If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Westword)   Coloradoan decides to test the state's open-carry firearm law, apparently not realizing the law does not allow carrying in an establishment where liquor is served. Yes, it's a theatre   (blogs.westword.com) divider line 331
    More: Dumbass, James Mapes, firearms, establishments, Thornton Police Department  
•       •       •

9775 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2012 at 2:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



331 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-30 12:15:39 PM
I've actually met that guy, and he's a pretty typical "AMURKA FUK YAH... COLD DEAD FINGERS" kind of redneck.

It's vaguely surprising he didn't know you're not allowed to carry into a place with alcohol. That's one of the questions on the CCW written.

Not that it matters; he won't have that CCW any more.
 
2012-07-30 12:40:58 PM
Oh, great. His last name is "Mapes". :/
 
2012-07-30 01:07:57 PM

unlikely: I've actually met that guy, and he's a pretty typical "AMURKA FUK YAH... COLD DEAD FINGERS" kind of redneck.

It's vaguely surprising he didn't know you're not allowed to carry into a place with alcohol. That's one of the questions on the CCW written.

Not that it matters; he won't have that CCW any more.


It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.
He says he's a regular, and the place is named Cinebarre though. So missing a detail like that would be vaguely surprising if he wasn't the "AMURKA FUK YAH" type, but recent GOP superstars have taught me to expect that kind of lack of attention to detail.
 
2012-07-30 01:20:48 PM

serial_crusher: It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.



actually most theaters have corporate "no weapons" policies in place. it's up to the CCW holder to do the research before hand. it similar for places like Target and Walmart. Target doesn't allow weapons, but Walmart does.
 
2012-07-30 02:30:35 PM
Cool!!!! They serve liquor in Colorado theaters?

/know your laws BEFORE you carry DA!!!!
 
2012-07-30 02:30:59 PM
Looks like that's not the only thing he's carrying around his waist.
 
2012-07-30 02:33:19 PM
Oh god, he lives in my town. he's probably one of my neighbors. Hooray for Colorado. *grumble grumble*
 
2012-07-30 02:34:45 PM
You have to know your local ordinances; some places you can legally waive your gun around in public. I don't know why you would; but you can. Open carry is a tricky one; mostly because some conceal carry ordinances apply to open carry. Some places, the type of holster is regulated; it's all based on local ordinance. And, it's complicated as all hell

/ I'm glad I live in a place where it is quite legal to open carry just about anywhere.

// sometimes, though, it's best to listen to johnny cash and leave your guns at home
 
2012-07-30 02:34:55 PM
tough going through life as a scared little flower. poor thing.
 
2012-07-30 02:35:20 PM
The symmetry of that man's face is disturbing.
 
2012-07-30 02:36:16 PM
Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool.
 
2012-07-30 02:36:22 PM
FTFA: According to Mapes, he's a regular patron of Cinebarre, which he's been visiting since it opened several years ago, as well as a movie fan in general; he goes to shows every week or two, he estimates.

I call BS. Who can afford to go to the movies that often?
 
2012-07-30 02:38:36 PM

LandOfChocolate: Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool.


And what are the odds of ever being in a situation like occurred at the theater in Aurora. Hell he went to go see the watch, and presumably they must not sell skittles and iced tea there either thank god.
 
2012-07-30 02:39:58 PM
August 11th, I believe.. Colorado's biggest gun show.
Myself and 3 other friends are going.. gonna get me a nice handgun.
 
2012-07-30 02:40:07 PM

Grapple: Oh god, he lives in my town. he's probably one of my neighbors. Hooray for Colorado. *grumble grumble*


Hi neighbor!

Did you see that we're getting a Larkburger? YES!
 
2012-07-30 02:40:54 PM
Knee jerk dumbshiats on the left and right? You're soaking in them right now!
 
2012-07-30 02:41:03 PM
It wasn't a political statement, but it sure was wearing a political statement's uniform. Also: ignorance of the law is always a good excuse, right?
 
2012-07-30 02:41:14 PM
No Attention Whore pic yet?
 
2012-07-30 02:41:20 PM

iheartscotch: You have to know your local ordinances; some places you can legally waive your gun around in public. I don't know why you would; but you can. Open carry is a tricky one; mostly because some conceal carry ordinances apply to open carry. Some places, the type of holster is regulated; it's all based on local ordinance. And, it's complicated as all hell

/ I'm glad I live in a place where it is quite legal to open carry just about anywhere.

// sometimes, though, it's best to listen to johnny cash and leave your guns at home


Glad I live in a place where I don't feel the need to carry a gun to feel safe. I call it the real world.
 
2012-07-30 02:42:10 PM
HEE-HAW!

/Suck it, gun derpers.
 
2012-07-30 02:42:48 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Oh, great. His last name is "Mapes". :/


No, it's not. His last name clearly reads "moops".
 
2012-07-30 02:44:46 PM

LandOfChocolate: Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool.


Concealment can be a pain in the ass. Depending on what you wear it can necessitate a smaller gun or different style holster. I like a full-sized pistol (easier to shoot accurately) and an outside-the-waistband holster, so my concealment with that rig usually depends on an untucked shirt.

It's not a big deal though, because open carry is ridiculously common around here - the only people who give it a second glance are tourists.
 
2012-07-30 02:44:56 PM

iheartscotch: You have to know your local ordinances; some places you can legally waive your gun around in public. I don't know why you would; but you can. Open carry is a tricky one; mostly because some conceal carry ordinances apply to open carry. Some places, the type of holster is regulated; it's all based on local ordinance. And, it's complicated as all hell

/ I'm glad I live in a place where it is quite legal to open carry just about anywhere.

// sometimes, though, it's best to listen to johnny cash and leave your guns at home


This is why i love living in Pennsylvania. Only the state has the power to pass laws about carrying a firearm. So basically anytime you have a local ordinance saying you cant carry there, you can ignore it. However, the rights of property owners are not something you can ignore. I conceal carry everywhere i go. If a business has a restriction on that, i simply go elsewhere. And as much as i like Johnny Cash, im afraid he and i are going to have to disagree on that point. When criminals start scheduling their illegal activity with me in advance, then i would agree i can sometimes leave my firearm at home. Until then, i reserve the right to protect myself.
 
2012-07-30 02:45:39 PM
WHAT DID HIS T-SHIRT SAY!?

How can I judge the man?
 
2012-07-30 02:46:34 PM

dikfishman: No Attention Whore pic yet?


osgapusgov.files.wordpress.com
Here ya go.
 
2012-07-30 02:48:19 PM
From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.


Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?
 
2012-07-30 02:48:27 PM

LandOfChocolate: Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool the guy who gets shot first.


FTFY
 
2012-07-30 02:50:32 PM

cubicjr: iheartscotch: You have to know your local ordinances; some places you can legally waive your gun around in public. I don't know why you would; but you can. Open carry is a tricky one; mostly because some conceal carry ordinances apply to open carry. Some places, the type of holster is regulated; it's all based on local ordinance. And, it's complicated as all hell

/ I'm glad I live in a place where it is quite legal to open carry just about anywhere.

// sometimes, though, it's best to listen to johnny cash and leave your guns at home

Glad I live in a place where I don't feel the need to carry a gun to feel safe. I call it the real world.


Do me a favor; go out to Dodge City, Kansas sometime. If it's not the middle of nowhere; you can see it from there. If you only learn one thing about Dodge City; learn that you don't go out at night in Dodge City, ever. In all the years that I've done road construction; I've only had 2 attempted car jackings. Both were at the all night gas station at the intersection of Wyatt Earp and US 54, just outside of town. Both times I had my gun; you do the math.
 
2012-07-30 02:51:05 PM
Yes you were, no you weren't, and no it wasn't.

Any CCW-holder who doesn't understand that it is both illegal and beyond stupid to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, into a bar or other establishment that serves alcohol, needs to be shot. They make us all look bad, and we don't need that crap right now.

I personally apologize for all CCW-holders on behalf of this man, and suggest that he be beaten about the neck and shoulders until he learns the value of reading his fecking permit. I would also not be opposed to his permit being revoked for a term no shorter than forever.
 
2012-07-30 02:51:27 PM
Okay, this moron wore a shirt with a slogan about Liberals on it that he 'just happened to throw on because it was convenient.'

He wore is gun out in the open which he has allegedly done 'many times in the past'

He goes to the theater often and has since it opened but was unaware it sold alcohol. (I recently moved to a new city, the first theater I went to sells alcohol in 3 places, all with BIG signs that say BAR IS OPEN. I can't image any theater with a bar would be any different. The concessions are where the money is, and alcohol and soda and pop corn are the biggest money makers I am sure.)

He also claims he wasn't making a political statement, but that he was just trying to prove that he isn't going to be scared in to staying home after Aurora. This idiot does not, I think, understand what making a political statement is.

Conclusion, this guy is either a terrible liar, or so stupid it is amazing he can walk and chew gum. I am going to assume he is a terrible liar, NO ONE is that stupid and lives to adulthood. Not even some with his poitical mentality.

/Went to see Dark Knight Rises this weekend. I didn't feel the need to strap a weapon on my hip to get out of the house. I did look around the theater a little bit more than usually, but I also arrived a bit later than usual and was one of the last in the viewing room.
 
2012-07-30 02:52:04 PM

Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?


www.fark.com/comments/7226694/-71-year-old-geezer-fights-off-pair-of -1 9-year-old-thugs-robbing-internet-cafe-With-video-baddasserywait-inter net-cafes-still-exist?
 
2012-07-30 02:52:56 PM
I can't find the actual statute that makes it illegal to carry into an establishment where liquor is served.
 
2012-07-30 02:53:00 PM
James, James, James. You need to check out Thunderwear:

http://www.thunderwear.com/holsters.asp

Either that or cut the pretense and start carrying a murse:

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/BAG-070

I have been carrying one of these around for several years now. So folks have gotten used to seeing me with it. Externally it has radios, GPS and cameras. But folks have no idea what is in the hidden pcket.
 
2012-07-30 02:53:36 PM

factoryconnection: Also: ignorance of the law is always a good excuse, right?


I'd be with you, if judges, district attorneys, and police officers didn't often also present a shocking ignorance of the law.

If the professionals can't do it, why do we expect the amateurs to?
 
2012-07-30 02:55:31 PM

Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?


I'll even stay in the same state. We had a shooting in Colorado Springs several years ago where the armed assailant was taken out by an armed civilian, it was at Ted Haggard's former church.
 
2012-07-30 02:55:49 PM

Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?


Thats kind of a hard thing to prove. I can point you to several stories where someone defended himself legally with a firearm. For example, that 71 year old man who fired on those two guys who tried to rob an internet cafe in florida. They came in waving a gun and a baseball bat and took off running when the other guy pulled his gun. Maybe those two were just going to use their weapons to intimidate the staff and customers into giving them what they wanted. Maybe they were planning on using their weapons to kill the staff and customers. We just don't know. And since i don't know what your intentions are, im not taking any chances. If you threaten my life with a weapon and im able to defend myself with mine, im sure as hell going to.
 
2012-07-30 02:56:01 PM
Has it always been illegal to open carry in an establishment that serves alcohol?

About 10 years ago I was in my local pub (Avogadro's Number in Ft. Collins). Tends to be kind of a hippy/artist place, so everyone kind of freaked out when a cowboy/rancher type guy came in with a revolver on his hip in plain view. He ordered a beer and sat down. Most of the customers actually left the bar because they were nervous. I laughed and asked the guy if he gets that reaction a lot. He was a really cool and said it happens a lot but it's totally legal. Was he correct? This was in 2002/2003.

Also, how do CCW laws affect this? I thought open carry was totally seperate from CCW laws?

/ignorant about carry laws
//keep my guns at home
 
2012-07-30 02:56:14 PM
But no massacres occurred there because he was toting a gun, right?

/ducks
 
2012-07-30 02:56:26 PM

wmoonfox: Yes you were, no you weren't, and no it wasn't.

Any CCW-holder who doesn't understand that it is both illegal and beyond stupid to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, into a bar or other establishment that serves alcohol, needs to be shot. They make us all look bad, and we don't need that crap right now.

I personally apologize for all CCW-holders on behalf of this man, and suggest that he be beaten about the neck and shoulders until he learns the value of reading his fecking permit. I would also not be opposed to his permit being revoked for a term no shorter than forever.


People who make sweeping generalizations about all CCW laws should be beaten about the neck and shoulders until he learns the value of reading his fecking permit.

"What places are off-limits when carrying a concealed weapon in Indiana?
1. In or On School Property.
2. On a school bus
3. In or on property that is being used by a school for a school function
4. Private School(IC 20*9.1*1*3) & (IC 35*41*1*24.7)
5. Head Start (IC 35*41*1*24.7)
6. Preschool (IC 35-41-1-24.7)
7. IC 35*47*9*1Allows the carry of firearms by persons permitted to possess and who are transporting a person to or from school or a school function.
8. On an aircraft
9. Controlled access areas of an airport
10. During annual State Fair 80 IAC 4-4-4 (Must lock in vehicle)
11. Shipping port 130 IAC 4-1-8 (Controlled by Indiana Port Commission)
12. A riverboat Casino
 
2012-07-30 02:56:32 PM

Zukipilot: Cool!!!! They serve liquor in Colorado theaters?

/know your laws BEFORE you carry DA!!!!


The greatest thing about living in Colorado is our love of combining microbrews and movies.
 
2012-07-30 02:56:41 PM

wmoonfox: Any CCW-holder who doesn't understand that it is both illegal and beyond stupid to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, into a bar or other establishment that serves alcohol, needs to be shot. They make us all look bad, and we don't need that crap right now.


1. Whether it's illegal depends on the state.
2. If it's legal and you're not drinking, why would you say it's stupid?

opencarry.org
 
2012-07-30 02:56:58 PM

JesseL: www.fark.com/comments/7226694/-71-year-old-geezer-fights-off-pair-of -1 9-year-old-thugs-robbing-internet-cafe-With-video-baddasserywait-inter net-cafes-still-exist?


I was thinking more of mass murders instead of thieves.
 
2012-07-30 02:58:00 PM

iheartscotch: cubicjr: iheartscotch: You have to know your local ordinances; some places you can legally waive your gun around in public. I don't know why you would; but you can. Open carry is a tricky one; mostly because some conceal carry ordinances apply to open carry. Some places, the type of holster is regulated; it's all based on local ordinance. And, it's complicated as all hell

/ I'm glad I live in a place where it is quite legal to open carry just about anywhere.

// sometimes, though, it's best to listen to johnny cash and leave your guns at home

Glad I live in a place where I don't feel the need to carry a gun to feel safe. I call it the real world.

Do me a favor; go out to Dodge City, Kansas sometime. If it's not the middle of nowhere; you can see it from there. If you only learn one thing about Dodge City; learn that you don't go out at night in Dodge City, ever. In all the years that I've done road construction; I've only had 2 attempted car jackings. Both were at the all night gas station at the intersection of Wyatt Earp and US 54, just outside of town. Both times I had my gun; you do the math.


Excuse me; I ment US 400; 54 and 400 are the same road for 150 miles or so; but split before you get to Dodge
 
2012-07-30 02:58:33 PM
His shirt probably says "LIBERALISM ROCKS!"
 
2012-07-30 02:58:54 PM

joonyer: Has it always been illegal to open carry in an establishment that serves alcohol?

About 10 years ago I was in my local pub (Avogadro's Number in Ft. Collins). Tends to be kind of a hippy/artist place, so everyone kind of freaked out when a cowboy/rancher type guy came in with a revolver on his hip in plain view. He ordered a beer and sat down. Most of the customers actually left the bar because they were nervous. I laughed and asked the guy if he gets that reaction a lot. He was a really cool and said it happens a lot but it's totally legal. Was he correct? This was in 2002/2003.

Also, how do CCW laws affect this? I thought open carry was totally seperate from CCW laws?

/ignorant about carry laws
//keep my guns at home


Not that I can find. I looked at all the usual sources and couldn't find a statute that prohibits carrying in a liquor establishment. Yes, there are laws about carrying while under the influence, but nothing about bar carry.
 
2012-07-30 03:01:25 PM

Farkin_Crazy: JesseL: www.fark.com/comments/7226694/-71-year-old-geezer-fights-off-pair-of -1 9-year-old-thugs-robbing-internet-cafe-With-video-baddasserywait-inter net-cafes-still-exist?

I was thinking more of mass murders instead of thieves.


Do you have one of these?:

images.wikia.com

No? Then how the hell can you ever know what would have happened in any situation if circumstances had been different? I'm not going to give armed robbers the benefit of the doubt and assume that nobody would have been hurt if they hadn't been stopped.
 
2012-07-30 03:03:16 PM
But he seems like an educated individual who would never attempt to shock people with his clothing or behavior.
 
2012-07-30 03:05:08 PM

Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?


IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.
 
2012-07-30 03:07:38 PM

rhino33: serial_crusher: It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.


actually most theaters have corporate "no weapons" policies in place. it's up to the CCW holder to do the research before hand. it similar for places like Target and Walmart. Target doesn't allow weapons, but Walmart does.


corporate rules != illegal.

Not yet, at least...
 
2012-07-30 03:08:02 PM

serial_crusher: unlikely: I've actually met that guy, and he's a pretty typical "AMURKA FUK YAH... COLD DEAD FINGERS" kind of redneck.

It's vaguely surprising he didn't know you're not allowed to carry into a place with alcohol. That's one of the questions on the CCW written.

Not that it matters; he won't have that CCW any more.

It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.
He says he's a regular, and the place is named Cinebarre though. So missing a detail like that would be vaguely surprising if he wasn't the "AMURKA FUK YAH" type, but recent GOP superstars have taught me to expect that kind of lack of attention to detail.


He was also wearing a shirt that had "liberalism" printed on it likely followed by some other derptastic teatard slogan. The guy was looking for attention and apparently he found it.
 
2012-07-30 03:08:11 PM
rhino33: serial_crusher: It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.


actually most theaters have corporate "no weapons" policies in place. it's up to the CCW holder to do the research before hand. it similar for places like Target and Walmart. Target doesn't allow weapons, but Walmart does.


The Target I visit in Maine does not have any sort of sign stating concealed firearms are not allowed, nor does the local theater. I carry in both all the time. I can also carry at a restaurant that serves alcohol as long as I don't sit in the bar area. I walked into Target one day not knowing my shiat had slipped up and my Glock 27 was showing, nobody at Target said one word about it and I was in the store for a good 5 minutes before I realized it was exposed.
 
2012-07-30 03:08:12 PM

LandOfChocolate: Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool.


I agree, but sometimes it's tough. When you got a small firearm down each sock, and the third in the crotch of your pants, sometimes it's kind of hard to hide the fourth when it's warm out and you don't want to wear a jacket, and your "DIE OBAMA" t-shirt just doesn't do the trick.
 
2012-07-30 03:11:20 PM
redmid17: People who make sweeping generalizations about all CCW laws...

I considered omitting the "illegal" bit specifically to preempt this kind of pedantry, but I thought I might be able to sneak it by without the nitpicking asshole brigade noticing. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. To be fair, I bolded the other half of that statement just for your benefit.

JesseL: If it's legal and you're not drinking, why would you say it's stupid?

Carrying in bars has historically always led to Bad Things (TM), which is why it ends up getting banned *in most jurisdictions. You may not be drinking and carrying, and that's commendable, but the vast majority of people in a bar do go there to drink, and having a firearm in an environment that by definition is antithetical to common sense is pretty stupid -- any bar fight that breaks out is much more likely to end with a funeral than it would if the firearm were left in the car.
 
2012-07-30 03:12:44 PM
ummm......Colorado allows carry in places that serve alcohol

Link

and from the article:
"And because the element of the potential charge regarding liquor and beer is what Barnes terms "a sentence-enhancer," it wouldn't apply if the dangerous weapons charge is found to be a non-starter."

translation:
Carry in establishments that serve alcohol = OK so long as you are able to carry the firearm to begin with, otherwise they tack on an additional charge
 
2012-07-30 03:13:55 PM

Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?


I'm not saying you did this but one of the main arguments I heard against open carry laws after the Aurora shooting was that other people with firearms in that theater wouldn't have done anything but cause more casualties in a crossfire with the d-bag shooter. Can anyone point me to a case where an armed citizen shot innocent bystanders while trying to stop an armed crook? I've not been given even one example of it happening and I would that that odds are that it's happened at some point. Apparently it's been so infrequently that there's nothing much to find though.
 
2012-07-30 03:14:23 PM
Charges won't end up being filed.

Why, you ask?

This:

FTFA:

"a Thornton ordinance targets individuals who display a dangerous weapon (the list even includes air guns and slingshots) "in a manner calculated to alarm another person." And there's no question that Mapes's presence at the theater wearing a gun in plain sight did just that."

So, his arrest was essentially for brandishing. Only problem, higher courts have repeatedly ruled that wearing a firearm in a holster is not brandishing. Sorry little town, no conviction for you.
 
2012-07-30 03:14:33 PM

PsyLord: IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.


which is amazing, because random students tend to have weapon training, and paintguns tend to be remarkably accurate (especially the cheaper, trying-to-make-a-point kind that were likely used).
 
2012-07-30 03:14:34 PM
"It wasn't really a political statement," Mapes says. "I just went to see a movie. But it's a political statement that one madman out of four-and-a-half-million people shouldn't be dictating to the rest of us that we should stay in our houses."

But you were so concerned for your safety, you thought you needed to openly brandish a firearm to go watch Neighborhood Watch.
 
2012-07-30 03:16:29 PM

JesseL: Farkin_Crazy: JesseL: www.fark.com/comments/7226694/-71-year-old-geezer-fights-off-pair-of -1 9-year-old-thugs-robbing-internet-cafe-With-video-baddasserywait-inter net-cafes-still-exist?

I was thinking more of mass murders instead of thieves.

Do you have one of these?:

[images.wikia.com image 690x535]

No? Then how the hell can you ever know what would have happened in any situation if circumstances had been different? I'm not going to give armed robbers the benefit of the doubt and assume that nobody would have been hurt if they hadn't been stopped.


I don't disagree with your assessment of the situation you linked, but unless I miss the mark as badly as you appear to, he appears to have been asking about conflict in progress. Y'know, bullets flying, blood seeping, people screaming, that sort of thing. And there are situations where that's happened too, so feel free to link those. They don't outnumber, either per incident, or per life the number of guys who've shot their child, grandmother, or wife while cleaning or unloading a gun, but an argument could be made that they exist as a deterrent. Because if we've learned anything, it's that crazy people who set out to shoot up a place are good at thinking logically. Hopefully they aren't too good at it, though, or Mr. Open-Carry Savior of Real Americans first indication of the situation will be the series finale of the Sopra
 
2012-07-30 03:16:47 PM

PsyLord: Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?

IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.


And you actually believed that wasn't set up from the start? Funny how the gunman seemed to know exactly where the armed student was every time. Sometimes even before the student went for his gun. Not to mention the part of the gunman was played by a trained police officer. The student was played by someone who seems to have no firearm training or experience at all. And on top of that, the way they had the student dress made it very difficult for them to get to their concealed weapon. And we cant forget about the college students that were hired to clean out a garage and find a gun in a drawer. I dont care if you've never handled a gun before in your entire life, no one stupid enough to try to determine if a gun is loaded by looking down the barrel without having some sort of mental retardation.
 
2012-07-30 03:17:50 PM
Um, I've been to this theater. It's one of those theaters where you go in, sit down and then order food and/or drinks to eat during the movie. You have to walk past the bar to get to the theaters. The last time I was there, they had big signs advertising Guinness milkshakes everywhere. The menus also have alcohol choices on them.

Sometimes, the box office isn't open so you have to buy tickets at the bar, There is no way that he didn't know they served alcohol there.
 
2012-07-30 03:17:51 PM

jayhawk88: "It wasn't really a political statement," Mapes says. "I just went to see a movie. But it's a political statement that one madman out of four-and-a-half-million people shouldn't be dictating to the rest of us that we should stay in our houses."

But you were so concerned for your safety, you thought you needed to openly brandish a firearm to go watch Neighborhood Watch.


It's not "brandishing". It's holstered.
Brandish: Wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.
 
2012-07-30 03:18:59 PM

The Asshole Guy: rhino33: serial_crusher: It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.


actually most theaters have corporate "no weapons" policies in place. it's up to the CCW holder to do the research before hand. it similar for places like Target and Walmart. Target doesn't allow weapons, but Walmart does.

The Target I visit in Maine does not have any sort of sign stating concealed firearms are not allowed, nor does the local theater. I carry in both all the time. I can also carry at a restaurant that serves alcohol as long as I don't sit in the bar area. I walked into Target one day not knowing my shiat had slipped up and my Glock 27 was showing, nobody at Target said one word about it and I was in the store for a good 5 minutes before I realized it was exposed.


I can't speak for every state, but in Virginia one may open carry (no permit required) or conceal (need a permit) on private property without giving notice to the landowner, unless that property is posted... meaning, it's not up to me to research whether a business or individual allows me to carry on their property, it's their responsibility to post signs.
 
2012-07-30 03:19:54 PM

wmoonfox: redmid17: People who make sweeping generalizations about all CCW laws...

I considered omitting the "illegal" bit specifically to preempt this kind of pedantry, but I thought I might be able to sneak it by without the nitpicking asshole brigade noticing. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. To be fair, I bolded the other half of that statement just for your benefit.

JesseL: If it's legal and you're not drinking, why would you say it's stupid?

Carrying in bars has historically always led to Bad Things (TM), which is why it ends up getting banned *in most jurisdictions. You may not be drinking and carrying, and that's commendable, but the vast majority of people in a bar do go there to drink, and having a firearm in an environment that by definition is antithetical to common sense is pretty stupid -- any bar fight that breaks out is much more likely to end with a funeral than it would if the firearm were left in the car.


It's not pedantry if it's correcting a false statement. The ability to conceal a weapon and carry it around is neither minor nor inappropriate knowledge. That said, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's even remotely close to an acceptable idea. If I knew people who carried in bars (hard to in IL but not in home state of IN), I would find myself around them less.
 
2012-07-30 03:20:19 PM
He declines to provide the full slogan on the shirt, which starts with the word "LIBERALISM,"

Oh he's one of those people.
 
2012-07-30 03:20:37 PM

JesseL: No? Then how the hell can you ever know what would have happened in any situation if circumstances had been different? I'm not going to give armed robbers the benefit of the doubt and assume that nobody would have been hurt if they hadn't been stopped.


So why should we give conceal/carry owners the benefit of the doubt and assume they'll needlessly escalate a situation, leading to a death, or themselves shoot an innocent?
 
2012-07-30 03:20:48 PM
i29.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-30 03:23:59 PM

rhino33: serial_crusher: It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.


actually most theaters have corporate "no weapons" policies in place. it's up to the CCW holder to do the research before hand. it similar for places like Target and Walmart. Target doesn't allow weapons, but Walmart does.


In Texas, corporate policy by itself doesn't matter. CHL holders have to be notified either orally or in writing that they aren't allowed to carry in a business. A picture of a handgun with the univerisal "NOT ALLOWED" red cross through doesn't cut it as written notifcation. A sign that meets the requirements of statute 30.06 has to be posted at every entrance. These include certain wording in letters at least an inch high in both English and Spanish. (It's always been funny to me that conservative law makers, who are generally opposed to anything being in Spanish, tacked on this requirement to make it that much more onerous to prevent concealed carry.) CHL holders call them "thirty-aught-six" signs, like the rifle round. I've actually never seen one in person. It's commonly thought that Texas LEOs and courts interpret these requirements very strictly. In fact, you can find websites with user-generated databases of where these signs are located along with whether they are beleived to be valid.
 
2012-07-30 03:24:26 PM

PsyLord: Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?

IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.


They also had their shooter magically know exactly where the armed student would be sitting, and the role of the shooter was played by an experienced SWAT officer against their student with 10 minutes of training.
 
2012-07-30 03:24:57 PM

InternetSecurityGuard: James, James, James. You need to check out Thunderwear:
http://www.thunderwear.com/holsters.asp
Either that or cut the pretense and start carrying a murse:
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/BAG-070
I have been carrying one of these around for several years now. So folks have gotten used to seeing me with it. Externally it has radios, GPS and cameras. But folks have no idea what is in the hidden pcket.


But how's he supposed to shoot the liberal shooter if his gun is concealed in a secret pocket? Dammit, when the man needs to shoot someone, he needs to do it NOW.

Also, he looks exactly like what I'd expect a guy like him to look like:

blogs.westword.com

Ignorant and proud of it.
 
2012-07-30 03:26:38 PM

Rostin: A picture of a handgun with the univerisal "NOT ALLOWED" red cross through doesn't cut it as written notifcation.


Because in Texas, right and wrong don't matter, just the law. If it's not explicitly illegal and posted as such, it's legal.

/Texas logics is the bestest logics.
 
2012-07-30 03:26:42 PM

Farkin_Crazy: JesseL: www.fark.com/comments/7226694/-71-year-old-geezer-fights-off-pair-of -1 9-year-old-thugs-robbing-internet-cafe-With-video-baddasserywait-inter net-cafes-still-exist?

I was thinking more of mass murders instead of thieves.


If they are killed before they get the chance to mass murder, then they aren't mass murderers now are they?
 
2012-07-30 03:26:56 PM

jayhawk88: JesseL: No? Then how the hell can you ever know what would have happened in any situation if circumstances had been different? I'm not going to give armed robbers the benefit of the doubt and assume that nobody would have been hurt if they hadn't been stopped.

So why should we give conceal/carry owners the benefit of the doubt and assume they'll needlessly escalate a situation, leading to a death, or themselves shoot an innocent?


Because people have a fundamental right to self defense and legal CCW holders have already gone out of their way to prove that they're not criminally inclined.

Legal carriers of concealed weapons have a lower rate of felony convictions than nearly any other group you might care to name - including police officers.
 
2012-07-30 03:26:57 PM

Grimm2785: PsyLord: Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?

IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.

And you actually believed that wasn't set up from the start? Funny how the gunman seemed to know exactly where the armed student was every time. Sometimes even before the student went for his gun. Not to mention the part of the gunman was played by a trained police officer. The student was played by someone who seems to have no firearm training or experience at all. And on top of that, the way they had the student dress made it very difficult for them to get to their concealed weapon. And we cant forget about the college students that were hired to clean out a garage and find a gun in a drawer. I dont care if you've never handled a gun before in your entire life, no one stupid enough to try to determine if a gun is loaded by looking down the barrel without having some sort of mental retardation.


I wonder how the classrooms fared, that had NO "armed" students in them. Nightline did run that scenario where the gunman was unopposed, right?
 
2012-07-30 03:27:25 PM

Grimm2785: iheartscotch: You have to know your local ordinances; some places you can legally waive your gun around in public. I don't know why you would; but you can. Open carry is a tricky one; mostly because some conceal carry ordinances apply to open carry. Some places, the type of holster is regulated; it's all based on local ordinance. And, it's complicated as all hell

/ I'm glad I live in a place where it is quite legal to open carry just about anywhere.

// sometimes, though, it's best to listen to johnny cash and leave your guns at home

This is why i love living in Pennsylvania. Only the state has the power to pass laws about carrying a firearm. So basically anytime you have a local ordinance saying you cant carry there, you can ignore it. However, the rights of property owners are not something you can ignore. I conceal carry everywhere i go. If a business has a restriction on that, i simply go elsewhere. And as much as i like Johnny Cash, im afraid he and i are going to have to disagree on that point. When criminals start scheduling their illegal activity with me in advance, then i would agree i can sometimes leave my firearm at home. Until then, i reserve the right to protect myself.


THIS

Its always funny when the Philadelphia police dont even know the laws of their own state. They will arrest or more frequently answer questions that you cannot carry a firearm in the city limits. When the law is that no city or municipality can supersede state firearm laws. Philadelphia can suck it on that note, but I can see why they would want to discourage as many guns there as possible being so close and getting the overflow from that cesspool of human garbage that floats over from NJ, more specifically Camden. Cant they just make a REAAAAALLY long bridge to bypass that whole area.

/thankfully dont live in philly
//choose to DO my livin over 2 hours away, but have to MAKE that livin in Philly.

Now if you open carry you can then open yourself up to a disorderly conduct ticket or causing a riot infraction, but
 
2012-07-30 03:28:56 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Oh, great. His last name is "Mapes". :/


i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-30 03:29:01 PM

JesseL: against their student with 10 minutes of training.


How much training is required for a CCW?
 
2012-07-30 03:29:12 PM
oakleym82: The Asshole Guy: rhino33: serial_crusher: It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.


actually most theaters have corporate "no weapons" policies in place. it's up to the CCW holder to do the research before hand. it similar for places like Target and Walmart. Target doesn't allow weapons, but Walmart does.

The Target I visit in Maine does not have any sort of sign stating concealed firearms are not allowed, nor does the local theater. I carry in both all the time. I can also carry at a restaurant that serves alcohol as long as I don't sit in the bar area. I walked into Target one day not knowing my shiat had slipped up and my Glock 27 was showing, nobody at Target said one word about it and I was in the store for a good 5 minutes before I realized it was exposed.

I can't speak for every state, but in Virginia one may open carry (no permit required) or conceal (need a permit) on private property without giving notice to the landowner, unless that property is posted... meaning, it's not up to me to research whether a business or individual allows me to carry on their property, it's their responsibility to post signs.


In Maine you can OC without a permit. You can have a firearm in your vehicle without a permit as long as it is unloaded and in plain sight. You need your CFP to carry concealed and loaded in your vehicle and other than the obvious places, ie. school, bar, police station, court, if a sign is not posted you are in the clear. The only store I know of in my area that does not allowed concealed carry is the Family Dollar store. They do have the signs stating so on their door but I don't shop there so it is no biggie.
 
2012-07-30 03:29:36 PM

LandOfChocolate: Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool.


Possibly for exactly this reason. Imagine that everyone who CCW did open carry. Now imagine a town like this where maybe 10% or so of the folks wander around CCW. That's 1 in 10 people. In a movie theater of 100 seating, you'll see 10 guns.

It would be untenable for people to panic at seeing a gun, even if the lot of them were in a theater where people got shot the prior week by some insane gunman. Why? Because they see guns all the damn time. What are they going to do? Call 911 every 4 seconds?

On the other hand, 90% of the town CCW, nobody ever sees a gun, then somebody notices the lump at your hip and realizes it has a handle and calls the police even though nearly everyone else around him ever always has a gun on their hip too.
 
2012-07-30 03:30:28 PM

Petit_Merdeux: JesseL: against their student with 10 minutes of training.

How much training is required for a CCW?


Depends on the state. When I got mine it was 16 hours.
 
2012-07-30 03:30:54 PM
So it appears he was within his rights, as he wasn't consuming and he wasn't brandishing. That's my kind of political statement, even if I'm not inclined to echo it. Of course, rights are much more easily eroded when nobody exercises them.
 
2012-07-30 03:30:54 PM
Don't they serve liquor in Colorado schools? That'd stop serial shooters in their tracks.
 
2012-07-30 03:31:44 PM
Texas CHL laws require a business establishment to receive at least 51% of its income from alcohol sales before it is considered a place in which you cannot carry.

[PDF]
 
2012-07-30 03:31:49 PM

Petit_Merdeux: JesseL: against their student with 10 minutes of training.

How much training is required for a CCW?


Depends on your state. In Colorado it's an all day class or previous experience (former police officer or military). While there is no range requirement in the law, most places that offer the instruction require it to pass their class.
 
2012-07-30 03:32:13 PM
Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.
 
2012-07-30 03:33:04 PM

PsyLord: IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.


It's cute how you seemed to buy that as legit.
 
2012-07-30 03:33:44 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.


Well shiat. If you said it, it must be true.

You do realize you're completely full of shiat, right?
 
2012-07-30 03:33:49 PM

JesseL: Petit_Merdeux: JesseL: against their student with 10 minutes of training.

How much training is required for a CCW?

Depends on the state. When I got mine it was 16 hours.



No training here in Washington....just the background check, fingerprinting, and $55 fee.
 
2012-07-30 03:33:51 PM

Petit_Merdeux: JesseL: against their student with 10 minutes of training.

How much training is required for a CCW?


You really don't want to know.
 
2012-07-30 03:34:00 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Never. Never. Never.


I'm positive that isn't true. I think there was a church shooting where someone shot the guy
 
2012-07-30 03:34:03 PM

Brubold: I've not been given even one example of it happening and I would that that odds are that it's happened at some point. Apparently it's been so infrequently that there's nothing much to find though.


very, very weak strawman. It's rare for someone to be carrying, and extremely exceptionally rare for someone to open fire on a group of people. There are so exceptionally few times when the two things overlap/coincide, that it is irrelevant as a counter to any argument suggesting deaths would be fewer were there armed bystanders nearby. Add to the lack of overlap that the places where mass shootings take place tend to be places where it isn't legal to carry in most areas. Schools, churches, post offices...

Speaking of armed bystanders...try doing a google search for "armed bystander" and a few things do turn up. A girl saved in Athens, GA a few weeks ago, as an example. Just what was it you were using to do your search, praytell?
 
2012-07-30 03:34:43 PM

justanotherfarkinfarker: HotIgneous Intruder: Never. Never. Never.

I'm positive that isn't true. I think there was a church shooting where someone shot the guy


Well, there's one.

Once, once, once.
 
2012-07-30 03:35:58 PM

joonyer: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well shiat. If you said it, it must be true.

You do realize you're completely full of shiat, right?


Ah, it's the old "You're full of shiat" intellectual gambit.
I bow to your magnificence, sir.
 
2012-07-30 03:36:14 PM

Farkin_Crazy: Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?


emotibot.net
 
2012-07-30 03:36:47 PM

IamAwake: Brubold: I've not been given even one example of it happening and I would that that odds are that it's happened at some point. Apparently it's been so infrequently that there's nothing much to find though.

very, very weak strawman. It's rare for someone to be carrying, and extremely exceptionally rare for someone to open fire on a group of people. There are so exceptionally few times when the two things overlap/coincide, that it is irrelevant as a counter to any argument suggesting deaths would be fewer were there armed bystanders nearby. Add to the lack of overlap that the places where mass shootings take place tend to be places where it isn't legal to carry in most areas. Schools, churches, post offices...

Speaking of armed bystanders...try doing a google search for "armed bystander" and a few things do turn up. A girl saved in Athens, GA a few weeks ago, as an example. Just what was it you were using to do your search, praytell?


Praytell sounds like a great name for a search engine.
 
2012-07-30 03:37:34 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: joonyer: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well shiat. If you said it, it must be true.

You do realize you're completely full of shiat, right?

Ah, it's the old "You're full of shiat" intellectual gambit.
I bow to your magnificence, sir.


Hey, you're the one making the completely unsubstantiated claim(with a heavy dose of hyperbole), not me.
 
2012-07-30 03:37:43 PM

moops


Bathia_Mapes: Oh, great. His last name is "Mapes". :/

No, it's not. His last name clearly reads "moops".


Mapes moots moops, mopes
 
2012-07-30 03:37:59 PM

joonyer: If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.


That is a stupid statement. Absolutely stupid. Handguns were made for killin' - they ain't no good for nothin' else. Cars, on the other hand, are made for transporting. If you're doing anything other than killing a human being with a handgun (anything proper, at least) you are merely practicing so as to be more effective at killing a human with a handgun. Almost all cars, on the other hand, completely fulfill their purpose for their entire serviceable lifetimes, without ever killing someone.
 
2012-07-30 03:38:18 PM

Brubold: Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?

I'm not saying you did this but one of the main arguments I heard against open carry laws after the Aurora shooting was that other people with firearms in that theater wouldn't have done anything but cause more casualties in a crossfire with the d-bag shooter. Can anyone point me to a case where an armed citizen shot innocent bystanders while trying to stop an armed crook? I've not been given even one example of it happening and I would that that odds are that it's happened at some point. Apparently it's been so infrequently that there's nothing much to find though.


When I've made the innocent bystanders argument at other sites, it's not because I'm arguing against CCW or open-carry laws. I just don't think they're the panacea that some have argued. I've seen the argument "If only the theater didn't ban concealed weapons! It would have been different." Really? He had the element of surprise, tear gas, darkness, and very powerful weapon. Would a guy with a handgun really have been able to orient himself and accurately fire through a crowd before getting taken out himself? Or before a dozen people have already been taken down? Especially since a Thursday midnight showing doesn't seem to draw a demographic that'd have much gun training.

I believe CCW laws have saved lives, but think we have to be realistic about how much it can do to prevent these situations.
 
2012-07-30 03:38:44 PM

IamAwake: joonyer: If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.

That is a stupid statement. Absolutely stupid. Handguns were made for killin' - they ain't no good for nothin' else. Cars, on the other hand, are made for transporting. If you're doing anything other than killing a human being with a handgun (anything proper, at least) you are merely practicing so as to be more effective at killing a human with a handgun. Almost all cars, on the other hand, completely fulfill their purpose for their entire serviceable lifetimes, without ever killing someone.


You can hunt with handguns too
 
2012-07-30 03:38:45 PM

LandOfChocolate: Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool.


Perhaps for the same reason that some women in cities where it's legal have organized topless days? If you have the right to do something that some would find extreme or offensive, exercise it now and again. It's a way of celebrating your right to do it, I guess, and also of normalizing it. There are lots of people who suffer from an irrational fear of guns and prejudice against those who own them. It might help if people got used to seeing guns on hips every time they went to the grocery store or movie theater.
 
2012-07-30 03:39:41 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

How about the civilians that returned fire and helped keep Charles Whitman pinned down?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

So yeah, you're full of shiat.
 
2012-07-30 03:40:06 PM

Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?


Yea, it's Fox news...
 
2012-07-30 03:40:44 PM

IamAwake: joonyer: If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.

That is a stupid statement. Absolutely stupid. Handguns were made for killin' - they ain't no good for nothin' else. Cars, on the other hand, are made for transporting. If you're doing anything other than killing a human being with a handgun (anything proper, at least) you are merely practicing so as to be more effective at killing a human with a handgun. Almost all cars, on the other hand, completely fulfill their purpose for their entire serviceable lifetimes, without ever killing someone.


Killing someone may be a perfectly legitimate activity.
 
2012-07-30 03:41:30 PM

frankencj: Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?

Yea, it's Fox news...


Fox News =/= Fox affiliate
MSNBC =/= NBC affiliate
 
2012-07-30 03:41:50 PM

cryinoutloud: InternetSecurityGuard: James, James, James. You need to check out Thunderwear:
http://www.thunderwear.com/holsters.asp
Either that or cut the pretense and start carrying a murse:
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/BAG-070
I have been carrying one of these around for several years now. So folks have gotten used to seeing me with it. Externally it has radios, GPS and cameras. But folks have no idea what is in the hidden pcket.

But how's he supposed to shoot the liberal shooter if his gun is concealed in a secret pocket? Dammit, when the man needs to shoot someone, he needs to do it NOW.

Also, he looks exactly like what I'd expect a guy like him to look like:

[blogs.westword.com image 380x480]

Ignorant and proud of it.


It's the eyes. They all have those beady little eyes.
 
2012-07-30 03:42:35 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting. Never. Never. Never. Got it? Good.


So, therefore, allowing people to arm themselves will not mitigate such an event in the future. Never. Never ever.
 
2012-07-30 03:42:43 PM

rhino33: serial_crusher: It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.


actually most theaters have corporate "no weapons" policies in place. it's up to the CCW holder to do the research before hand. it similar for places like Target and Walmart. Target doesn't allow weapons, but Walmart does.


I have openly carried a sidearm while in a Target. I do not, and will not, shop at a Wal-Mart store.
 
2012-07-30 03:43:07 PM

IamAwake: joonyer: If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.

That is a stupid statement. Absolutely stupid. Handguns were made for killin' - they ain't no good for nothin' else. Cars, on the other hand, are made for transporting. If you're doing anything other than killing a human being with a handgun (anything proper, at least) you are merely practicing so as to be more effective at killing a human with a handgun. Almost all cars, on the other hand, completely fulfill their purpose for their entire serviceable lifetimes, without ever killing someone.


Really? They both have the same potential do they not? Why does it matter what they are "designed" for, instead of what happens when they are used?

Besides, the debate was about holstered versus brandishing. I was pointing out the difference and trying to use an analogy. I thought it fit, sorry it didn't work for you.
 
2012-07-30 03:43:20 PM

IamAwake: joonyer: If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.

That is a stupid statement. Absolutely stupid. Handguns were made for killin' - they ain't no good for nothin' else. Cars, on the other hand, are made for transporting. If you're doing anything other than killing a human being with a handgun (anything proper, at least) you are merely practicing so as to be more effective at killing a human with a handgun. Almost all cars, on the other hand, completely fulfill their purpose for their entire serviceable lifetimes, without ever killing someone.


Yes, completely true. That's why I own a handgun, to kill people. But only certain people, people who don't understand right from wrong. People who think might makes right and it's perfectly okay to murder me, rape me, kidnap my son, etc. If they act on those impulses, then yes, I want to kill them to stop them. Since those people don't walk around wearing black hats and twirling mustaches I need to carry all the time instead of just listening for the sinister music to start.

Of course you're also completely right and practice at the range is not fun at all. Getting better and better at a skill gives people no satisfaction. Those people doing archery or fencing are the same, just practice to kill people, the blood thirsty savages.
 
2012-07-30 03:47:27 PM

redmid17: You can hunt with handguns too


If you're stupid, yeah. The best handgun is less accurate the worst rifle. You can also decide to cook all your meals on your engine block. Will taste like shiat and you'll get yourself farked up in the process, but HEY...it's possible!

Handguns are only good at short range (hunting != short range) and only have a purpose because of their conceal-ability and quickness.
 
2012-07-30 03:48:23 PM

PsyLord: Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?

IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.


In so doing, Nightline demonstrated that carrying a defensive firearm will be ineffective against an armed assailant who is informed in advance of the identities of individuals who are armed.
 
2012-07-30 03:48:55 PM

IamAwake: redmid17: You can hunt with handguns too

If you're stupid, yeah. The best handgun is less accurate the worst rifle. You can also decide to cook all your meals on your engine block. Will taste like shiat and you'll get yourself farked up in the process, but HEY...it's possible!

Handguns are only good at short range (hunting != short range) and only have a purpose because of their conceal-ability and quickness.


So hunting != short range? Those bow-totin' hunters would have been great Longbowmen back in the days of yore then!
 
2012-07-30 03:49:39 PM
Anti-gun bigots sound as bad as Westboro church ignorant idiots.
You really do.

I never have and probably never will own a firearm but I'll fight to insure that I keep my right to if I choose.

This knot-head makes national news because OTHER PEOPLE are scared... sigh..

He was within his legal rights, his charges will be dropped and his property returned. Mark my words. You know why? Because even though he seems like an asshat in general, he was breaking no laws.

I'm accused of being a liberal on many topics... and even I can see this is just overreaction from a pussified culture.
 
2012-07-30 03:49:42 PM

PsyLord: You really don't want to know.


Why is that?
 
2012-07-30 03:50:31 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Rostin: A picture of a handgun with the univerisal "NOT ALLOWED" red cross through doesn't cut it as written notifcation.

Because in Texas, right and wrong don't matter, just the law. If it's not explicitly illegal and posted as such, it's legal.

/Texas logics is the bestest logics.


I guess it depends on what you consider "right and wrong." To me, charging an otherwise law-abiding person with a Class A misdemeanor because s/he didn't properly interpret some store owner's idea of clear signage is stupid and "wrong" and would have a chilling effect on concealed carry. The sign requirements are funny in some ways, but they are also completely clear. If a person is guilty of carrying where he shouldn't, it really is no one's fault but his own.
 
2012-07-30 03:50:37 PM

IamAwake: redmid17: You can hunt with handguns too

If you're stupid, yeah. The best handgun is less accurate the worst rifle. You can also decide to cook all your meals on your engine block. Will taste like shiat and you'll get yourself farked up in the process, but HEY...it's possible!

Handguns are only good at short range (hunting != short range) and only have a purpose because of their conceal-ability and quickness.


What is this I don't even....

[facepalm.jpg]
 
2012-07-30 03:52:16 PM

LaraAmber: Of course you're also completely right and practice at the range is not fun at all. Getting better and better at a skill gives people no satisfaction.


you're stepping outside of practical reasons, and in to subjective preferences. There are people who like to squeeze bananas with their feet and then eat them - I can't argue against preferences. Handguns only have one objective use. Your preferences have nothing to do with whether a parked car is equiv to a handgun.

That said, I haven't disparaged handgun use here, or elsewhere. In fact, I think our slightly-armed populous is practically the only thing keeping our corrupt government in check. That doesn't mean it should be defended with inane arguments, however.
 
2012-07-30 03:52:55 PM

cryinoutloud: InternetSecurityGuard: James, James, James. You need to check out Thunderwear:
http://www.thunderwear.com/holsters.asp
Either that or cut the pretense and start carrying a murse:
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/BAG-070
I have been carrying one of these around for several years now. So folks have gotten used to seeing me with it. Externally it has radios, GPS and cameras. But folks have no idea what is in the hidden pcket.

But how's he supposed to shoot the liberal shooter if his gun is concealed in a secret pocket? Dammit, when the man needs to shoot someone, he needs to do it NOW.

Also, he looks exactly like what I'd expect a guy like him to look like:

[blogs.westword.com image 380x480]

Ignorant and proud of it.


Your alteration of the image by mirroring one side of his head to the other to make the subject appear unnaturally symmetrical was unnecessary.
 
2012-07-30 03:53:02 PM
No harm done. Just take all his toys away and make sure he is never allowed anywhere near a gun for the rest of his life.

Anyone incapable of following a few simple rules should be trusted with nothing more than a water pistol.

Easy
 
2012-07-30 03:53:37 PM

redmid17: So hunting != short range? Those bow-totin' hunters would have been great Longbowmen back in the days of yore then!


go use a handgun on a deer and get back to me on this, troll.
 
2012-07-30 03:55:20 PM

IamAwake: joonyer: If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.

That is a stupid statement. Absolutely stupid. Handguns were made for killin' - they ain't no good for nothin' else. Cars, on the other hand, are made for transporting. If you're doing anything other than killing a human being with a handgun (anything proper, at least) you are merely practicing so as to be more effective at killing a human with a handgun. Almost all cars, on the other hand, completely fulfill their purpose for their entire serviceable lifetimes, without ever killing someone.


Ask any LEO what weapons they have at their disposal. Their vehicle will be on the list.
It's a 4000lb killing machine and can be used specificlly for that purpose or kill by accident. Just like firearms.
 
2012-07-30 03:55:39 PM

LaraAmber


Of course you're also completely right and practice at the range is not fun at all. Getting better and better at a skill gives people no satisfaction. Those people doing archery or fencing are the same, just practice to kill people, the blood thirsty savages.


You are completely and utterly wrong.

'Bloodthirsty' is one word.


:-)
 
2012-07-30 03:55:39 PM

IamAwake: redmid17: You can hunt with handguns too

If you're stupid, yeah. The best handgun is less accurate the worst rifle. You can also decide to cook all your meals on your engine block. Will taste like shiat and you'll get yourself farked up in the process, but HEY...it's possible!

Handguns are only good at short range (hunting != short range) and only have a purpose because of their conceal-ability and quickness.


Would like a word with you:
www.scholatutorials.org
 
2012-07-30 03:55:48 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.


Are you able to explain the apparent contradiction between your claim and observed reality?
 
2012-07-30 03:57:24 PM
Came here to laugh at the Liberals shake their tiny, angry fists at the guy who broke no laws yet still was arrested.

/was not disappointed
 
2012-07-30 03:58:21 PM

IamAwake: redmid17: You can hunt with handguns too

If you're stupid, yeah. The best handgun is less accurate the worst rifle. You can also decide to cook all your meals on your engine block. Will taste like shiat and you'll get yourself farked up in the process, but HEY...it's possible!

Handguns are only good at short range (hunting != short range) and only have a purpose because of their conceal-ability and quickness.


Quickness yes, conceal-ability, no.

People wore handguns openly for centuries. The idea of wearing a full sized gun "concealed" is mainly a 20th & 21st century concept and concealed carry was a novelty (little one shot derringers, etc) before then. Unless you think Hollywood movies are practicing revisionist history by showing all those people during the old west with hip holsters.
 
2012-07-30 03:58:54 PM

IamAwake: redmid17: So hunting != short range? Those bow-totin' hunters would have been great Longbowmen back in the days of yore then!

go use a handgun on a deer and get back to me on this, troll.


You don't really know anything about hunting, do you?

https://www.google.com/search?q=handgun+deer&tbm=isch
 
2012-07-30 03:59:56 PM

IamAwake: redmid17: So hunting != short range? Those bow-totin' hunters would have been great Longbowmen back in the days of yore then!

go use a handgun on a deer and get back to me on this, troll.


jesus tap dancing christ on a cracker. Were you born this stupid or did you get training?

Google search of "hunting with handguns"
 
2012-07-30 04:01:57 PM

JesseL: IamAwake: redmid17: So hunting != short range? Those bow-totin' hunters would have been great Longbowmen back in the days of yore then!

go use a handgun on a deer and get back to me on this, troll.

You don't really know anything about hunting, do you?

https://www.google.com/search?q=handgun+deer&tbm=isch


waiting for post claiming that's not their purpose, they are being subverted, something about bananas, and therefore don't count
 
2012-07-30 04:02:00 PM

IamAwake: redmid17: So hunting != short range? Those bow-totin' hunters would have been great Longbowmen back in the days of yore then!

go use a handgun on a deer and get back to me on this, troll.


Deer hunting with handguns is perfectly cromulent assuming the bullet meets certain standards. Here is an excerpt from the Indiana 2011 Deer hunting guide (where I am licensed to hunt):

"Handguns for deer hunting:

Handguns, other than muzzle loading, must have a barrel at least 4 inches long and must fire a bullet of .243-inch diameter or larger. The handgun cartridge case, without the bullet,
must be at least 1.16 inches long. Full metal-jacketed bullets are not permitted. Handguns are not permitted on any military areas. Some types of handgun cartridges legal for deer hunting include .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .44 Special, .45 Colt, .45 Long Colt, .45 Winchester Magnum, .35 Remington and .357 Herrett."


Dirty Harry could have picked up a license and bagged a buck on Thanksgiving with what he carried on a daily basis. Now practically speaking handguns aren't tremendously accurate, so you have to a) be a good shot and b) be close to them when you fire. You can either stalk the deer and then fire from close range, but I'm not good enough to do that. IF you do enough footwork before hand it's not too hard to find a close spot to put a deer blind near a rub or a feeding lot. I've had two friends kill deer with handguns. They don't like to use shotguns because "it's to easy" for them. They only hunt with a handgun or a bow. Either way, their range isn't much better than 50 yards, if it is at all.
 
2012-07-30 04:02:15 PM

LaraAmber: IamAwake: joonyer: If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.

That is a stupid statement. Absolutely stupid. Handguns were made for killin' - they ain't no good for nothin' else. Cars, on the other hand, are made for transporting. If you're doing anything other than killing a human being with a handgun (anything proper, at least) you are merely practicing so as to be more effective at killing a human with a handgun. Almost all cars, on the other hand, completely fulfill their purpose for their entire serviceable lifetimes, without ever killing someone.

Yes, completely true. That's why I own a handgun, to kill people. But only certain people, people who don't understand right from wrong. People who think might makes right and it's perfectly okay to murder me, rape me, kidnap my son, etc. If they act on those impulses, then yes, I want to kill them to stop them. Since those people don't walk around wearing black hats and twirling mustaches I need to carry all the time instead of just listening for the sinister music to start.


Of course you're also completely right and practice at the range is not fun at all. Getting better and better at a skill gives people no satisfaction. Those people doing archery or fencing are the same, just practice to kill people, the blood thirsty savages.


You might appreciate "Zen and the Art of Archery".

about your range comment - I don't play golf. No money and no time for it. I do enjoy going to the driving range though. I can consistently get way out past 300 yards. I do it by warming up carefully and then, when I'm limber I use visualization techniques to visualize my boss's face on that ball. I don't remember feeling or hearing anything else but that face on that ball-and the club in my hands. And then, it's gone . . .
so I guess, just to be contrary, I get an unimaginable amount of satisfaction out of hitting that ball.

sorry
 
2012-07-30 04:03:43 PM

IamAwake: redmid17: So hunting != short range? Those bow-totin' hunters would have been great Longbowmen back in the days of yore then!

go use a handgun on a deer and get back to me on this, troll.


These guys would like a word with you.
 
2012-07-30 04:05:09 PM

Petit_Merdeux: PsyLord: You really don't want to know.

Why is that?


Because it is scarier when he says it like that.

And I believe he wants you to be afraid.
 
2012-07-30 04:05:20 PM

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Came here to laugh at the Liberals shake their tiny, angry fists at the guy who broke no laws yet still was arrested.

/was not disappointed


Easy there Cowboy, I'm a liberal. ;)

Good luck against Guillard. Liver kick FTW.
 
2012-07-30 04:06:00 PM

IamAwake: Almost all cars, on the other hand, completely fulfill their purpose for their entire serviceable lifetimes, without ever killing someone.


So do most guns. What's your point?
 
2012-07-30 04:06:08 PM
You know, there are things you CAN do, and things you SHOULD do. There are things you are legally allowed to do in public, things you can say without fear of repercussion, places you can go anytime you want. However, there are times and places you as a human being should voluntarily censor or restrict your rights, because it's the polite or socially expedient thing to do.

I mean, you CAN tell a small child dressed like a freak, "Hey, kid, you look like a freak!" but in the name of kindness, you should say "My, don't you look nice today!" You CAN drive through Compton with your windows down screaming "N*ggers back to Africa!" but you shouldn't expect to survive if you do. And by the same token, you can certainly own firearms and even have a CCW, but don't you think there are places you shouldn't take your gun even so?

When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.
 
2012-07-30 04:10:28 PM

joonyer: IamAwake: redmid17: So hunting != short range? Those bow-totin' hunters would have been great Longbowmen back in the days of yore then!

go use a handgun on a deer and get back to me on this, troll.

jesus tap dancing christ on a cracker. Were you born this stupid or did you get training?

Google search of "hunting with handguns"


I didn't say it wasn't done, or that it was impossible. I said it was stupid. Lots of people do lots of stupid things.

There's a reason olympic archery is at 70m, and pistols are at 25 and 50m. 'Tis said that english longbowmen had to hit a man-sized target 10 times in 20 seconds at 200 feet for their station. Here we are centuries later, and the USMC qualifies pistols at 7, 15, 25, and 50m.

Bows speak to the primitive bit better, and at anything beyond deer-can-hear-your-breathing distances, a bow is more accurate. Rifles are more practical for everything other than quickness (though they gain quickness in refire). Handguns either don't have the stopping power or, when they do, create too much of an exit. They don't have accuracy. It's a completely impractical instrument for the task.
 
2012-07-30 04:10:34 PM

Gyrfalcon: You know, there are things you CAN do, and things you SHOULD do. There are things you are legally allowed to do in public, things you can say without fear of repercussion, places you can go anytime you want. However, there are times and places you as a human being should voluntarily censor or restrict your rights, because it's the polite or socially expedient thing to do.

I mean, you CAN tell a small child dressed like a freak, "Hey, kid, you look like a freak!" but in the name of kindness, you should say "My, don't you look nice today!" You CAN drive through Compton with your windows down screaming "N*ggers back to Africa!" but you shouldn't expect to survive if you do. And by the same token, you can certainly own firearms and even have a CCW, but don't you think there are places you shouldn't take your gun even so?

When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.


Prove to me how my carrying a gun infringes on your rights.
 
2012-07-30 04:10:42 PM

Gyrfalcon: When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.


Are you saying that someone legally carrying a firearm is infringing on someone else's rights? How?
 
2012-07-30 04:11:20 PM
Farkin_Crazy

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?
I did that last week and fark's resident hoplophobe immediately called it "cherry picking".
 
2012-07-30 04:13:44 PM

Gyrfalcon: You know, there are things you CAN do, and things you SHOULD do. There are things you are legally allowed to do in public, things you can say without fear of repercussion, places you can go anytime you want. However, there are times and places you as a human being should voluntarily censor or restrict your rights, because it's the polite or socially expedient thing to do.

I mean, you CAN tell a small child dressed like a freak, "Hey, kid, you look like a freak!" but in the name of kindness, you should say "My, don't you look nice today!" You CAN drive through Compton with your windows down screaming "N*ggers back to Africa!" but you shouldn't expect to survive if you do. And by the same token, you can certainly own firearms and even have a CCW, but don't you think there are places you shouldn't take your gun even so?

When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.


Yes. Most places actually. As a gun owner and CCW holder I carry very rarely... really only when walking my dog at night. I do that because although I'm a decent shot, I'm probably don't have the balls to pull it on someone when necessary, and I'd rather not be killed by my own gun.

(It's also nice to be able to drive to and from the range without having to put it in the trunk w/o ammo etc.)

That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth), I support those that do. It's their right, and when I see the bulge under their shirt/jacket or they're carrying openly I am not intimidated, because I am an educated adult that understands several important things about our country and society.

The rest of the world can go on thinking we're cowboys, it doesn't bother me. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

/really I only have it in case of zombie apocalypse
//i am a democrat
 
2012-07-30 04:13:45 PM

PanzerPants: Philadelphia can suck it on that note, but I can see why they would want to discourage as many guns there as possible being so close and getting the overflow from that cesspool of human garbage that floats over from NJ, more specifically Camden. Cant they just make a REAAAAALLY long bridge to bypass that whole area.


Considering that I-95 is elevated from Center City out to the Betsy Ross Bridge, which crosses into Cinnaminson, not Camden, you could argue that they already have.
 
2012-07-30 04:16:04 PM

PsyLord: Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?

IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.


They also told their "shooter" which student(s) were armed... kinda stacking the deck...
 
2012-07-30 04:16:18 PM

OnlyM3: I did that last week and fark's resident hoplophobe immediately called it "cherry picking".


Dude, that's because most of your linked articles were just plain ol robberies and there was zero reason to be believe there was going to be shooting of any kind. The church shooter that was stopped, that's an example of a mass shooting that was stopped. A convenience store robbery is not.
 
2012-07-30 04:16:19 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.


Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.
 
2012-07-30 04:16:29 PM

oakleym82


That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth),


This is part of the problem: do not rely on the firearm to get you out of a situation after you shoot your mouth off.

Keep your damned word-hole shut and don't escalate the situation.
 
2012-07-30 04:17:42 PM

joonyer: Gyrfalcon: When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.

Are you saying that someone legally carrying a firearm is infringing on someone else's rights? How?


I didn't say that, now did I? What I said was, your "rights" have become more important than being halfway decent to other people. But if you must: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces? Why is legally carrying a firearm so goddamn important that it trumps other people's RIGHTS not to have it around?

Why is it so horribly wrong to consider other people once in a while? Because "I got my rights! F*ck you!" seems to be everyone's answer these days.
 
2012-07-30 04:19:38 PM
Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?
 
2012-07-30 04:19:41 PM

OnlyM3: Farkin_Crazy

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out? I did that last week and fark's resident hoplophobe immediately called it "cherry picking".


Your statement incorrectly implies a singular.
 
2012-07-30 04:20:16 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: oakleym82

That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth),


This is part of the problem: do not rely on the firearm to get you out of a situation after you shoot your mouth off.

Keep your damned word-hole shut and don't escalate the situation.


And I do. I mean for times when you come upon a situation that requires intervention, like rape rape or something, in which case I'd probably open my mouth regardless of whether or not I was packing.
 
2012-07-30 04:20:35 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: oakleym82

That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth),


This is part of the problem: do not rely on the firearm to get you out of a situation after you shoot your mouth off.

Keep your damned word-hole shut and don't escalate the situation.


In fact, the CCW class emphasized that when you carry you need to be extra careful to not escalate the situation: don't close the distance, don't take a swing, don't get drawn into heated words. The other person may be an asshole, but you're armed and know it. Don't give him a chance to take your weapon and be an armed asshole and don't get into a situation where you're now going to jail over a parking space because you can't control your temper.
 
2012-07-30 04:22:52 PM

ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.


Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a moron. If you were there during any of those incidents, you would either be;

a) first one out the door like the coward you are
b) dead

There's no option c. You are not rambo. You have zero chance vs someone armed, armored, ready to die, with automatic expanded clip weapons with a plan.

Please, please, please, stop pretending like you or anyone else could make a difference. The only thing that stops gun related crime is preventing people from having guns. Nothing else.
 
2012-07-30 04:23:37 PM

Gyrfalcon: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces?


No.

Whatever traumatic experiences you may have in your past, whatever phobias may haunt you; you have no right to force other people in public places to avoid whatever lawful behaviors may trigger unpleasant emotions for you.
 
2012-07-30 04:24:38 PM

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


That's why I was turned down. I thought it was because I'm crazy.
 
2012-07-30 04:24:45 PM

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


You don't have to do it this way. If you're looking for WIE, just ask.
 
2012-07-30 04:26:04 PM

Gyrfalcon: joonyer: Gyrfalcon: When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.

Are you saying that someone legally carrying a firearm is infringing on someone else's rights? How?

I didn't say that, now did I? What I said was, your "rights" have become more important than being halfway decent to other people. But if you must: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces? Why is legally carrying a firearm so goddamn important that it trumps other people's RIGHTS not to have it around?

Why is it so horribly wrong to consider other people once in a while? Because "I got my rights! F*ck you!" seems to be everyone's answer these days.


OK fair enough. I won't argue that seeing that guy's pistol could bring back some nasty feelings.

But now what you're saying is that people have the RIGHT to ....not be reminded of something? Or the RIGHT to...feel good? Or the RIGHT to NOT have a legal firearm within a certain distance of them?

Again, I agree that it can be a shiatty reminder for people, but so was wearing a black trenchcoat after Columbine.
 
2012-07-30 04:26:43 PM
I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead
 
2012-07-30 04:26:51 PM

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


Well I have a clitoris, I guess that's a tiny penis.
 
2012-07-30 04:27:26 PM

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


Actually, when I went to get mine I whipped it right out and slapped my instructor right upside the head. I should have kept it up, because once he recovered from the shock of being slapped in the face with a penis, he beat me bloody senseless. It's about that point that I realized having an unusually large penis is fine and dandy for slapping unsuspecting people upside the head, by sucks for self defense.
 
2012-07-30 04:27:48 PM

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


Male genitals are entirely irrelevant to the current discussion and are not a part of any concealed weapons application purpose. For what reason have you introduced this subject into the current discussion? Do you suffer from a psychological obsession with male genitalia that compels you to attempt to introduce the subject of male genitalia into any conversation, even when entirely inappropriate?
 
2012-07-30 04:28:39 PM

justtray: ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.

Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a moron. If ...


He didn't really have body armor. It was a tactical vest (ie vest with tons of pockets) and some "bullet-resistant" pads that likely would not have shielded from much (not many people aim for legs or shins). He also didn't have any automatic weapons.
 
2012-07-30 04:28:40 PM
www.clarkprosecutor.org
Would laugh at your silly gun debate.

/Jeese, can't imagine WHY someone would want a little extra protection at a movie in Colorado?
//Non-firearm owning liberal.
 
2012-07-30 04:28:52 PM

LaraAmber: ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?

Well I have a clitoris, I guess that's a tiny penis.


an awesome awesome tiny penis.
 
2012-07-30 04:29:18 PM

justtray: Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a moron. If you were there during any of those incidents, you would either be;

a) first one out the door like the coward you are
b) dead

There's no option c. You are not rambo. You have zero chance vs someone armed, armored, ready to die, with automatic expanded clip weapons with a plan.

Please, please, please, stop pretending like you or anyone else could make a difference. The only thing that stops gun related crime is preventing people from having guns. Nothing else.


Now this is the way to DERP a thread!

Good jorb.
 
2012-07-30 04:29:58 PM

PanzerPants: Now if you open carry you can then open yourself up to a disorderly conduct ticket or causing a riot infraction, but


Not true. Open carry is 100 percent legal with out a license to carry throughout the entire state of Pennsylvania. However since Philadelphia is a city of the first class, they are allowed to require a license for open carry. But, they may just shoot you anyways. Or give you $25,000. You never know...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

http://pennrecord.com/news/philly-open-carry-case-ends-with-not-guilt y -verdict-civil-rights-claim-expected-to-follow/

http://lansdale.patch.com/articles/lansdale-gun-rights-advocate-gets- 2 5k-settlement-from-philly
 
2012-07-30 04:30:08 PM

This text is now purple: PanzerPants: Philadelphia can suck it on that note, but I can see why they would want to discourage as many guns there as possible being so close and getting the overflow from that cesspool of human garbage that floats over from NJ, more specifically Camden. Cant they just make a REAAAAALLY long bridge to bypass that whole area.

Considering that I-95 is elevated from Center City out to the Betsy Ross Bridge, which crosses into Cinnaminson, not Camden, you could argue that they already have.


true, but it isn't long enough and there are exits that allow the locals to go over to Philadelphia to do their killin, and get right back under their rocks, and vice versa. Don't get me wrong, there is trash on both sides, there just seems to be more of it on the Joysey side due to what seems to be the abandonment of effort to provide their citizens with a full and adequately equipped police force to combat the crime problems. Budget cuts have turned that place into a slum and then they want to try and suck the regional police into their problems with a county police force. You really think the Cinnaminson police want to try to clean up the Camden problems? If they wanted to dodge bullets every shift they wouldn't have signed on to a markedly more affluent police force than Camden in the first place.
 
2012-07-30 04:30:16 PM

redmid17: He didn't really have body armor. It was a tactical vest (ie vest with tons of pockets) and some "bullet-resistant" pads that likely would not have shielded from much (not many people aim for legs or shins). He also didn't have any automatic weapons.


Be aware that justtray is a known liar and an open advocate of a fascist, totalitarian police state. Claims issued by him are not credible.
 
2012-07-30 04:30:18 PM
1) Derp was Derping political, derpatastic statement.
2) There's not a large enough mass-murderer sample group from which gun toters nor anyone else can infer the efficacy of a carry. Mass murders include OK City, Pentagon, etc. Take out the one where a gun couldn't work, take out the ones where you can't divine whether a criminal is there to execute 1 or hundreds, and you have a number sufficiently close to squat as to make any assertions worthless.
3), Golly, I hope you pixies feel all safe and stuff with your guns on ya makin' you feel all manly and stuff; got a lift kit and truck nuts on your vehicle too?

\saw Dark Knight, didn't bring a gun, didn't look... y'all need to grow a pair.
 
2012-07-30 04:30:38 PM

Whiskey Dickens: I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead


You do realize that she WASN'T the one who did the shooting. She was the victim.
 
2012-07-30 04:30:38 PM

umad: Farkin_Crazy: JesseL: www.fark.com/comments/7226694/-71-year-old-geezer-fights-off-pair-of -1 9-year-old-thugs-robbing-internet-cafe-With-video-baddasserywait-inter net-cafes-still-exist?

I was thinking more of mass murders instead of thieves.

If they are killed before they get the chance to mass murder, then they aren't mass murderers now are they?


THIS!

Thank you.
 
2012-07-30 04:30:47 PM

justtray: ...


Now who's trollin?
 
2012-07-30 04:31:01 PM

JesseL: Gyrfalcon: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces?

No.

Whatever traumatic experiences you may have in your past, whatever phobias may haunt you; you have no right to force other people in public places to avoid whatever lawful behaviors may trigger unpleasant emotions for you.


So you have no consideration for others. "I got my rights, f*ck you!" is how you live your life. You're no doubt one of those people who also feel it's your right to get drunk and then drive because it's your right to both drink and also to drive. I.e. you're a self-righteous dick.

Sounds about right.
 
2012-07-30 04:31:16 PM

wmoonfox: Yes you were, no you weren't, and no it wasn't.

Any CCW-holder who doesn't understand that it is both illegal and beyond stupid to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, into a bar or other establishment that serves alcohol, needs to be shot. They make us all look bad, and we don't need that crap right now.

I personally apologize for all CCW-holders on behalf of this man, and suggest that he be beaten about the neck and shoulders until he learns the value of reading his fecking permit. I would also not be opposed to his permit being revoked for a term no shorter than forever.


Maybe some states are different, but you are not flat-out barred from entering a place just because they serve alcohol. You could go to a Chili's or similar that serves alcohol, and as long as you aren't at the bar, you are fine.
 
2012-07-30 04:31:57 PM

Gyrfalcon: You know, there are things you CAN do, and things you SHOULD do. There are things you are legally allowed to do in public, things you can say without fear of repercussion, places you can go anytime you want. However, there are times and places you as a human being should voluntarily censor or restrict your rights, because it's the polite or socially expedient thing to do.

I mean, you CAN tell a small child dressed like a freak, "Hey, kid, you look like a freak!" but in the name of kindness, you should say "My, don't you look nice today!" You CAN drive through Compton with your windows down screaming "N*ggers back to Africa!" but you shouldn't expect to survive if you do. And by the same token, you can certainly own firearms and even have a CCW, but don't you think there are places you shouldn't take your gun even so?

When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.


I exercise my second amendment rights when i carry a firearm for self defense. What right of yours am i stepping on exactly?
 
2012-07-30 04:32:55 PM

T.M.S.: No harm done. Just take all his toys away and make sure he is never allowed anywhere near a gun for the rest of his life.

Anyone incapable of following a few simple rules should be trusted with nothing more than a water pistol.

Easy


And what where those rules that he was unable to follow?
 
2012-07-30 04:34:20 PM

Grimm2785: Gyrfalcon: You know, there are things you CAN do, and things you SHOULD do. There are things you are legally allowed to do in public, things you can say without fear of repercussion, places you can go anytime you want. However, there are times and places you as a human being should voluntarily censor or restrict your rights, because it's the polite or socially expedient thing to do.

I mean, you CAN tell a small child dressed like a freak, "Hey, kid, you look like a freak!" but in the name of kindness, you should say "My, don't you look nice today!" You CAN drive through Compton with your windows down screaming "N*ggers back to Africa!" but you shouldn't expect to survive if you do. And by the same token, you can certainly own firearms and even have a CCW, but don't you think there are places you shouldn't take your gun even so?

When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.

I exercise my second amendment rights when i carry a firearm for self defense. What right of yours am i stepping on exactly?


You are infringing upon his right to infringe upon your rights.
 
2012-07-30 04:34:45 PM

Gyrfalcon: JesseL: Gyrfalcon: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces?

No.

Whatever traumatic experiences you may have in your past, whatever phobias may haunt you; you have no right to force other people in public places to avoid whatever lawful behaviors may trigger unpleasant emotions for you.

So you have no consideration for others. "I got my rights, f*ck you!" is how you live your life. You're no doubt one of those people who also feel it's your right to get drunk and then drive because it's your right to both drink and also to drive. I.e. you're a self-righteous dick.

Sounds about right.


Drinking and driving puts other people's lives in danger. Open carrying does not.

How about we make it illegal to show violent sex scenes in movies? I know several rape victims who have severe emotional reactions to those scenes in movies and really hate it when they show up in films unexpectedly. How about their rights to not be reminded of their trauma? Does that supersede the studio's right to make the movie as they see fit? Are those movie makers self-righteous dicks?
 
2012-07-30 04:36:53 PM
Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."
 
2012-07-30 04:37:00 PM

Gyrfalcon: JesseL: Gyrfalcon: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces?

No.

Whatever traumatic experiences you may have in your past, whatever phobias may haunt you; you have no right to force other people in public places to avoid whatever lawful behaviors may trigger unpleasant emotions for you.

So you have no consideration for others. "I got my rights, f*ck you!" is how you live your life. You're no doubt one of those people who also feel it's your right to get drunk and then drive because it's your right to both drink and also to drive. I.e. you're a self-righteous dick.

Sounds about right.


You don't have a constitutionally enumerated right to drive. Now getting drunk and walking down the street or sidewalk would be more akin.
 
2012-07-30 04:37:23 PM

Gyrfalcon:
So you have no consideration for others. "I got my rights, f*ck you!" is how you live your life.


I have consideration for others, but as far as the legalities are concerned nobody has any right to not have their feelings hurt.

You're no doubt one of those people who also feel it's your right to get drunk and then drive because it's your right to both drink and also to drive. I.e. you're a self-righteous dick.

Sounds about right.


That's the dumbest false equivalency I've ever read.

Are you really that stupid, or do you just pretend on the internet? Is there ultimately any difference?
 
2012-07-30 04:37:30 PM
Edit - Bringing rambo wanna-be gun nuts [to reality] is "Trolling"...
 
2012-07-30 04:37:41 PM

Grimm2785: PanzerPants: Now if you open carry you can then open yourself up to a disorderly conduct ticket or causing a riot infraction, but

Not true. Open carry is 100 percent legal with out a license to carry throughout the entire state of Pennsylvania. However since Philadelphia is a city of the first class, they are allowed to require a license for open carry. But, they may just shoot you anyways. Or give you $25,000. You never know...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

http://pennrecord.com/news/philly-open-carry-case-ends-with-not-guilt y -verdict-civil-rights-claim-expected-to-follow/

http://lansdale.patch.com/articles/lansdale-gun-rights-advocate-gets- 2 5k-settlement-from-philly


Yeah it's legal to open carry, they just don't like it. They've been known to screw with people as you pointed out, so I wouldn't want to get their attention personally. I guess that was their goal all along then, huh?
 
2012-07-30 04:37:53 PM

justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."


You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.
 
2012-07-30 04:38:29 PM
Wow, the smug index for Fark has gotten out of control lately.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-30 04:40:06 PM

JesseL: Gyrfalcon:
So you have no consideration for others. "I got my rights, f*ck you!" is how you live your life.

I have consideration for others, but as far as the legalities are concerned nobody has any right to not have their feelings hurt.

You're no doubt one of those people who also feel it's your right to get drunk and then drive because it's your right to both drink and also to drive. I.e. you're a self-righteous dick.

Sounds about right.

That's the dumbest false equivalency I've ever read.


You have evidently read few comments from civilian disarmament advocates.
 
2012-07-30 04:40:09 PM

PsyLord: IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.


Some students have to walk to and from their cars or apartments late at night.

Also, I as a graduate student have spent probably less than 1% of my academic tenure in a classroom. The same is true of most professors and staff members. Unless some student I've formerly TAed decides he hates my guts, or a crazy person randomly decides to start his rampage with the occupants of my office, I think I'm going to have quite a bit of advanced warning that mischief is afoot.

An active shooter suddenly bursting into a classroom (and shooting specifically at the armed person, to boot) is only one scenario. Even if we generously grant that the Nightline simulation proved that concealed carry wouldn't help one classroom full of students, that is really all it proved.
 
2012-07-30 04:41:05 PM

justtray: ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.

Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a moron. If ...


Your absolutely right. if someone comes bursting in and starts shooting up the place. Im just going to say "yup, ya got me" and give up my life. Your a freaking idiot. And just because someone decides to walk into a movie theatre or any other place where large groups of people gather and open fire, that doesn't mean he is a trained assassin that has planned everything out to the point of perfection and has no chance of being stopped. I am not saying that having a gun in every situation will help. Would it have help in Colorado? I wasn't there so i don't know. Honestly, im leaning towards no considering the lack of lighting, the gas, and the mass confusion. But no two situations are the same. Maybe an armed citizen would not have stopped it this time, but maybe next time they will. Just because you have a firearm, that does not mean you have to pull it out. I think i'll just keep carrying as i like to keep my options open.
 
2012-07-30 04:42:04 PM
So glad I live in Arizona now. I am a bit surprised about Colorado serving booze in movie theaters. +1 to Colorado.
 
2012-07-30 04:42:09 PM

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead

You do realize that she WASN'T the one who did the shooting. She was the victim.


That's the point, Professor. Live by the gun, die by the gun.
 
2012-07-30 04:42:58 PM

redmid17: justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."

You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.


I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.
 
2012-07-30 04:43:00 PM

Whiskey Dickens: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead

You do realize that she WASN'T the one who did the shooting. She was the victim.

That's the point, Professor. Live by the gun, die by the gun.


So you blame all the Aurora victims for getting themselves shot?
 
2012-07-30 04:44:23 PM

justtray: ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.

Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a moron. If ...


Nice to turn that into a personal attack on me.

In the three mass killings I listed, everyone hid and hoped, or ran.

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link


And I said resistance, not shooting wildly like an idiot into a crowd. That's why cops are trained now to confront school or mass shooters immediately, to enter a building immediately, to confront the threat, and delay or stop it.

I'd say you missed the point pretty badly.
 
2012-07-30 04:44:24 PM

LaraAmber: Englebert Slaptyback: oakleym82

That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth),


This is part of the problem: do not rely on the firearm to get you out of a situation after you shoot your mouth off.

Keep your damned word-hole shut and don't escalate the situation.

In fact, the CCW class emphasized that when you carry you need to be extra careful to not escalate the situation: don't close the distance, don't take a swing, don't get drawn into heated words. The other person may be an asshole, but you're armed and know it. Don't give him a chance to take your weapon and be an armed asshole and don't get into a situation where you're now going to jail over a parking space because you can't control your temper.


Well, I guess that makes it all better, right? So someone angry with a gun is less likely to be a d_ck? Dream on. It just makes them a dangerous, inescapable d_ck.

Gun=dick replacement.
 
2012-07-30 04:44:38 PM

justtray: redmid17: justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."

You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.

I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.


What exactly is it about your apparently larger penis that deters crime?
 
2012-07-30 04:46:05 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.


Appalachian State School shooting, guy shot three people before surrendering to two students who had run out to retrieve guns from their vehicles when the shooting started.

In 2007 a man armed with a rifle and two pistols shot several people in a Colorado church and was only stopped when concealed carrier Jeanne Assam returned fire, wounding him.

During the Charles Whitman shooting armed civilians showed up with rifles to supplement police (most armed only with shotguns or revolvers) and managed to pin him down in the clock tower in the one small area with cover, this allowed police to enter and take him down.

Plenty of factual situations come to mind, but I'm sure they won't change your well reasoned, sagacious opinion...
 
2012-07-30 04:46:06 PM

ddelorm: justtray: ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.

Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a ...


As I have noted previously, justtray is a liar. He also advocates a totalitarian fascist police state; he believes that only law enforcement should be permitted any means of defense against aggressors.
 
2012-07-30 04:46:07 PM

joonyer: justtray: ...

Now who's trollin?


Dangit, I bit, didn't I?
 
2012-07-30 04:46:59 PM

thetubameister: LaraAmber: Englebert Slaptyback: oakleym82

That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth),


This is part of the problem: do not rely on the firearm to get you out of a situation after you shoot your mouth off.

Keep your damned word-hole shut and don't escalate the situation.

In fact, the CCW class emphasized that when you carry you need to be extra careful to not escalate the situation: don't close the distance, don't take a swing, don't get drawn into heated words. The other person may be an asshole, but you're armed and know it. Don't give him a chance to take your weapon and be an armed asshole and don't get into a situation where you're now going to jail over a parking space because you can't control your temper.

Well, I guess that makes it all better, right? So someone angry with a gun is less likely to be a d_ck? Dream on. It just makes them a dangerous, inescapable d_ck.

Gun=dick replacement.


Are you referring to Dick Cheney, to Dick Clark or to another individual named "Richard"? Additionally, please substantiate your assertion.
 
2012-07-30 04:47:13 PM

redmid17: Some types of handgun cartridges legal for deer hunting include .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .44 Special, .45 Colt, .45 Long Colt, .45 Winchester Magnum, .35 Remington and .357 Herrett


I am disappoint that the .500 S&W isn't on that list.
 
2012-07-30 04:47:37 PM

Rostin: PsyLord: IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.

Some students have to walk to and from their cars or apartments late at night.

Also, I as a graduate student have spent probably less than 1% of my academic tenure in a classroom. The same is true of most professors and staff members. Unless some student I've formerly TAed decides he hates my guts, or a crazy person randomly decides to start his rampage with the occupants of my office, I think I'm going to have quite a bit of advanced warning that mischief is afoot.

An active shooter suddenly bursting into a classroom (and shooting specifically at the armed person, to boot) is only one scenario. Even if we generously grant that the Nightline simulation proved that concealed carry wouldn't help one classroom full of students, that is really all it proved.


What if the armed student was in a classroom down the hall? Students and teachers had time to try and barricade doors and hide under desks, but someone that's armed wouldn't have time to draw a weapon and ready themselves? It's not a guarantee of course, but that 'simulation' they did was crap. They act like everyone was instantly killed and had zero time to act the very moment he began shooting, as if he set off a bomb or something.
 
2012-07-30 04:47:52 PM

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: justtray: redmid17: justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."

You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.

I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.

What exactly is it about your apparently larger penis that deters crime?


It makes me not feel inadeqate to every other human being. It's this rock I carry around that deters crime, duh. Just like your gun.
 
2012-07-30 04:48:32 PM
Poor little baby. It must be hard being so scared of the entire world like that. I hope he packed his Depends in case he soils himself after hearing a loud noise.
 
2012-07-30 04:49:54 PM

LandOfChocolate: Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool.


You also look like someone you shouldnt try and steal from.
 
2012-07-30 04:50:15 PM

LaraAmber: Well I have a clitoris, I guess that's a tiny penis.


Pics or it didn't happen, thread useless without pictures, fare thee well, etc.
 
2012-07-30 04:50:51 PM

justtray: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: justtray: redmid17: justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."

You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.

I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.

What exactly is it about your apparently larger penis that deters crime?

It makes me not feel inadeqate to every other human being. It's this rock I carry around that deters crime, duh. Just like your gun.


My firearm does not deter crime. Having a concealed firearm does not make me less likely to be a victim of a violent crime. It gives me a means in which to STOP crime when I whip it out, unlike your baby-dick.
 
2012-07-30 04:50:52 PM

justtray: redmid17: justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."

You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.

I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.


I don't carry a gun. I don't even own a handgun. I only use my guns for skeet/trap shooting and hunting. If I had to use them for self-defense, I would not hesitate, but that's not their primary function in my household. Statistics can really only paint a partial picture for a number of reasons. There are counter examples for your countries that have banned firearms and have low crime rate. Mexico has extremely stringent firearm laws but they suffer far more firearms deaths per capita than we do. There are also other countries with high firearm ownership rates with less violent crime. The biggest issue with gun violence is the war on drugs and our 3rd world neighbor to the south. Yes some of those guns come from the US (via straw purchases or theft) but most of those guns come directly from the Mexican military or stores of old soviet-era hardware that people are kicking around.

Mostly you just constantly have factual errors in your posts. It's kind of annoying.
 
2012-07-30 04:51:51 PM

justtray: I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.


Hey, I finally found this guys Fark handle:
i939.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-30 04:52:38 PM

ddelorm: joonyer: justtray: ...

Now who's trollin?

Dangit, I bit, didn't I?


So did I. Shame on me for attempting a rational, reasonable debate. Should have known better.
 
2012-07-30 04:54:11 PM

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead
You do realize that she WASN'T the one who did the shooting. She was the victim.
That's the point, Professor. Live by the gun, die by the gun.
So you blame all the Aurora victims for getting themselves shot?


I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(
 
2012-07-30 04:54:16 PM

redmid17: justtray: redmid17: justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."

You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.

I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.

I don't carry a gun. I don't even own a handgun. I only use my guns for skeet/trap shooting and hunting. If I had to use them for self-defense, I would not hesitate, but that's not their primary function in my household. Statistics can really only paint a partial picture for a number of reasons. There are counter examples for your countries that have banned firearms and have low crime rate. Mexico has extremely stringent firearm laws but they suffer far more firearms deaths per capita than we do. There are also other countries with high firearm ownership rates with less violent crime. The biggest issue with gun violence is the war on drugs and our 3rd world neighbor to the south. Yes some of those guns come from the US (via straw purchases or theft) but most of those guns come directly from the Mexican military or stores of old soviet-era hardware that people are kicking around.

Mostly you just constantly have factual errors in your posts. It's kind of annoying.


Which factual errors specifically? Since I know you don't have any valid points, I didn't read anything but the last line.

Since none of you have any valid points, that's why I'm selectively responding. Then again it's a gun thread. There will be no logical discussion. Just me telling you the truth, and you dismissing it and calling me a troll.
 
2012-07-30 04:54:19 PM

joonyer: ddelorm: joonyer: justtray: ...

Now who's trollin?

Dangit, I bit, didn't I?

So did I. Shame on me for attempting a rational, reasonable debate. Should have known better.


I have to remember to check the profile, THEN reply.
 
2012-07-30 04:54:51 PM

joonyer: ddelorm: joonyer: justtray: ...

Now who's trollin?

Dangit, I bit, didn't I?

So did I. Shame on me for attempting a rational, reasonable debate. Should have known better.


Discernment between a "troll" who is engaging in intentionally dishonest and irrational statements to incite emotion and an actual advocate of civilian disarmament is difficult and, sometimes, impossible.
 
2012-07-30 04:55:06 PM

cgremlin: redmid17: Some types of handgun cartridges legal for deer hunting include .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .44 Special, .45 Colt, .45 Long Colt, .45 Winchester Magnum, .35 Remington and .357 Herrett

I am disappoint that the .500 S&W isn't on that list.


That's only some of the cartridges. The .500 S & W is legal to hunt deer with. I'm not sure I'd want to do with that much recoil, but to each their own.
 
2012-07-30 04:56:28 PM

Whiskey Dickens: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead

You do realize that she WASN'T the one who did the shooting. She was the victim.

That's the point, Professor. Live by the gun, die by the gun.


She was killed by her husband, someone she trusted and who could have probably killed her at any time, by any means, because they lived together as most couples do. He was also a parole officer (I think he worked as a correctional officer too before that, if memory serves).
 
2012-07-30 04:57:31 PM
"It wasn't really a political statement," Mapes says. "I just went to see a movie. But it's a political statement
....He declines to provide the full slogan on the shirt, which starts with the word "LIBERALISM," but insists that his attire wasn't politically calculated, either.


Riiigghhht.

Mapes acknowledges. "The only thing I could have done is untuck my T-shirt," he says. "But it's the size of a brick, so obviously you're going to see it. But then somebody calls the police because they're all paranoid about what happened."

YOU DON'T SAY!

a Thornton ordinance targets individuals who display a dangerous weapon (the list even includes air guns and slingshots) "in a manner calculated to alarm another person." And there's no question that Mapes's presence at the theater wearing a gun in plain sight did just that. According to Barnes, seventeen officers responded to the call "in light of recent events," evacuating nine theaters and dealing with a number of panicky patrons -- some of whom returned to the venue after police took Mapes into custody.

These are the goddam peckerwoods who get planes evacuated and flights canceled because they mistake some Hindu guy for a Ay-rab.

F*ck this guy, I hope he goes to jail for sheer bloviating showboating idiocy.

/gun-owner, supporter of concealed and open carry.
 
2012-07-30 04:57:36 PM

redmid17: cgremlin: redmid17: Some types of handgun cartridges legal for deer hunting include .357 Magnum, .41 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .44 Special, .45 Colt, .45 Long Colt, .45 Winchester Magnum, .35 Remington and .357 Herrett

I am disappoint that the .500 S&W isn't on that list.

That's only some of the cartridges. The .500 S & W is legal to hunt deer with. I'm not sure I'd want to do with that much recoil, but to each their own.


They are useful for hunting watermelon.
 
2012-07-30 04:58:05 PM

JesseL: 2. If it's legal and you're not drinking, why would you say it's stupid?


Ok, I'll bite.
CSB.
I worked security in a tittie bar in NM, back in the 70s. Not your ordinary tittie bar, mind you, this one was outside of the city limits. In fact, it was quite outside of the limits of civilization. The girls that worked there were the ones that worked in town. But this is where they worked while they healed up. Whether it be cold sores, pregnancy, broken bones, or worse. They still needed money and still got up on stage and peeled for cash. Only here, there were no rules. They could do things they couldn't get away with on stage in the city. Nothing wrong with a little ping pong ball canyoneering when the shooter has a shiner and visible scabs around the muzzle, but who am I to judge? I'm here to make sure no one gets hurt or killed. I am not waiting for the first customer to come through the door. No I show up when the place is getting filled up. When there are already 2 other guards who have been screening the arrivals. They check them at the door for weapons. I am assured by my boss the other guards are not allowed to bring firearms to this gig. It's a rough crowd, mostly bikers, and wet backs, but all of them are genuine scum. My job is to make sure we intervene in any one breaking the rules. Simple rules. No one comes in with a weapon. No one leaves with a drink. When I arrive, I'm on a chopper. It's a repo, I got on the military base, and no previous owner will be in the crowd. I park it where I can see it. On a concrete pad with spotlights on it just outside of the pool tables and I walk in. I go up to the bar and tell the bar tender to open the safe while I pull a very large 44 magnum out of my shoulder holster, drop the bullets in my shirt pocket and hand the bartender my empty piece to lock up in the safe. I go check on the boys at the door, and this huge ugly dude stops me and says, "Hey man, why did you lock your gun up"? And I say, "I'm not here to kill anyone, man". (I'm only wearing a baton) And I join the guys at the only entrance/ exit. If the bar tender catches my eye from anywhere in the bar, he can look to where I need to be next and I'm there. Never stuck a man one time working that gig, and always got tipped out good. Only time I drew the baton was when a guy absolutely would not put down a bottle of beer and wanted to leave. We tried every rick in the book, we even appealed to his machismo. Hey, man, we know you can finish that and drop the empty in the can before you leave. And he's goading my man on by the door. Telling him he's real tough with the stick and shiat. I'm standing behind the bottle dude, and I tell him "go Ahead, man. But we only pull these sticks when confronted with a guy that is holding a deadly weapon, but then, then, man, we just whip ass until there's nothing but a puddle. So he won't pull that stick until you show a deadly weapon, now put the bottle in the bin. He turns around and yells "FARK YOU, MAN" then turn to the other guard. So I pulled that stick and broke his little bottle and said, "Well, you see, now, man. Now...you're holding a deadly weapon" at which point three other guys came on over and grabbed him and made him drop the bottle before he got really embarrassed by having two rent - a - cops pound on him. His friends, presumably. Anyway. That was then.
You don't need a gun around drunks, unless you like shooting drunks.
End CSB.
 
2012-07-30 04:58:21 PM

redmid17: That's only some of the cartridges. The .500 S & W is legal to hunt deer with. I'm not sure I'd want to do with that much recoil, but to each their own.


They're really not that bad with the 8 inch barrel or longer. Comparable to a similar length .44 mag N-frame.
 
2012-07-30 04:58:41 PM

Whiskey Dickens: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead
You do realize that she WASN'T the one who did the shooting. She was the victim.
That's the point, Professor. Live by the gun, die by the gun.
So you blame all the Aurora victims for getting themselves shot?

I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(


So you blame the ones who wrote the second ammendment?

/intentionally sarcastically derpy
 
2012-07-30 04:59:04 PM

Whiskey Dickens: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Whiskey Dickens: I used to argue with Americans that adding guns to the situation only made it easier to have shootings, but now I'm a little more zen about it. You guys should have all of the guns your heart desires! It's a self-correcting problem.
Gun-toting Soccer Mom shot dead
You do realize that she WASN'T the one who did the shooting. She was the victim.
That's the point, Professor. Live by the gun, die by the gun.
So you blame all the Aurora victims for getting themselves shot?

I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(


So why should James Holmes be charged with murder if it really is the fault of the politicians for allowing guns to be legal? They should have been out campaigning to have guns banned and not been sitting on there fat asses watching a movie, right? If you don't have any sympathy for Melanie Hain being murdered in her own home, why would you give a fark about the Aurora victims?

Guns don't kill people, people who don't make it their personal mission to eradicate every last firearm from the face of the Earth kill people.
 
2012-07-30 05:00:35 PM

justtray: redmid17: justtray: redmid17: justtray: Bringing rambo wanna be gun nuts is "Trolling" in gun threads.

Notice how they don't add any substance. Just, "yep you're right, but I'm gonna call you a troll to look less stupid."

You're 100% wrong in this case, like you have been in pretty much every thread.

I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.

I don't carry a gun. I don't even own a handgun. I only use my guns for skeet/trap shooting and hunting. If I had to use them for self-defense, I would not hesitate, but that's not their primary function in my household. Statistics can really only paint a partial picture for a number of reasons. There are counter examples for your countries that have banned firearms and have low crime rate. Mexico has extremely stringent firearm laws but they suffer far more firearms deaths per capita than we do. There are also other countries with high firearm ownership rates with less violent crime. The biggest issue with gun violence is the war on drugs and our 3rd world neighbor to the south. Yes some of those guns come from the US (via straw purchases or theft) but most of those guns come directly from the Mexican military or stores of old soviet-era hardware that people are kicking around.

Mostly you just constantly have factual errors in your posts. It's kind of annoying.

Which fa ...


Holmes didn't have automatic weapons or full body armor on. He had a tactical vest (aka more pockets) and some bullet-resistant equipment below the waste. Anyone trained to shoot with a pistol or rifle is taught to aim center of mass much like hunters are taught to shoot deer behind the shoulder (at least I was) to hit the vital organs (heart, lungs). I mentioned this already upthread.

Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.
 
2012-07-30 05:01:01 PM
Link

Kip Kinkle was the case I was thinking of. A wounded student jumped him when he went to reload.

Sometimes ANY resistance will stop a crime.

Not always, but It's better than laying there, hoping they won't shoot you.
 
2012-07-30 05:03:45 PM

pyrotek85: Rostin: PsyLord: IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.

Some students have to walk to and from their cars or apartments late at night.

Also, I as a graduate student have spent probably less than 1% of my academic tenure in a classroom. The same is true of most professors and staff members. Unless some student I've formerly TAed decides he hates my guts, or a crazy person randomly decides to start his rampage with the occupants of my office, I think I'm going to have quite a bit of advanced warning that mischief is afoot.

An active shooter suddenly bursting into a classroom (and shooting specifically at the armed person, to boot) is only one scenario. Even if we generously grant that the Nightline simulation proved that concealed carry wouldn't help one classroom full of students, that is really all it proved.

What if the armed student was in a classroom down the hall? Students and teachers had time to try and barricade doors and hide under desks, but someone that's armed wouldn't have time to draw a weapon and ready themselves? It's not a guarantee of course, but that 'simulation' they did was crap. They act like everyone was instantly killed and had zero time to act the very moment he began shooting, as if he set off a bomb or something.


A better scenario would have been if the shooter had a specific target, like the person wearing the red shirt to represent the bully or ex-girlfriend that he intended to murder and the armed victim was randomly placed in the room instead of right in the front middle of the class so he couldn't be picked off straight off by the active shooter.

In almost every case I'm sure the armed victim could hit the active shooter and keep him from killing people in another room even if he didn't prevent him from killing a bunch of people.
 
2012-07-30 05:06:18 PM

vudukungfu: You don't need a gun around drunks, unless you like shooting drunks.
End CSB.


But evidently you do need a nightstick. For those of us who aren't bouncers, carrying that is going to go over worse than carrying a concealed handgun.

In any case, I avoid going anywhere where there are likely to be drunks. There are a number of places I enjoy eating that happen to serve alcohol though. I'm not too concerned about a fight breaking out, but you never know what can happen in places like parking lots and most establishments don't have a safe handy for their customers pieces.
 
2012-07-30 05:07:16 PM
...and now for something commmpletely different....let's try to guess what led to such cognitive dissonance in the mind of....justtray.

Was it:

A) Eating lead paint chips?
B) Playing with mercury?
C) Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

I'm Chuck Wollery, and we'll be back with the answer in two minutes, two seconds. Stay tuned!
 
2012-07-30 05:07:45 PM
pyrotek85: What if the armed student was in a classroom down the hall? Students and teachers had time to try and barricade doors and hide under desks, but someone that's armed wouldn't have time to draw a weapon and ready themselves? It's not a guarantee of course, but that 'simulation' they did was crap. They act like everyone was instantly killed and had zero time to act the very moment he began shooting, as if he set off a bomb or something.

I think you're directing that at the wrong person. My point was exactly the same as yours. Even if the Nightline simulation accurately modeled one particular situation, there are lots of other plausible scenarios where the deck wouldn't be stacked so heavily against an armed student.
 
2012-07-30 05:10:11 PM

justtray: Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.



It's amusing when gun grabbers love talking about cock.
 
2012-07-30 05:10:12 PM

Rostin: pyrotek85: What if the armed student was in a classroom down the hall? Students and teachers had time to try and barricade doors and hide under desks, but someone that's armed wouldn't have time to draw a weapon and ready themselves? It's not a guarantee of course, but that 'simulation' they did was crap. They act like everyone was instantly killed and had zero time to act the very moment he began shooting, as if he set off a bomb or something.

I think you're directing that at the wrong person. My point was exactly the same as yours. Even if the Nightline simulation accurately modeled one particular situation, there are lots of other plausible scenarios where the deck wouldn't be stacked so heavily against an armed student.


Sorry that I wasn't clear, I was adding to what you had said. I agree with you.
 
2012-07-30 05:12:13 PM

justtray: All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! gasp HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Those words, I do not think...
 
2012-07-30 05:12:50 PM

The_Sponge: justtray: Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.


It's amusing when gun grabbers love talking about cock.


I have observed that a disproportionate percentage of civilian disarmament advocates introduce the subject of male genitalia into irrelevant discussions. While my personal observations do not constitute a data set, I am curious as to whether correlation exists between advocacy of new restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership and an obsession with male genitals.
 
2012-07-30 05:26:02 PM

pedrop357: LaraAmber: Well I have a clitoris, I guess that's a tiny penis.

Pics or it didn't happen, thread useless without pictures, fare thee well, etc.


My husband doesn't mind if I flirt online with strangers (not that I was in this instance). He would draw the line 5 feet wide with bright red paint on sending pictures to other men.
 
2012-07-30 05:26:29 PM

Dimensio: The_Sponge: justtray: Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.


It's amusing when gun grabbers love talking about cock.

I have observed that a disproportionate percentage of civilian disarmament advocates introduce the subject of male genitalia into irrelevant discussions. While my personal observations do not constitute a data set, I am curious as to whether correlation exists between advocacy of new restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership and an obsession with male genitals.


The scariest thing isn't that that think guns are equivalent to genitalia.

The scariest thing is that (from their twisted point of view) they want to symbolically castrate everyone.

WTF does that say about their psyches?
 
2012-07-30 05:33:39 PM
People who open-carry are mentally deranged and should not be allowed access to a weapon.
 
2012-07-30 05:33:44 PM

wmoonfox: Yes you were, no you weren't, and no it wasn't.

Any CCW-holder who doesn't understand that it is both illegal and beyond stupid to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, into a bar or other establishment that serves alcohol, needs to be shot. They make us all look bad, and we don't need that crap right now.

I personally apologize for all CCW-holders on behalf of this man, and suggest that he be beaten about the neck and shoulders until he learns the value of reading his fecking permit. I would also not be opposed to his permit being revoked for a term no shorter than forever.


Actually in many states, like mine, you CAN conceal carry in an establishment that serves alcohol. You just can't carry in a place that PRIMARILY sells alcohol, like a bar, or liquor store. You can carry in a restaurant, but you are not allowed to sit at the bar in the restaurant.

This guy was just going to a movie. I'm not a big fan of open carry, but I don't think this is such a big deal.
 
2012-07-30 05:35:02 PM

IamAwake:

I didn't say it wasn't done, or that it was impossible. I said it was stupid. Lots of people do lots of stupid things.

There's a reason olympic archery is at 70m, and pistols are at 25 and 50m. 'Tis said that english longbowmen had to hit a man-sized target 10 times in 20 seconds at 200 feet for their station. Here we are centuries later, and the USMC qualifies pistols at 7, 15, 25, and 50m.

Bows speak to the primitive bit better, and at anything beyond deer-can-hear-your-breathing distances, a bow is more accurate. Rifles are more practical for everything other than quickness (though they gain quickness in refire). Handguns either don't have the stopping power or, when they do, create too much of an exit. They don't have accuracy. It's a completely impractical instrument for the task.


Know how I know you don't know what you're talking about? The archery target is 48 inches across at 70 meters(76 yards), the bullseye pistol target is a little under 15 at 50 yards. That means the pistol shooters are shooting from 2/3's the distance, but at a target 1/3 the size. If pistols were so much less accurate than arrows then why is the pistol target proportionally much *much* smaller? Hell, the 9 ring of the archery target is about the same size as the *entire* pistol target.

I'm not a pro but I can hold all of my shots within the 9 ring most of the time shooting bullseye, that's a about 5.5 inches across. Pros mostly hold the ten ring. I guarantee you on a good day as a talented amateur I could keep every shot within the 9 ring of an archery target at 70 yards with my pistol, and that's shooting bullseye style, one handed, and I'm not atypical, if I could do that with a bow I'd be in London right now

I shoot at a head sized gong 100meters away at the range, standing unsupported and hit it 7 or 8 times out of ten, can most people who hunt with bows do the same? The example of english longbowman is one hell of a stretch, they trained from early childhood and shot so much their skeletons deformed, I know hunters who've taken deer with pistols a hundred yards farther than the distance you mentioned with a pistol and not nearly as much training as ye old twangenplucker.

I like reading books too, but taking all of your knowledge from books and not from reality tends to end with you making foolish claims or taking ill chosen stances.
 
2012-07-30 05:36:30 PM

Novart: People who open-carry are mentally deranged and should not be allowed access to a weapon.


I feel like that would expose many members of our armed forces and police force to undue risk. While there can be an argument for gun-free police, I doubt that many people would find the armed forces very effective sans personal weapons.
 
2012-07-30 05:38:15 PM

Whiskey Dickens:
I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(


Oh wait, I now see your point, there are 275 million guns legally owned in America. And the Aurora shooting that took place in my backyard is such a freak instance that it made international news and was talked about all over the world until basically the Olympics started. That means there are millions of guns in this country NOT being used to kill people every day. That translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens NOT being used to kill our neighbors every day!

Yeah America!
 
2012-07-30 05:38:27 PM

redmid17: Novart: People who open-carry are mentally deranged and should not be allowed access to a weapon.

I feel like that would expose many members of our armed forces and police force to undue risk. While there can be an argument for gun-free police, I doubt that many people would find the armed forces very effective sans personal weapons.


That's a necessary risk.

Attention whores who carry in wal-mart are not.
 
2012-07-30 05:39:41 PM

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: Came here to laugh at the Liberals shake their tiny, angry fists at the guy who broke no laws yet still was arrested.

/was not disappointed


Came here to laugh at the Conservatives when they pull out their giant c*cks out and show how manly they are because they have to carry a gun around to feel better about themselves safer.
 
2012-07-30 05:39:59 PM
And by risk I mean, our cops and armed force should be allowed to carry in their service. Joe the plumber can stay home and jerk it.
 
2012-07-30 05:41:07 PM
The Trolley Square Mall shooting was stopped by an off duty policeman who was carrying a firearm. Many more would have likely been killed had an armed person not stopped the shooter.
 
2012-07-30 05:42:31 PM

Novart: And by risk I mean, our cops and armed force should be allowed to carry in their service. Joe the plumber can stay home and jerk it.


the gun or his dick? Cause I'm pretty sure members of the police force and army do the same at one point or another. We don't want these mentally deranged actions to overlap as you pointed out.
 
2012-07-30 05:45:43 PM

Novart: And by risk I mean, our cops and armed force should be allowed to carry in their service. Joe the plumber can stay home and jerk it.


I find it very entertaining that:

a. the anti-gun people apparently think we have so many police that they can follow us around all day and make sure we are safe, as opposed to reality, patrol large areas and frequently show up after the crime has taken place
b. that all gun owners and people carrying concealed are men. Oddly enough, a LOT of them are women. Why? Because we know statistically we are smaller and weaker. The modern gun is the great equalizer.

I worked in security for several years. The cops wanted to prevent crime, they didn't have the manpower to do it.

/It's my responsibility to protect myself, not to expect others to do it for me.
 
2012-07-30 05:46:14 PM

Dimensio: The_Sponge: justtray: Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.


It's amusing when gun grabbers love talking about cock.

I have observed that a disproportionate percentage of civilian disarmament advocates introduce the subject of male genitalia into irrelevant discussions. While my personal observations do not constitute a data set, I am curious as to whether correlation exists between advocacy of new restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership and an obsession with male genitals.


One of these is nothing like the other.
 
2012-07-30 05:48:06 PM

NightOwl2255: Dimensio: The_Sponge: justtray: Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.


It's amusing when gun grabbers love talking about cock.

I have observed that a disproportionate percentage of civilian disarmament advocates introduce the subject of male genitalia into irrelevant discussions. While my personal observations do not constitute a data set, I am curious as to whether correlation exists between advocacy of new restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership and an obsession with male genitals.

One of these is nothing like the other.


I think the word "onerous" or "severe" is missing. If you put in so many restrictions that the end results is civilian disarmament for everyone but the rich and connected, it's the same as a flat ban for the average citizen.
 
2012-07-30 05:54:54 PM

redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.


so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool
 
2012-07-30 05:55:05 PM

LaraAmber: ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?

Well I have a clitoris, I guess that's a tiny penis.


And we have a winner.
 
2012-07-30 05:57:31 PM

Novart: People who open-carry are mentally deranged and should not be allowed access to a weapon.


Your hatred and contempt for all police officers is unwarranted.
 
2012-07-30 05:59:20 PM

thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool


If that is what you're getting from that paragraph, please pass whatever you're smoking.
 
2012-07-30 06:00:44 PM

wmoonfox: Yes you were, no you weren't, and no it wasn't.

Any CCW-holder who doesn't understand that it is both illegal and beyond stupid to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, into a bar or other establishment that serves alcohol, needs to be shot. They make us all look bad, and we don't need that crap right now.

I personally apologize for all CCW-holders on behalf of this man, and suggest that he be beaten about the neck and shoulders until he learns the value of reading his fecking permit. I would also not be opposed to his permit being revoked for a term no shorter than forever.


That is not true in every state.!
 
2012-07-30 06:01:27 PM

thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool


I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.
 
2012-07-30 06:02:40 PM

justtray: automatic expanded clip weapons


What shooting are you speaking of?
 
2012-07-30 06:04:26 PM

LaraAmber: I think the word "onerous" or "severe" is missing. If you put in so many restrictions that the end results is civilian disarmament for everyone but the rich and connected, it's the same as a flat ban for the average citizen.


Disarmament is "gun grabbing". Actually, actively taking guns out of the hands and homes of the people. Restrictions, while a pain in the ass, and often close to unconstitutional are not gun grabbing. The closest thing we've has lately was the AWB. Which not only did not involve gun grabbing, it didn't even make owning one of the banned weapons illegal. There is no serious movement to disarm the American people.
 
2012-07-30 06:04:59 PM

BGates: justtray: automatic expanded clip weapons

What shooting are you speaking of?


justtray is a known liar whose statements should not be interpreted as having any connectino with reality.
 
2012-07-30 06:05:22 PM

Dimensio: Your hatred and contempt for all police officers is unwarranted.


Not so fast there Tex...
 
2012-07-30 06:08:17 PM

imtheonlylp: I call BS. Who can afford to go to the movies that often?


People without families or a girlfriend.
 
2012-07-30 06:11:07 PM

Dimensio: justtray is a known liar whose statements should not be interpreted as having any connectino with reality.


I wonder what it's like living in the mind of a person like justtray . Since there is, at best, a tenuous connection to reality is it like heaven or hell? I would hope that if I lost connection with reality I would make up a place of milk and honey, and not some terror filled place of demons.
 
2012-07-30 06:12:47 PM

NightOwl2255: LaraAmber: I think the word "onerous" or "severe" is missing. If you put in so many restrictions that the end results is civilian disarmament for everyone but the rich and connected, it's the same as a flat ban for the average citizen.

Disarmament is "gun grabbing". Actually, actively taking guns out of the hands and homes of the people. Restrictions, while a pain in the ass, and often close to unconstitutional are not gun grabbing. The closest thing we've has lately was the AWB. Which not only did not involve gun grabbing, it didn't even make owning one of the banned weapons illegal. There is no serious movement to disarm the American people.


There have been isolated incident(s) where authorities have actually physically taken weapons from people. Hell the NRA had to file an emergency injunction and the Feds had to pass a law to prevent more Katrina style appropriations. I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but it clearly warranted enough of a backlash to create the Vitter Amendment.
 
2012-07-30 06:14:52 PM

NightOwl2255: Restrictions, while a pain in the ass, and often close to unconstitutional are not gun grabbing. The closest thing we've has lately was the AWB. Which not only did not involve gun grabbing, it didn't even make owning one of the banned weapons illegal.


California (1999), NYC (1991), and New Orleans (2005). New Orleans involved storming houses without warrants to seize weapons.
 
2012-07-30 06:18:55 PM

Dimensio: thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool

I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.


well, the leap of logic includes:
80% of gun violence being drug or gang related.
gangs get money from drugs to buy guns
people buy legal guns to protect themselves from people who have guns illegally
if we legalize drugs, then there's no drug related gun violence, no gangs have guns, therefore the already tiny portion of people who have illegal guns becomes even tiner.
So tiny in fact that outlawing guns would actually prevent "bad" people from having guns
And if no "bad" people have guns, then "good" people don't need to protect themselves from "bad" people with guns, so they're cool with outlawing guns

So, legalize drugs, outlaw guns.
 
2012-07-30 06:21:32 PM
i have been staring at 50 critical priority features that must be implemented into a new product by tomorrow night.

and fully tested.

it's no drugs, but it does provide some highly funny leaps in logic
 
2012-07-30 06:23:13 PM

thisone: Dimensio: thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool

I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.

well, the leap of logic includes:
80% of gun violence being drug or gang related.
gangs get money from drugs to buy guns
people buy legal guns to protect themselves from people who have guns illegally
if we legalize drugs, then there's no drug related gun violence, no gangs have guns, therefore the already tiny portion of people who have illegal guns becomes even tiner.
So tiny in fact that outlawing guns would actually prevent "bad" people from having guns
And if no "bad" people have guns, then "good" people don't need to protect themselves from "bad" people with guns, so they're cool with outlawing guns

So, legalize drugs, outlaw guns.


So like he said, no rational interpretation? The ATF estimated that there were 270 million guns in the US in 2006. NICS checks have been through the root since Obama was elected. It's very likely there is a 100 gun to 100 person ratio in the country right now. It's neither practical nor expedient because a lot of people use guns to do other things like target shoot and hunt (like myself). Even countries like Japan (pretty much the heaviest gun laws in the world) still allow sporting exceptions.

/you're an idiot
 
2012-07-30 06:26:17 PM

redmid17: /you're an idiot


and you're terribly serious.
 
2012-07-30 06:26:43 PM
It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.
3. Once Obama is re-elected, he is DEFINITELY coming after your guns. Last time was just a juke out. So go stock up on a shed full of ammo as soon as possible
 
2012-07-30 06:27:00 PM

thisone: Dimensio: thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool

I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.

well, the leap of logic includes:
80% of gun violence being drug or gang related.
gangs get money from drugs to buy guns
people buy legal guns to protect themselves from people who have guns illegally
if we legalize drugs, then there's no drug related gun violence, no gangs have guns, therefore the already tiny portion of people who have illegal guns becomes even tiner.
So tiny in fact that outlawing guns would actually prevent "bad" people from having guns
And if no "bad" people have guns, then "good" people don't need to protect themselves from "bad" people with guns, so they're cool with outlawing guns

So, legalize drugs, outlaw guns.


Please explain how you derived "outlawing guns would actually prevent 'bad' people from having guns" from any previous posting other than your own.
 
2012-07-30 06:27:53 PM

redmid17: There have been isolated incident(s) where authorities have actually physically taken weapons from people. Hell the NRA had to file an emergency injunction and the Feds had to pass a law to prevent more Katrina style appropriations. I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but it clearly warranted enough of a backlash to create the Vitter Amendment.


Cops taking guns from abandoned\unoccupied houses that were very likely to be looted is not really gun grabbing. They didn't go in guns blazing demanding that citizens give up their guns. And let's remember, we are taking about the NOLA PD.
 
2012-07-30 06:27:58 PM
I'm pissed the government won't allow me to have nuclear arms. Now, only criminals have nuclear arms in the United States, and we're all forced to cower in fear. I'm not allowed to properly defend myself. If they wanted to, these hoodlums could break into my house and rape my kitten while I sit there helpless because my measly AK-47 is useless against their bomb.
 
2012-07-30 06:29:33 PM

thisone: redmid17: /you're an idiot

and you're terribly serious.


I tend to be when people advocate steaingl thousands of dollars worth of tools from me.

Let's ban all computers so there will be no cybercrime!

/see how dumb that sounds?
 
2012-07-30 06:30:44 PM

Dimensio: thisone: Dimensio: thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool

I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.

well, the leap of logic includes:
80% of gun violence being drug or gang related.
gangs get money from drugs to buy guns
people buy legal guns to protect themselves from people who have guns illegally
if we legalize drugs, then there's no drug related gun violence, no gangs have guns, therefore the already tiny portion of people who have illegal guns becomes even tiner.
So tiny in fact that outlawing guns would actually prevent "bad" people from having guns
And if no "bad" people have guns, then "good" people don't need to protect themselves from "bad" people with guns, so they're cool with outlawing guns

So, legalize drugs, outlaw guns.

Please explain how you derived "outlawing guns would actually prevent 'bad' people from having guns" from any previous posting other than your own.


why? I was responding by enumerating a leap of logic, since when do leaps of logic have anything to do with links to posts?
 
2012-07-30 06:32:37 PM

redmid17: thisone: redmid17: /you're an idiot

and you're terribly serious.

I tend to be when people advocate steaingl thousands of dollars worth of tools from me.

Let's ban all computers so there will be no cybercrime!

/see how dumb that sounds?


not particularly. Ban networks though, that may help.
 
2012-07-30 06:34:26 PM

NightOwl2255: Cops taking guns from abandoned\unoccupied houses that were very likely to be looted is not really gun grabbing. They didn't go in guns blazing demanding that citizens give up their guns. And let's remember, we are taking about the NOLA PD.


I didn't finish, we are talking about NOLA PD which has a rich history of violating citizens rights. No matter what the law, if a group of cops are willing to break the law, the law really doesn't matter. And yes, I'm aware of some actual confiscations.
 
2012-07-30 06:35:32 PM

thisone: redmid17: thisone: redmid17: /you're an idiot

and you're terribly serious.

I tend to be when people advocate steaingl thousands of dollars worth of tools from me.

Let's ban all computers so there will be no cybercrime!

/see how dumb that sounds?

not particularly. Ban networks though, that may help.


You can still have computer crime though, so we should ban computers as well. Think of the children.
 
2012-07-30 06:41:35 PM

redmid17: thisone: redmid17: thisone: redmid17: /you're an idiot

and you're terribly serious.

I tend to be when people advocate steaingl thousands of dollars worth of tools from me.

Let's ban all computers so there will be no cybercrime!

/see how dumb that sounds?

not particularly. Ban networks though, that may help.

You can still have computer crime though, so we should ban computers as well. Think of the children.


aww man, moving the goal posts! you said cybercrime, and never mentioned children before.

I require an argument specification before hand.

refactoring in the unaccetable impact of computer crime on children, including obesity, which we know is caused by computers.

indeed, we must not only ban computers, but also all processors.

I'm debating on whether we can still use a Babbage difference engine though.

Probably not.
 
2012-07-30 06:49:42 PM

thisone: redmid17: thisone: redmid17: thisone: redmid17: /you're an idiot

and you're terribly serious.

I tend to be when people advocate steaingl thousands of dollars worth of tools from me.

Let's ban all computers so there will be no cybercrime!

/see how dumb that sounds?

not particularly. Ban networks though, that may help.

You can still have computer crime though, so we should ban computers as well. Think of the children.

aww man, moving the goal posts! you said cybercrime, and never mentioned children before.

I require an argument specification before hand.

refactoring in the unaccetable impact of computer crime on children, including obesity, which we know is caused by computers.

indeed, we must not only ban computers, but also all processors.

I'm debating on whether we can still use a Babbage difference engine though.

Probably not.


Dude I'm thinking we might have to ban stuff as far back as the Antikythera
 
2012-07-30 06:54:06 PM

redmid17:
Dude I'm thinking we might have to ban stuff as far back as the Antikythera


I'm going with the Greek island interpretation. Simply for the irony of banning it.

I've been informed that we must add in foosball as well. It has to go, for the sake of the children.
 
2012-07-30 06:54:50 PM

thisone: redmid17:
Dude I'm thinking we might have to ban stuff as far back as the Antikythera

I'm going with the Greek island interpretation. Simply for the irony of banning it.

I've been informed that we must add in foosball as well. It has to go, for the sake of the children.


It's hard to play foosball with a beer in your hand, so I agree.
 
2012-07-30 06:55:51 PM

NightOwl2255: Cops taking guns from abandoned\unoccupied houses that were very likely to be looted is not really gun grabbing. They didn't go in guns blazing demanding that citizens give up their guns. And let's remember, we are taking about the NOLA PD.


Yes, actually they did confiscate guns from people. Not with guns blazing, but confiscated nonetheless.
Link
 
2012-07-30 06:58:26 PM
I'm a big proponent of keeping guns away from nuts.

Maybe I need to add "away from idiots" too.
 
2012-07-30 06:59:56 PM

HaywoodJablonski: It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.
3. Once Obama is re-elected, he is DEFINITELY coming after your guns. Last time was just a juke out. So go stock up on a shed full of ammo as soon as possible


Is that what you assume people w/ CCW's assume? I am tryn to follow.

You forgot to add a penis supplement reference!
 
2012-07-30 07:00:32 PM

pedrop357: Yes, actually they did confiscate guns from people. Not with guns blazing, but confiscated nonetheless.


Yeah, I knew that and had forgotten (what's that about history repeating?). My point is, it was not a law that was passed and the guberment started grabbing guns. That was a very isolated case of a force acting beyond the scope of their power. I stand by my statement that there is not a serious movement to actually take guns out of the hands of citizens.
 
2012-07-30 07:03:31 PM

NightOwl2255: pedrop357: Yes, actually they did confiscate guns from people. Not with guns blazing, but confiscated nonetheless.

Yeah, I knew that and had forgotten (what's that about history repeating?). My point is, it was not a law that was passed and the guberment started grabbing guns. That was a very isolated case of a force acting beyond the scope of their power. I stand by my statement that there is not a serious movement to actually take guns out of the hands of citizens.


Fair enough.
 
2012-07-30 07:04:43 PM

HaywoodJablonski: It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.


Me and my Muslim brother-in-law:

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net


/taught him to shoot my AK
 
2012-07-30 07:13:30 PM

cryinoutloud: InternetSecurityGuard: James, James, James. You need to check out Thunderwear:
http://www.thunderwear.com/holsters.asp
Either that or cut the pretense and start carrying a murse:
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/BAG-070
I have been carrying one of these around for several years now. So folks have gotten used to seeing me with it. Externally it has radios, GPS and cameras. But folks have no idea what is in the hidden pcket.

But how's he supposed to shoot the liberal shooter if his gun is concealed in a secret pocket? Dammit, when the man needs to shoot someone, he needs to do it NOW.

Also, he looks exactly like what I'd expect a guy like him to look like:

[blogs.westword.com image 380x480]

Ignorant and proud of it.


Does his shirt say Liberalism?
 
2012-07-30 07:17:19 PM

serial_crusher: unlikely: I've actually met that guy, and he's a pretty typical "AMURKA FUK YAH... COLD DEAD FINGERS" kind of redneck.

It's vaguely surprising he didn't know you're not allowed to carry into a place with alcohol. That's one of the questions on the CCW written.

Not that it matters; he won't have that CCW any more.

It's slightly possible that he didn't know they sell alcohol there? Most crappy movie theaters don't.
He says he's a regular, and the place is named Cinebarre though. So missing a detail like that would be vaguely surprising if he wasn't the "AMURKA FUK YAH" type, but recent GOP superstars have taught me to expect that kind of lack of attention to detail.


He's been going to the theater for years. RTFA
 
2012-07-30 07:19:48 PM

unlikely: I've actually met that guy, and he's a pretty typical "AMURKA FUK YAH... COLD DEAD FINGERS" kind of redneck.

It's vaguely surprising he didn't know you're not allowed to carry into a place with alcohol. That's one of the questions on the CCW written.

Not that it matters; he won't have that CCW any more.


Why would he lose his CCW? He didn't actually break any laws.
 
2012-07-30 07:22:29 PM

JesseL: HaywoodJablonski: It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.

Me and my Muslim brother-in-law:

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 592x453]


/taught him to shoot my AK


Is that a big ol ham on the table?
 
2012-07-30 07:33:22 PM

thisone: Dimensio: thisone: Dimensio: thisone: redmid17: Also you completely dismiss the countries like Mexico that have pretty stringent firearm ownership yet even higher rates of gun violence than the US. Most of the countries you have compares us to in the past also don't have 3rd world countries bordering to the south where whole provinces are controlled by militarily equipped drug cartels. Something like 80% of the gun violence in the US is drug or gang related. Take away the drugs and suddenly the gangs can't afford the guns and have little to fight over and the cartels get undermined, lose cash, and can't afford guns.

so what I'm getting from this is: legalize drugs and outlaw guns?

that's cool

I am unable to conceive of any rational or honest interpretation of redmid17's statement that would allow for such a possible conclusion. Please explain the means by which you have derived it.

well, the leap of logic includes:
80% of gun violence being drug or gang related.
gangs get money from drugs to buy guns
people buy legal guns to protect themselves from people who have guns illegally
if we legalize drugs, then there's no drug related gun violence, no gangs have guns, therefore the already tiny portion of people who have illegal guns becomes even tiner.
So tiny in fact that outlawing guns would actually prevent "bad" people from having guns
And if no "bad" people have guns, then "good" people don't need to protect themselves from "bad" people with guns, so they're cool with outlawing guns

So, legalize drugs, outlaw guns.

Please explain how you derived "outlawing guns would actually prevent 'bad' people from having guns" from any previous posting other than your own.

why? I was responding by enumerating a leap of logic, since when do leaps of logic have anything to do with links to posts?


I believe that you have confused a "non-sequitur", which you have employed, with a "leap of logic", which you have not. The two concepts, while sometimes confused, are not equivalent.
 
2012-07-30 07:36:20 PM
NightOwl2255


>> OnlyM3: I did that last week and fark's resident hoplophobe immediately called
>> it "cherry picking".

Dude, that's because most of your linked articles were just plain ol robberies
Like the school shootingS?

and there was zero reason to be believe there was going to be shooting of any kind.Like the "simple robbery" where the guy walked in an immediately opened fire. Right. No reason at all to believe he'd keep shooting. o.O

The church shooter that was stopped, that's an example of a mass shooting that was stopped. A convenience store robbery is not. Yet you denied that one as well.
 
2012-07-30 07:48:16 PM

oakleym82


And I do. I mean for times when you come upon a situation that requires intervention, like rape rape or something, in which case I'd probably open my mouth regardless of whether or not I was packing.


Appreciate the clarification and sorry about the misunderstanding.
 
2012-07-30 07:49:29 PM

LaraAmber


In fact, the CCW class emphasized that when you carry you need to be extra careful to not escalate the situation: don't close the distance, don't take a swing, don't get drawn into heated words. The other person may be an asshole, but you're armed and know it. Don't give him a chance to take your weapon and be an armed asshole and don't get into a situation where you're now going to jail over a parking space because you can't control your temper.


I was already aware of that, which is why I stressed keeping the word-hole shut. Still good advice, though.
 
2012-07-30 07:54:41 PM

NightOwl2255: JesseL: HaywoodJablonski: It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.

Me and my Muslim brother-in-law:

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 592x453]


/taught him to shoot my AK

Is that a big ol ham on the table?


ROFL

Could be. I'm sure Thahir didn't partake of it if it was.
 
2012-07-30 08:06:37 PM

JesseL: /taught him to shoot my AK


Stop being ridiculous. If he is a Muslim I am sure he already knew how to shoot an AK.
 
2012-07-30 08:06:39 PM

LaraAmber: Whiskey Dickens:
I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(

Oh wait, I now see your point, there are 275 million guns legally owned in America. And the Aurora shooting that took place in my backyard is such a freak instance that it made international news and was talked about all over the world until basically the Olympics started. That means there are millions of guns in this country NOT being used to kill people every day. That translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens NOT being used to kill our neighbors every day!

Yeah America!


www.brookings.edu
 
2012-07-30 08:11:13 PM

JesseL: HaywoodJablonski: It's been awhile since the last thread where bed-wetting gun nuts show off their e-peens.

Keep up the good work, and never forget:

1. Without CCW, all people darker than you would murder/rape/burgle you.
2. Scary muslins hate your freedoms and want to destroy you in your sleep.

Me and my Muslim brother-in-law:

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 592x453]


/taught him to shoot my AK


The baby in orange should probably be checked for eye cancer.
I'm not a doctor but I did stay in a holiday inn express last night that had a poster of a kid with eye cancer.

/btw, is the skinny guy the muslin?
 
2012-07-30 08:25:36 PM

iserlohn: LaraAmber: Whiskey Dickens:
I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(

Oh wait, I now see your point, there are 275 million guns legally owned in America. And the Aurora shooting that took place in my backyard is such a freak instance that it made international news and was talked about all over the world until basically the Olympics started. That means there are millions of guns in this country NOT being used to kill people every day. That translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens NOT being used to kill our neighbors every day!

Yeah America!

[www.brookings.edu image 850x639]


...actually, those are interesting stats. For every 1 million people, the US has 890,000 guns and commits 32.5 homicides with guns -- in other words, 32.5/890000/1000000 = 3.6e-11 homicides per gun per person (per year, I assume).

Taking (say) Ireland as a comparison, 8.3/90000/1000000 = 9.2e-11 homicides per gun per person.

...or, in other words, Ireland commits about 3x more homicides per person per gun than the US.

So, really, given the prevalence of guns in the US, it's amazing the homicide rate is as low as it is. If Irish gun ownership was at the same level as in the US, then by that scaling, their gun-homicide rate would be about 3x higher than in the US.
 
2012-07-30 08:26:39 PM

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: The baby in orange should probably be checked for eye cancer.
I'm not a doctor but I did stay in a holiday inn express last night that had a poster of a kid with eye cancer.


It's been a couple years since that picture was taken and he hasn't had any eye problems - I think it's just a photographic artifact.

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: /btw, is the skinny guy the muslin?


Nope, but that's the first time I've ever been called "the skinny guy". Made my day!
 
2012-07-30 08:30:53 PM

iserlohn: LaraAmber: Whiskey Dickens:
I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(

Oh wait, I now see your point, there are 275 million guns legally owned in America. And the Aurora shooting that took place in my backyard is such a freak instance that it made international news and was talked about all over the world until basically the Olympics started. That means there are millions of guns in this country NOT being used to kill people every day. That translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens NOT being used to kill our neighbors every day!

Yeah America!

[www.brookings.edu image 850x639]


Would not a more reasonable assessment compare firearm ownership rates with overall homicide rates, or do the authors of that chart believe homicide acceptable when committed with an implement other than a firearm?
 
2012-07-30 08:34:34 PM
Also, assault weapons account for 4% of murders.
 
2012-07-30 08:38:15 PM
Westworld dudes are openly carrying in an establishment were liquor is served. (Not sure why the robot needs whiskey but... *shrug*)
img208.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-30 09:19:01 PM
There is no reason to openly carry a firearm unless you want it to draw attention. There is an intimidation factor that is known and used by police, military and security types.

Dumb asshole decides he wants attention and open carries. Dumb asshole is proven to be a dumb asshole when he is surprised people are intimidated (the exact thing he set out to do) and notify police some dumb asshole is openly carrying a firearm in a theater shortly after a theater mass shooting in the same f*king state.

This guy knew exactly what he was doing. Whether he expected the reaction or not I'm quite sure he's looking forward to his $10k & 10 seconds of fame on Fox News (I'm betting Hannity does the interview, we should start a pool)

Open carry laws are stupid. I have my license to carry, love to go shooting but I can't imagine what the hell is going through the heads of people that think we should have guns everywhere all the time and shiat will magically be awesome and perfect.

Even in the old west they understood letting dumb assholes intimidate others with openly carrying a firearm was a bad idea. Especially if you get two or more of these types to share one room and argument. Many towns had gun bans back in the day (I'm sure you've seen Tombstone, always thought that was a Hollywood nod to gun control though I could be wrong. It might be relevant historical accuracy for that particular town/story).

Perhaps it's time we bring that back. Just make carry in towns and cities illegal outside your home. Or just obliterate open carry (probably a more sensible option). See a gun and it's not a cop? Someone is doing something they shouldn't be.

I could be wrong. This guy could just be incredibly incredibly stupid (how about that t-shirt? checkoutthisguy.jpg). As the old saying goes, don't be quick to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by ignorance.


/If this guy was interested in protecting his life, he'd open carry some Lipitor, not a pistol.
//Ever notice the super pro-gun advocates do more to push public opinion for gun control than gun control advocates?
///Dumb asshole
 
2012-07-30 09:33:08 PM

MurphyMurphy: There is no reason to openly carry a firearm unless you want it to draw attention. There is an intimidation factor that is known and used by police, military and security types.

Dumb asshole decides he wants attention and open carries. Dumb asshole is proven to be a dumb asshole when he is surprised people are intimidated (the exact thing he set out to do) and notify police some dumb asshole is openly carrying a firearm in a theater shortly after a theater mass shooting in the same f*king state.

This guy knew exactly what he was doing. Whether he expected the reaction or not I'm quite sure he's looking forward to his $10k & 10 seconds of fame on Fox News (I'm betting Hannity does the interview, we should start a pool)

Open carry laws are stupid. I have my license to carry, love to go shooting but I can't imagine what the hell is going through the heads of people that think we should have guns everywhere all the time and shiat will magically be awesome and perfect.

Even in the old west they understood letting dumb assholes intimidate others with openly carrying a firearm was a bad idea. Especially if you get two or more of these types to share one room and argument. Many towns had gun bans back in the day (I'm sure you've seen Tombstone, always thought that was a Hollywood nod to gun control though I could be wrong. It might be relevant historical accuracy for that particular town/story).

Perhaps it's time we bring that back. Just make carry in towns and cities illegal outside your home. Or just obliterate open carry (probably a more sensible option). See a gun and it's not a cop? Someone is doing something they shouldn't be.

I could be wrong. This guy could just be incredibly incredibly stupid (how about that t-shirt? checkoutthisguy.jpg). As the old saying goes, don't be quick to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by ignorance.


/If this guy was interested in protecting his life, he'd open carry some Lipitor, not a pistol.
//Ever notice the sup ...


I see people open carry all the time. Nobody thinks anything of it. We also don't need to have a permit to CCW. So who knows how many people have guns. Oh noes.
 
2012-07-30 09:34:38 PM

PsyLord: But no massacres occurred there because he was toting a gun, right?

/ducks


Yes and there were no stampedes because he was using elephant repellent.
 
2012-07-30 10:11:51 PM

iserlohn: LaraAmber: Whiskey Dickens:
I wasn't blaming anything on the Aurora victims, but if they're guilty of something, it's allowing the gun owners such say in lawmaking that there are now 275 million guns legally owned in America.
This translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens, and many more rampages to come. :(

Oh wait, I now see your point, there are 275 million guns legally owned in America. And the Aurora shooting that took place in my backyard is such a freak instance that it made international news and was talked about all over the world until basically the Olympics started. That means there are millions of guns in this country NOT being used to kill people every day. That translates to 90 guns per 100 citizens NOT being used to kill our neighbors every day!

Yeah America!

[www.brookings.edu image 850x639]


Guns per 100 people is actually a stupid metric to even analyze. Most gun owners, if they own guns own more than one. In fact, I myself own more than ten. A better thing to study might be gun owners per hundred, not just number of guns.

And before you ask why a person might need more than one gun, there is .22lr for target shooting, 9mm for ccw, 12 gauge for bird hunting and clay hunting, two different shotguns, and then there is .308 for deer, 5.56/2.23 for varmint, etc.
 
2012-07-30 10:15:03 PM

manimal2878: Guns per 100 people is actually a stupid metric to even analyze. Most gun owners, if they own guns own more than one. In fact, I myself own more than ten. A better thing to study might be gun owners per hundred, not just number of guns.

And before you ask why a person might need more than one gun, there is .22lr for target shooting, 9mm for ccw, 12 gauge for bird hunting and clay hunting, two different shotguns, and then there is .308 for deer, 5.56/2.23 for varmint, etc.


I agree. I own probably 20 or more. They really add up before you know it.
 
2012-07-30 10:34:49 PM

justtray: Please, please, please, stop pretending like you or anyone else could make a difference. The only thing that stops gun related crime is preventing people from having guns. Nothing else.


Actually, more emphasis mental health related issue awareness could help a lot, especially from educators. Daily Beast has decent piece on it. Aside from being unconstitutional, we can't stop the sale of all guns, much less collect them all. We can look for signs of unstable people and stop them from getting guns, like we stop certain people from getting on planes.

/I don't own a gun
//I consume mental health services
 
2012-07-30 10:34:52 PM

BGates: manimal2878: Guns per 100 people is actually a stupid metric to even analyze. Most gun owners, if they own guns own more than one. In fact, I myself own more than ten. A better thing to study might be gun owners per hundred, not just number of guns.

And before you ask why a person might need more than one gun, there is .22lr for target shooting, 9mm for ccw, 12 gauge for bird hunting and clay hunting, two different shotguns, and then there is .308 for deer, 5.56/2.23 for varmint, etc.

I agree. I own probably 20 or more. They really add up before you know it.


Should I feel inadequate for only owning four?
 
2012-07-30 10:44:32 PM

Dimensio: BGates: manimal2878:
And before you ask why a person might need more than one gun, there is .22lr for target shooting, 9mm for ccw, 12 gauge for bird hunting and clay hunting, two different shotguns, and then there is .308 for deer, 5.56/2.23 for varmint, etc.

I agree. I own probably 20 or more. They really add up before you know it.

Should I feel inadequate for only owning four?


No. I have over 20 in my personal collection as well. The reason for having that many is the previous owners passed away and left them to me.

/crappy way to grow a collection
//fark cancer
 
2012-07-30 10:58:49 PM

BGates: I see people open carry all the time. Nobody thinks anything of it. We also don't need to have a permit to CCW. So who knows how many people have guns. Oh noes.


Same here. Open carry just isn't the big deal some people think it is.

I guess they have a hard time imagining a place where guns are socially acceptable, nobody freaks out, and shootings are rare.

/AZ to WY high five
 
2012-07-30 11:05:30 PM
Who the fark carries a gun to the movies?

ZOMG THE BRITISH WILL INVADE DURING INTERMISSION BETTER BE SURE I AM CARRYING

Oh, Amerikuh, u so cwazy!
 
2012-07-30 11:31:04 PM

Dimensio: BGates: manimal2878: Guns per 100 people is actually a stupid metric to even analyze. Most gun owners, if they own guns own more than one. In fact, I myself own more than ten. A better thing to study might be gun owners per hundred, not just number of guns.

And before you ask why a person might need more than one gun, there is .22lr for target shooting, 9mm for ccw, 12 gauge for bird hunting and clay hunting, two different shotguns, and then there is .308 for deer, 5.56/2.23 for varmint, etc.

I agree. I own probably 20 or more. They really add up before you know it.

Should I feel inadequate for only owning four?


No, don't worry, the rest of us are happy enough to pick up the slack ;)

/still want to know what an "automatic expanded clip weapon" is, especially one that has a plan
//and where to get one, especially if justadouche wants to ban them
 
2012-07-30 11:40:29 PM

cegorach: Who the fark carries a gun to the movies?

ZOMG THE BRITISH WILL INVADE DURING INTERMISSION BETTER BE SURE I AM CARRYING

Oh, Amerikuh, u so cwazy!


Who wears a seat-belt for just a quick trip?
 
2012-07-31 12:14:21 AM

moops: Bathia_Mapes: Oh, great. His last name is "Mapes". :/

No, it's not. His last name clearly reads "moops".


Fine, you can have him.
 
2012-07-31 12:36:18 AM

JesseL: cegorach: Who the fark carries a gun to the movies?

ZOMG THE BRITISH WILL INVADE DURING INTERMISSION BETTER BE SURE I AM CARRYING

Oh, Amerikuh, u so cwazy!

Who wears a seat-belt for just a quick trip?


I do, because driving a car is a dangerous activity that at any time could have potentially fatal consequences and a seatbelt can help prevent that.

Going to the movies is not a dangerous activity and does not have potentially fatal consequences that can be ameliorated by firearms.

Why yes, I DO live in a country that doesn't allow its citizens to walk around armed based on centuries-old fear that colonial overlords will return!

If you *really* think going to the movies in America is a danger-fraught experience, you might want to ask yourself 'why?'.

The answer is 'because lots of people carry guns'.

And the solution for you people?

MOAR GUNZ

You people are a study in the cognitive dissonance you can get from the confluence of firearms manufacturer propaganda and male insecurity issues.
 
2012-07-31 12:39:52 AM

cegorach: JesseL: cegorach: Who the fark carries a gun to the movies?

ZOMG THE BRITISH WILL INVADE DURING INTERMISSION BETTER BE SURE I AM CARRYING

Oh, Amerikuh, u so cwazy!

Who wears a seat-belt for just a quick trip?

I do, because driving a car is a dangerous activity that at any time could have potentially fatal consequences and a seatbelt can help prevent that.

Going to the movies is not a dangerous activity and does not have potentially fatal consequences that can be ameliorated by firearms.

Why yes, I DO live in a country that doesn't allow its citizens to walk around armed based on centuries-old fear that colonial overlords will return!

If you *really* think going to the movies in America is a danger-fraught experience, you might want to ask yourself 'why?'.

The answer is 'because lots of people carry guns'.

And the solution for you people?

MOAR GUNZ

You people are a study in the cognitive dissonance you can get from the confluence of firearms manufacturer propaganda and male insecurity issues.


The only people that ever bring up male insecurity issues are anti-gun. Where do you people even get that shiat from?
 
2012-07-31 01:34:14 AM
Goatees and buzzcuts (or bald heads) are pretty much a badge for douchnozzles now, aren't they?
 
2012-07-31 01:57:09 AM

The Southern Dandy: Goatees and buzzcuts (or bald heads) are pretty much a badge for douchnozzles now, aren't they?


And noses, don't forget those.
 
2012-07-31 05:03:22 AM

InternetSecurityGuard: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/BAG-070


Awww, the second link shows my new purse!

/has lots of velcro, sadly
/lots of fun pockets too, but none large enough for a handgun :(
 
2012-07-31 06:34:51 AM

KrispyKritter: tough going through life as a scared little flower. poor thing.


From the article it doesn't sound like he was the one that was scared, it was the one who had a panic attack and called the police.
 
2012-07-31 08:01:36 AM
You know how you can tell a lot of people didn't RTFA?
 
2012-07-31 08:10:55 AM

Farkin_Crazy: JesseL: www.fark.com/comments/7226694/-71-year-old-geezer-fights-off-pair-of -1 9-year-old-thugs-robbing-internet-cafe-With-video-baddasserywait-inter net-cafes-still-exist?

I was thinking more of mass murders instead of thieves.


Since all but one successful mass shootings I've heard of took place in "Gun Free Zones" there aren't many cases where someone was legally carrying concealed. Where have you heard of a nut case shooting a lot of people in a place where there was a chance of someone shooting back?
 
2012-07-31 09:52:16 AM

IamAwake: Brubold: I've not been given even one example of it happening and I would that that odds are that it's happened at some point. Apparently it's been so infrequently that there's nothing much to find though.

very, very weak strawman. It's rare for someone to be carrying, and extremely exceptionally rare for someone to open fire on a group of people. There are so exceptionally few times when the two things overlap/coincide, that it is irrelevant as a counter to any argument suggesting deaths would be fewer were there armed bystanders nearby. Add to the lack of overlap that the places where mass shootings take place tend to be places where it isn't legal to carry in most areas. Schools, churches, post offices...

Speaking of armed bystanders...try doing a google search for "armed bystander" and a few things do turn up. A girl saved in Athens, GA a few weeks ago, as an example. Just what was it you were using to do your search, praytell?


I'm not the one that was making the argument that more lives would have been lost had some of the audience members been armed. I saw the argument in a bunch of places after the shooting. I imagine some lefty gun control advocate on KOS or HuffPo wrote it and everyone was just parroting the argument after that. It could have been Maddow for all I know.

In any case, not one of the people making the argument has been able to provide even one example of it happening. That pretty clearly shows it's a BS argument.
 
2012-07-31 11:39:02 AM

pedrop357: Why would he lose his CCW? He didn't actually break any laws.


He most certainly did. He carried into a place that serves alcohol.
 
2012-07-31 11:58:00 AM

unlikely: pedrop357: Why would he lose his CCW? He didn't actually break any laws.

He most certainly did. He carried into a place that serves alcohol.


He did not. It's only against the law to carry while under the influence. As long as he wasn't drinking (and he wasn't), he will be free to go. The theater itself can ban the carrying of guns, but they have to meet certain criteria to do so (controlled entrances, metal detectors, etc...).
 
2012-07-31 12:05:59 PM

unlikely: He most certainly did. He carried into a place that serves alcohol.


Can you quote the statute? I'm having trouble finding any Colorado law that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a place that serves alcohol.
 
2012-07-31 12:37:41 PM

MorePeasPlease: The Southern Dandy: Goatees and buzzcuts (or bald heads) are pretty much a badge for douchnozzles now, aren't they?

And noses, don't forget those.


And long hair! Or emo hair!. Or black clothing. Or surfer gear. Or dreads.....
 
2012-07-31 01:10:30 PM

pedrop357: unlikely: He most certainly did. He carried into a place that serves alcohol.

Can you quote the statute? I'm having trouble finding any Colorado law that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a place that serves alcohol.


redmid17: unlikely: pedrop357: Why would he lose his CCW? He didn't actually break any laws.

He most certainly did. He carried into a place that serves alcohol.

He did not. It's only against the law to carry while under the influence. As long as he wasn't drinking (and he wasn't), he will be free to go. The theater itself can ban the carrying of guns, but they have to meet certain criteria to do so (controlled entrances, metal detectors, etc...).


Looks like I stand corrected. I offer many apologies. You are correct.
 
2012-07-31 02:45:13 PM

redmid17: You people are a study in the cognitive dissonance you can get from the confluence of firearms manufacturer propaganda and male insecurity issues.

The only people that ever bring up male insecurity issues are anti-gun. Where do you people even get that shiat from?


Meh, it's just a not-so-subtle ad hominem attack -- debate for the lazy: "If you think XYZ, you have a small penis. So there, I win."
 
2012-07-31 02:54:34 PM

cegorach: Going to the movies is not a dangerous activity and does not have potentially fatal consequences that can be ameliorated by firearms.


I seem to remember reading a story recently where going to the movies was very dangerous for a bunch of people. I just can't remember where or when it happened. Damn, I will remember, just give me a minute...
 
2012-07-31 05:10:33 PM

JesseL: vudukungfu: You don't need a gun around drunks, unless you like shooting drunks.
End CSB.

But evidently you do need a nightstick. For those of us who aren't bouncers, carrying that is going to go over worse than carrying a concealed handgun.


Actually, you'd be surprised what you can carry around. I've walked around with a 4-foot long 2-handed sword, through a busy parking lot, multiple times...and nobody, not even the cops nearby, ever batted an eyelash.
Granted, it was in a scabbard, which was about the same color as my coat, but still...people see what they expect to see, which is very little.
 
2012-07-31 05:22:13 PM

PunGent: Actually, you'd be surprised what you can carry around. I've walked around with a 4-foot long 2-handed sword, through a busy parking lot, multiple times...and nobody, not even the cops nearby, ever batted an eyelash.
Granted, it was in a scabbard, which was about the same color as my coat, but still...people see what they expect to see, which is very little.


A few months ago, this was me riding a few hundred miles to go shooting with some friends:

i100.photobucket.com

The only question I got was from a guy asking about the caliber when I stopped for gas.

I get the feeling though that while guns are readily accepted here, lower tech or improvised weapons might garner a bit more attention.
 
Displayed 331 of 331 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report