gun against the dog with the barrel away from the child and blast the dog away.

Only an idiot would shoot in that situation. All it would take is someone knowing what they are doing.

You have to do the brave thing, get in there with your own hands and body.
Yes, you do have to get in there and you can do a lot better if your hand is holding a gun and blasting the dog.

Most would have to be braver than they are now. What? Criminals in an unarmed world would have to have extra courage to attack old people, women, or to gang up on men, or attack with knives or clubs? That's what they do now. And such criminals would know from the onset that they had the upper hand. You really need to make a reality check with regard to criminals.

[PavePusher]

55. Contact range shots to the body (of the dog, duh) work just fine.

There are a number of such examples out there if you exercise Google a bit.

But I guess those folks were all idiots. Since some of seem to see only in binary.

[Euromutt]

51. You're not going to understand a problem by reasoning from flawed premises

So tell me is a society safer from being shot with a gun if everyone has a gun, or if no one has a gun?

There isn't a country on Earth where nobody has a gun. More problematically, there isn't a country on Earth were at least some members of the criminal element don't have guns.

Moreover, there are more ways to harm people than shooting them; you can knife them, bludgeon them, beat them and rob or rape them under threat of the aforementioned. To illustrate, historians estimate that in the first half of the 14th century, homicide rates in certain areas of western Europe (the city of Oxford, parts of Germany) were well over 100/100,000, and that was before man-portable firearms even existed in western Europe. The highest recorded homicide rate in D.C., by comparison, was 81.6, in 1991. In other words, while nobody would come to harm from being shot if there were no guns, there are plenty of other ways they could.

And the gun, I hardly need point out, is not called "the Great Equalizer" for nothing; it allows a person of lesser stature, strength and martial skill to resist and even defeat a larger, stronger and more skilled opponent. And when that larger, stronger and more skilled opponent makes a habit of threatening or assaulting others to get what he wants, but is deterred from doing so by the threat of being shot (or is prevented from continuing his practice due to being fatally shot), there is a net benefit to society in terms of the reduction of violence.

In this very thread there is a person that would shoot at a dog attacking a child, pure idiocy in my opinion.

That would have been me. Except I didn't say "attacking." I recommend you refrain from jumping to conclusions until you have made certain you understood what I meant to convey, not what you would like to think I meant.

[eqfan592]

42. It is also an inherently useful item...

..as it can aid the person in defending themselves as well as the child. You really should learn to look at both sides of the coin.

[lawodevolution]

19. What we need is a safety society so we don't get hurt. We should live in plastic bubbles and never

Touch sharp objects or exchange body fluids and guns'r'bayad.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. Kind of hard to turn my back toward my stomach or to my pants pocket.

I carry in my pocket and also in a front waistband holster. You can't turn you back to those. That lady must be thinking of some woman carrying in her purse. All of us here advise strongly against pure carry. If you carry it should be on your body.

This will turn out to be another case of the alamists being disappointed when nothing happens.

[Euromutt]

13. "Why would you need a gun at the park?" I can think of a few reasons...

Yes, I go to the park to play with my kid. Some morons go to the park to let their dogs run loose because they don't realize or don't care that there's an off-leash park elsewhere in town, and given that dog bites necessitate some 300,000 ER visits a year, of whom 60-70% are small children (many of whom suffer permanent injury to the face and neck), I think I may be forgiven for wanting to have something with which to stop a dog who is threatening my child (I carry pepper spray as well). Then there's the occasional drug deal in the parking lot, and in one instance a guy on the bike trail was going about zapping joggers with a "stun gun."

Much--indeed, most--of the time, I carry for the purpose of protecting my kid. I can't achieve that by sticking my head in the sand and pretending bad things can't happen at the park.

"Kids get shot every day with guns, because they're playing with guns."

True, but we're not talking small children here. According to the CDC's WISQARS, from 2003-2007, 4,163 children aged 0-14 suffered unintentional gunshot wounds, of whom 313 fatally. However, 50% of the fatal shootings and 83% of the nonfatal shootings were suffered by individuals in 10-14 age group. That leaves 800 victims in the age range 0-9 years, over a five-year period; an average of 160 a year. That's not "every day."

"What are you going to do when you bring your kid to the park and you've got your back turned and your kid takes your gun?"

I'll let you know when you can find, say, five instances of a kid taking a handgun from a parent's concealed holster without the parent managing to intervene in time. Generally, a holster on your person is considered to be the most secure location to keep a handgun.

[msongs]

16. no 2A prohibitions on kids owning guns, they have a constitutional right ya know nt

[petronius]

18. Really? How fascinating! Perhaps you can point to some case law or

legal scholarship that supports your claim?

(Or are you just here to drop another nonsensical turd-bomb into the forum before you scamper away? :shrug:)

[lawodevolution]

20. You keep posting the same thing even though you are educated on it.

Children who are not emancipated have limited rights but can practice those rights with permission and supervision of their parents.

If you want to write idiotic things why not also claim dogs and cats have 2A rights?

[ManiacJoe]

21. I really hope that is just a case of you forgetting the sarcasm tag.

[Straw Man]

25. That's your favorite song, isn't it?

It seems to be the only one you sing.

[rl6214]

29. Most stupid post on this thread?

I vote yes.

[RSillsbee]

22. It's legal to carry a gun in parks and playgrounds in Co Springs now.

I'll let you know when the blood starts flowwing in the streets

[oneshooter]

26. Been legal in Texas since 91. No firefights yet. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

52. You mean 1995. N/T

[oneshooter]

54. Your right. Just a little tired, this heat sucks you dry. n/t

[ileus]

24. you've got your back turned and your kid takes your gun?......what an Idiot.

[GKirk]

48. Wait!

What?
Are you suggesting that the CPL holder will be leaving his gun out on the picnic table or something?

[ileus]

56. I assume that's what they mean...???

[rl6214]

27. Unrec for drive-by spam