Pistol-packing politicians like added firepower

The Associated Press ^ | 08-04-2003

[Wasichu]

One in six Indiana lawmakers has a permit to carry a firearm, and some even pack their guns when they saunter onto the floor of the Indiana House and Senate, The Journal Gazette in Fort Wayne reported Sunday.

These pistol-packing politicians have no problem with the availability of weapons in the Statehouse, and some even welcome the guns given the lax security at the state Capitol.

"If someone opens fire from the balcony, I want all the guns I can shooting back. Unless, of course, there are school kids up there," said Rep. Matthew Whetstone, whose small .22-caliber pistol weighs no more than a set of keys in his pants pocket.

Whetstone, R-Brownsburg, is one of 25 House and Senate members with valid permits to carry firearms, according to a review of the Indiana State Police firearms database by the newspaper.

That is about 17 percent of the General Assembly, compared with about 7 percent of the eligible state population with permits.

Few lawmakers seem concerned that the firearms could be turned on each other despite history that shows political rivals around the nation - most recently in the New York City Hall shooting - have resorted to violence.

Six lawmakers acknowledged bringing their guns onto the House or Senate floor all the time or at least occasionally.

Thirteen others said they did not, and several more did not return repeated phone calls or declined to discuss the specifics of when they carry a gun.

Of the 25 with permits, 10 are in the Senate and 15 are in the House.

Eight of the gun-toting lawmakers are Democrats; 17 are Republicans. Of the six Republicans who say they bring guns to work at the Statehouse, three are in the Senate and three are in the House.

But not everyone appreciates the extra firepower on the floor.

"I think the state troopers are paid to protect us, and I think we can depend on them," said Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary.

Although it is probably surprising to many Hoosiers, there is no law against having a gun in the Statehouse, said Lt. Scott Beamon of the Indiana State Police.

There is a personnel policy prohibiting most state employees from carrying any type of weapon, but it does not apply to elected legislators.

"As a former police officer, I have the training and the capability to stop something if something happens," said Sen. John Waterman, R-Shelburn. "If I'm not armed, I can't do that."

Waterman, who served two terms as sheriff of Sullivan County, is the only law enforcement member turned lawmaker who carries a firearm.

Several other former police officers - including Rep. Bob Alderman, R-Fort Wayne - choose not to be armed on the floor.

"I do have a permit, but I don't carry there. Never. I think that's why the state police are there," he said.

Although several Capitol police officers monitor the Statehouse at all times, the building covers two city blocks and they cannot effectively cover all possibilities, said Andrew Stoner, spokesman for Gov. Frank O'Bannon.

There are no metal detectors at any of the near-dozen entrances to the Statehouse.

Both the House and Senate are on the third floor, and while elderly men and women check IDs at the chamber doors, there are no guards. Also on the House side, there is a third unmanned and unlocked door through which anyone could enter directly onto the floor. A plainclothes state trooper usually is present.

During session, there is one metal detector on the fourth floor leading to the House gallery that was purchased after Sept. 11, 2001.

The House also has installed bulletproof glass in its chamber, but there are no metal detectors on the Senate side.

"You or I could walk in there with a handgun and I really think that anything could happen," said Sen. Kent Adams, R-Warsaw.

[Freemeorkillme]

.22???

I suppose there are a few vermin on the House and Senate floor.

[The KG9 Kid]

Nothing, if you're a stripper or a high school cheerleader.

I could live with the product, but that script on the slide just ruins the aesthetic value as I see it.

[c-b 1]

I used to subscribe to your method of carry, I found a solution, a snub nose .357, now I always carry a Gun.

[ASA Vet]

Do people really NEED swords?

Yes, because there can be only one.

[Shooter 2.5]

I have a friend who bought a stainless Ruger Old Army and he completely removed the warning label on the side of the barrel with no after affects. I tried to see where the barrel was out of round and it just wasn't noticable.

[cinFLA]

I suppose. I'd think that one could find a relatively flat .38, or at least, as you note, a .32.

My Sig 380 packs more firepower than a .32 and a lot of 38's.

[G L Tirebiter]

I didn't get to the end of the article. I stopped after the first graph when I read:"some even pack their guns when they saunter onto the floor of the Indiana House and Senate"

I guess that everyone carrying is some sort of preening macho man looking for a fight. Yuk.

[Centurion2000]

but imagine the response of an attacker who has his hands around your throat when you put two rounds of .22 mag in his groin.

He's going to squeeze harder and MAY die of blood loss long after he's sent you to the afterlife.

[lepton]

Do people need swords?

My point wasn't to actually question you having a sword, it was to point out how one can apply that "need" question to anything, and how ridiculous doing so is. You didn't "need" a sword, until you needed one.

[Darksheare]

I know.
And we don't 'need' guns until it's needed.
If you don't have one, then it's too late.
I personally prefer swords for close in stuff.
It doesn't make a loud noise when used and it's relatively quite when preparing to use it, no clicking or clacking of actions when readying to use it.

But realistically, it's impractical for anyone outside of armreach + blade length distance.

[ought-six]

"I dislike small caliber guns as self-defense myself, but imagine the response of an attacker who has his hands around your throat when you put two rounds of .22 mag in his groin."

A .22 to the eyeball will stop most anyone, most likely permanently (there's not much between the eye and the brain to interfere with a bullet). A .22 magnum would be especially damaging in such a case. If the perp has his hands on your throat, you are close enough to put a round in his eye. Sounds brutal, but we're talking self-defense here, and self-defense means doing whatever is necessary to save your life, or the life of a loved one.

[Darksheare]

Heck, a thumb, pen, or mechanical pencil to the eye is pretty mean, but once done you can then proceed to beat the snot out of the guy as hard as you can.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

A .22 to the eyeball will stop most anyone, most likely permanently

Yeh, I was just trying to demostrate to the poster who implied a .22 round wasn't deadly that it will get the job done at close range.

If the perp has his hands on your throat, you are close enough to put a round in his eye. Sounds brutal, but we're talking self-defense here, and self-defense means doing whatever is necessary to save your life, or the life of a loved one.

I've actually studied martial arts for several years. It does take a certain kind of person to inflict certain wounds on another person. For instance, in the same scenario, without a weapon, and nowhere to back-up to, the perp would get an open-hand jab to the throat himself if I couldn't break his grip in about one try. In fact, a "strangle hold" is a very poor assault on someone if the person being attacked has even minimal self-defense training. Unless the victim is pinned against a wall or the ground, its virtualy useless and opens the attacker up to a variety of blows.

[lepton]

Yeh, I was just trying to demostrate to the poster who implied a .22 round wasn't deadly that it will get the job done at close range.

I am well aware of its use as an assassins weapon. The problem with a .22 though, is that if it doesn't hit one of those "instantly lethal" areas, it is just a nuiscance to most. Sure the person may bleed to death later, but in the mean-time they are not likely to be debilitated in the least (though a certain percentage of people are indeed dropped by any round that hits them anywhere).

[gc4nra]

Nice!

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Sure the person may bleed to death later, but in the mean-time they are not likely to be debilitated in the least (though a certain percentage of people are indeed dropped by any round that hits them anywhere).

Possibly, but consider that many attacks are stopped by the mere brandishing of a gun. Things will happen so fast that the perp may not know how hurt he is, and may not realize that you only have a .22. If this happens to be a mugging or the like, i'd bet in 9 times out of 10, the perp flees. If this is some altercation where the person is dead-set on killing you, then I may lean towards your opinion.

[SJSAMPLE]

I regret ever selling my Ruger SP101 in .357mag. Great gun, but I had my eye on the SIG P229. Damn.

[autoresponder]

looks like my m-1877 circa 1879 Colt Lightning .38 on yer post

a favorite of Doc Holliday

[autoresponder]

But I have two

Sabres that is

One Reb

One Yank

yet there is that 148 year old swordcane from Richmond.....

[kAcknor]

 looks like my m-1877 circa 1879 Colt Lightning .38 on yer post

kAcknor Sez:

     

I'll be... It does kinda... ;)  I'll bet Doc's never had no little flag sticking out of it though... ;)

"yIQeqQo' neH, DoS yIqIp!" (Don't just aim, hit the target!)

Have you checked the *bang_list today?