How to legally bring a gun to the Republican National Conven

How to legally bring a gun to the Republican National Convention

In five weeks, the Republican National Convention will get underway in Tampa, Florida — and, due to a state law restricting municipal firearms regulations and Gov. Rick Scott’s (R-FL) unwillingness to provide the city a waiver from that law, legal firearms will be permitted all around the convention center (though not inside of it).

Scott’s reasoning was that, “it is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law.” However, one need not flout the law to bring a gun to the areas just outside the convention.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/23/h ... onvention/

Isn't America awesome!

Bet they can't legally pack heat in Beijing or London.

Bet way less people die from guns in Beiging and London.

Guns in China? Ask the people of Tibet if the Chinese goverment guns don't kill them.

Raees wrote: Bet way less people die from guns in Beiging and London.

Who cares? I don't. A gun is for killing something (and occasionally for target practice). And if the person holding a gun is intent on killing me, then I want an even chance to stop his target practice.

Yeah, a guy shoots at you, you shoot at him. Someone else sees the gunfight and joins in shooting at both of you. Then a fourth guy joins in, shooting at the three of you. Then the cops arrive and shoot all four of you.

Works for me.

Raees wrote: Yeah, a guy shoots at you, you shoot at him. Someone else sees the gunfight and joins in shooting at both of you. Then a fourth guy joins in, shooting at the three of you. Then the cops arrive and shoot all four of you.

Works for me.

Good to hear you're on board. It's better than having all you chicken dropping liberals runny away from a good fight.

"...despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime."


http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343148409&sr=8-1&keywords=john+lott

cydl wrote: "...despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime."

Oh yeah?

Although Lott's work still gets cited by the National Rifle Association and others as evidence in favor of greater gun freedom, the research "was found to be substantially flawed," Webster said. A 2003 analysis by law professors Ian Ayres of Yale University and John Donohue of Stanford found that none of the crime reductions found in the study were statistically significant, and the results changed drastically in response to minor changes in initial assumptions — the mark of nonrobust findings.

Lott did not respond to requests for comment.

As more data piled up, a different picture began to emerge. According to a 2011 review of 30 years of data and research by Donohue and colleagues, right-to-carry laws don't consistently increase or decrease most types of violent crime, although many studies have been conducted that show slight indications of both. The laws do appear to cause a modest increase in violent assaults.

"Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and the county [data covering the 1977–2006 period] is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime," the researchers wrote in the journal American Law and Economics Review.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/270 ... oting.html

Looks like it just got refuted...