Wooden shoes banned, but guns OK

The Grand Rapids Press reports that Library board members in Holland MI voted allow patrons to carry concealed weapons (and a permit) while at the same time reaffirming its policy to have patrons "remove their wooden shoes when entering the library because the shoes snag the rugs and leave wooden slivers."


The caption on LISNEWS, below the story, read "I must be missing something." I don't know what there is to miss. People with wooden shoes are doing damage to the library so they are being asked to stop.
In regards to the concealed weapons. If a person can carry the gun concealed anywhere in the public arena why stop them in the library? Think of the problems that can be caused by a check your gun at the door policy. I hand the circulation desk worker my .357 magnum. What do they do with it then?
If a person is legally carrying a concealed weapon they are exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Librarians of all people should not be in the business of interfering with peoples rights. If we are absolutist on the first amendment to the constitution why not be absolutist on them all.

Here are some figures from the Canadian Firearms Centre:

* There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
* For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
* For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
* For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
* For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.

You be the judge -- which country has dealt better with firearms, the US or Canada?

Canada (and the rest of the world) is much smarter than the US on the subject of handguns.

Much as I hate to say it, that jest ain't so. Unfortunately, our laws are passed by the same kind of dozy-bastards-with-their-heads-jammed-up-their-ass es yours are. The projected cost of the gun registry was up to a billion dollars last time I looked and somebody recently claimed it would to two billion. However, that claim was reported only once and I guess it must not have been substantiated because it hasn't been repeated. What I'd like to know is if the number of deaths due to violent crimes has changed by any amount that could validly be attributed to gun registry.

When there's a gun around, somebody could get hurt.

Folks get hurt anyway. "This is life, shit happens." I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me to all the violence that went on before the invention of firearms.

Interestingly enough, since .CA has banned a number of weapons their death by guns have increased. And socio-economicially matched for at least one cross border city, you are more likely to die from being shot (and die) on the Canadian side, than on the US side.But on topic, I find it amusing - many places here have gun restrictions and they expect you to put your gun in your car. Which I find totally amusing, you have to leave your weapon available to anyone who can break a window in order to make the premises of these establishments more 'safe'. Particularly in bad parts of town.-- Ender, Duke_of_URLl

Canada (and the rest of the world) is much smarter than the US on the subject of handguns. When there's a gun around, somebody could get hurt. I'd like to recommend that all young adult librarians look at a book by Todd Strasser called "Give a Boy a Gun", published by Simon & Schuster. It's fiction, but addresses the issue of school shootings. I know this is slightly off-topic (concealed weapons), but maybe it'll save a life?

All I can say is, thank god I live in Canada where I don't have to worry that my fellow patron at the public library might have a gun on them. (Okay, so someone could illegally be carrying a weapon, but that could happen anywhere.) I'm not anti-gun ownership by any stretch, my step father is a gunsmith and I was raised with guns in the house. I guess I just don't see the need for anyone outside of law enforcement to be carrying a concealed gun.


>The issue isn't limited to a 2nd amendment issue, it is also a public safety issue.

Huh!!! Person is walking all over town with a gun. What is the big deal if they have the gun in the library? I don't see how this is a safety issue. If it is a safety issue then you should repeal the entire law not just restrict guns at the library.
Confession. I don't want guns in the library either but I think that things should be consistent. If the state law allows someone to walk around with a gun they should be able to do it in the library also. If it is truly dangerous get rid of the concealed gun law.

In Florida the legislature has reserved to the state the right to regulate carrying firearms. This precludes the cities and counties from enacting any law that would conflict or diminish the right to carry a firearm.
This is why city and county libraries in Florida cannot bar patrons from lawfully carrying a weapon.

I assume the situation is the same in Michigan. It really makes sense to leave the rulemaking to the state as the hodgepodge of different laws and regulations from city to city or county to county would be a nightmare for those legally carrying firearms.

I certainly don't want anyone locking their firearm up in the library, I would rather they carry it with them. If one locks it up the risk of improper or accidental use is much greater than if they leave it securely holstered and concealed in the library. Removing it from the holster, placing it in the lockbox, and collecting and reholstering the firearm when the patron leaves introduces four more instances of handling the weapon than would otherwise be required. I also would not want the guns locked up, who knows who can obtain a master key, the onus of protecting the stored guns then falls to the library, who will check the guns in and out or issue keys.
Yes when I was a cop we locked up our guns before we took prisoners into the jail because no guns were allowed inside the jail. But armed deputies were outside the jail and the lockboxes were in the sally port which was fenced off from public access -well at least the unarrested public, and every one other than a cop was escorted by a cop so the liability was very low. Gun lockers supervised by library personnel are a very bad idea. A worse idea then letting people carry the weapon on their person. The chances of the gun being used improperly or accidentally discharging when securely holstered are very low.

I also disagree with your comment that just because you can carry a weapon doesn't mean you should. I think if you are properly licensed (of course then you would be in favor of guns for self defense- if you oppose guns you would not get the license) you should carry a gun whenever reasonably possible. If I have my gun with me it can't be stolen from my home and I always have it for self defense.

I also think people who carry guns on their person who use some whacky holster or zipped up purse or waist pouch are nuts. If you can't get to your gun in less than 1 second you are only going for the gun to start a fight. If you have the time to unzip or reach down to your ankle or under your armpit then simply run away.

I've lived in 2 states that have allowed concealed weapons (when one is properly licensed). In both of those states I have been in establishments that have posted signs, because of internal policies or safety concerns, where concealed weapons were not allowed. These included banks, restaurants/bars (for obvious reasons: booze + hidden weapons = bad night), and malls. The issue isn't limited to a 2nd amendment issue, it is also a public safety issue. In libraries we have rules prohibiting looking at offensive materials, harrassing staff and patrons, and generally being a nuisance. We are creating rules to protect our patrons and staff. If a library (or other public facility) chooses to ban concealed weapons so be it. If it means installing lockers so people can safely lock up their weapons that's great. However, just because you are legally allowed to carry weapons doesn't mean you should.
Sometimes you have to look beyond what the law allows you to do and think of other people.

It just occured to me that this could easily be interpreted as calling Bibliofuture a vapid, cantankerous, overly serious, argumentative crank, which is not what I meant. The YOUR in that sentance was directed at anyone who felt the need to pick a fight with me.I have nothing against Bibliofuture, his post, or his views on guns, politics or clogs.Humor is too subjective, I have no idea why I just posted that previous comment.

For me, at least, this is just a funny commentary on librarian's love of rules. In one session they said yes to guns, and cell phones, and no to coffee and clogs. C'mon, how could anyone let that go as a source for some fun? Hell, it was on Fark today.The "Tulip Time Klompen dancers" are most likely not a threat in many other locations.But then again, what if the Klompen Dancers are just a front for a radical right wing organization bent on the destruction of public libraries? Today the carpet, tomorrow the shelves, then the books… wooden slivers indeed, I for one will be vigilant."I hand the circulation desk worker my .357 magnum. What do they do with it then?"Target practice on weeded books? eBay? Defend against the clogs? I keep picturing that one Simpons where Homer had a gun and did everything with it, including turning off the list, and opening his beer.And, at the risk of being serious...It's a MI law issue, rather than 2nd Ammedments, I think, as the story says "Board members had expressed frustration with having to accept guns in the library at the January meeting, but concluded the library rule had to be changed to meet state law."Expressing frustration with obeying a law, oh boy, this one is full of chuckles.Unless of course your a vapid, cantankerous, overly serious, argumentative crank who can find no humor in anything, in which case you'll now feel the need to debate me on gun control, rules, librarians, saftey, cell phones, or how bad that entire season of the Simpsons was, in which case, I wave my paw and say "Bah"

Sorry for the delay, was offline all weekend.

Also, sorry for the confusion as well. I wasn't supporting city or county laws that weren't in congruance with state laws. What I was saying is that these places had established rules within themselves. It was more like a company policy, not a county/city law. In TN, where am I now, there are rules attached to the concealed weapons law that prohibit guns/knives/etc... from being carried into certain places (Banks, Churches, Bars, etc...). I'm not a gun owner, and don't want to be... but there needs to be a little common sense on the part of gun owners. Mdoneil, you are very correct that if you can't reach your weapon in less than 1 sec. it won't do any good.

Subscribe to Comments for "Wooden shoes banned, but guns OK"