The recent event on the Walnut Street Bridge (reported in the media) is a perfect example of why the Chattanooga city council's decision to exclude citizens from lawfully carrying a firearm was so myopic and shortsighted. From all accounts, the hapless victim was aware of the thugs following him. An armed citizen thus alerted could well have been mentally ready and prepared for the assault.
The only thing such gun control laws accomplish is make acts of violence easier for predators.
Why disarm a law abiding public?
* * *
Robin is absolutely right.
* * *
Gun restrictions only matter to those who obey the law. Why not allow a legal, permit holding citizen carry a gun on the bridge? I would bet my beach house that the legal citizen will never give anyone any problems. If that legal citizen is forced to disarm, then its open season for the thugs. See, they don't follow the laws. You can have the greatest, most well written and good intentioned laws in the world, but they don't care. They now have a perfect "hunting ground" to prey on the unarmed citizen.
I feel that any person responsible enough to carry a firearm, should do so. The thugs of the world carry guns everywhere....in school, at sporting events, at work (ha!) and on the Walnut St. Bridge. The gun restrictions are just silly. Let's not get "tough on gun laws," but instead lets get "tough on the people who break said gun laws." See? Because laws don't matter to the folks who don't, well, obey laws.
The consequences for carrying a gun illegally however, should be severe. We need to take the guns out of the hands of our criminals, and put them into the hands of law abiding, responsible citizens. Let's make it a little more stressful for these thugs to do business.
* * *
I am confused. There is a sign that says "Firearms Prohibited" on the bridge. Why didn't these young men see the sign and immediately turn around, scuffing their feet in disappointment and frustration at not being able to pass the entrance? Perhaps the sign needs to be bigger.
* * *
I seldom agree with Robin on any issue but I must voice my agreement with his recent opinion. Gun free zones are for victims.
* * *
I agree with each of the post in response to this opinion. As far as Robin Flores is concerned, I think with his military experience he knows more about guns and protecting our citizens than the average person would.
I really think he ought to change his name to Robin Hood, except he doesn't take anything from anybody without doing it the proper way. Mr. Flores, you are a champion. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns."
* * *
I totally agree with Mr.Flores.I am a carry permit holder and when the Chattanooga City Council made the decision to deny my rights I made a decision not to go to the parks in the city of Chattanooga ,and I also made the decision not to shop in the city of Chattanooga unless
Kenneth A Kaylor
* * *
The second amendment gives me the right to keep and bear arms. A sign on the Walnut Street Bridge means nothing to me. If you are on the bridge and get attacked by gangs or thugs give a shout for help. I’ll have my gun and will defend your life and mine. Later, we’ll see if the city can find 12 people that aren’t absolutely fed up with our gang problem to find me guilty. I bet they can’t.
* * *
I live in a condo overlooking the Walnut Street Bridge. I walk across the bridge several times a week, usually with friends, sometimes alone. I walk it in the daytime and at night. I think the new lighting is wonderful and the police and park presence is spot on.
I believe the city is doing the right thing in not allowing guns in parks and on the bridge. I have never been afraid on the bridge. I probably would feel afraid for my safety and the safety of others if guns were allowed.
* * *
Curtis, unfortunately the courts will only have to find 11 people. Say hello to Helen. I hope she never needs your help.
* * *
There's no guarantee that just because someone is licensed to carry they will be any more responsible than the average thug on the street. Just remember, all those recent mass shooters were either legal license gun owners or would have been cleared to carry if they applied. Some had military background experience. So, we'll just have the crazed license to carry crowd and the thugs shooting it out with the innocent caught in the middle.
A few years ago, likely right around the time Tennessee passed its own version of the Stand Your Ground law, the hubby and I were out walking, something we'd done for most of then almost 30 plus years we'd lived in the community, when we noticed we were being followed by this 'suburbanite' looking couple with their dog. We weren't dressed in any suspicious manner. I was wearing a pair of old military slacks and sleeveless top, the hubby just a regular pair of slacks and shirt. We were followed for several blocks and all the way down to a local neighborhood store.
Out of courtesy, upbringing and a sense needed to make contact, we spoke but there was no response, just the guy with the "go ahead make my day" dead eye look and the wife with that 'uncomfortable/fidgety' appearance. As we continued to walk they continued to follow. It dawned on me, and I turned to the hubby and said so, "Baby I think that guy's carrying a concealed weapon and is just looking for an excuse to pull it out and test the new Tennessee law."
Prior to that or maybe around the same time as our encounter with the 'fruit-loop legal license to carry gun owner', another neighbor either shot at or shot a man for taking a short cut across his lawn. Our 'followers' never actually pulled out a weapon, but from historically personal experience their body language spoke volumes.
So go ahead. Knock yourselves out. But just remember, just because someone passes a background check and can legally own and carry a gun doesn't guarantee they're going to be responsible or any better than the 'thugs' when put to the test.
* * *
Brenda, man is vested with certain inalienable rights, including life and liberty. These rights are acknowledged in our Constitution. Those two thugs were seeking to take those away from their victims.
Those two thugs had forfeited their rights to carry firearms based upon their prior criminal actions including domestic assault and aggravated burglary, and in fact, were prohibited from possessing firearms.
Based upon empirical data the two thugs were much more likely to engage in irrational and anti-social behavior and did. When threatened by these thugs, responsible, law abiding citizens - as all concealed carry permit holders must be - have the right to defend themselves. Please provide your data to show the criminality and/or likelihood of irrational behavior of concealed carry permit holders versus the two thugs. Oops, that's right, it shows overwhelmingly that your stated position is untenable and unsupportable.
I am sorry that you think that we should allow ourselves to be victimized. That is a far cry from our American experience - both yours and mine.
Wilson von Kessler
Lookout Mountain, Ga.
* * *
Ms. Washington, what you are saying is that you assumed a couple was itching to shoot you because they looked "uncomfortable?" I think that is a pretty big leap. You seem to be under the impression that legal gun carrying citizens are out to shoot people. You would be wrong.
Let's look at the facts. How many people in this city were shot and/or killed by a legal permit holder? (I'll give you a hint...it's right around "zero," give or take). Now, how many people this year were shot and/or killed by non-permit holding citizens carrying illegal guns. (I'll give you a hint...it's right around "all," give or take).
The folks who are shooting people in sheer acts of violence are criminals. Now I challenge you, skim through the Chattanoogan, and find the names of the people responsible for gun violence this year. Put their names into the Hamilton County website. How many of them have criminal backgrounds, and would not be eligible to carry a weapon legally? (Again, its around "all").
In a nutshell, the violence you pretend to be so worried about is carried out by criminals, not permit holding citizens.