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.

(KATU)   A "concealed weapons" permit doesn't mean you can hide it under the seat in a movie theater   (katu.com) divider line 153
    More: Dumbass, concealed weapons  
•       •       •

5338 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 5:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-21 10:02:19 AM

Whole Wheat: Mitch Mitchell: fusillade762: A 7th-grade student found the weapon on Wednesday with a round in the chamber and the safety off.

Glad they pulled his CC license.  The guy is an idiot.

True that.

Other than having his CCW where he shouldn't have, and the safety off, I don't see what was wrong about having a round in the chamber. That is standard practice. The hammer (which is internal on most CCW pieces) can only be cocked by pulling the trigger.


Agree, however, I believe I see an external hammer in this picture. Does not change anything you pointed out though, just another way to cock the hammer.
 
2012-12-21 10:07:27 AM
Just got here. Have the White Knights arrived yet?
 
2012-12-21 10:07:39 AM

Solaris: Wonka doesn't know that I'm am trained in active shooter response, so yes, yes I could have done something. And I would have used a firearm to do it (gasp)


Let's say there's 4 of you in the theater all trained in active shooter response.  It's dark.  How do you be sure you're shooting at the original shooter and not each other?
 
2012-12-21 10:09:23 AM

Solaris: I've never claimed to represent anyone. If you read through the thread I've only commented specifically on my belief for keeping a weapon chambered and my abilities. I have not claimed that anything I have done or will ever do, is or will be replicated by anyone who may hold a similar belief.

In regard to the man leaving the weapon in the theater, there really are no words to describe how much this infuriates me to the carelessness and neglect he demonstrated.



Point taken. And if anyone is carrying during an emergency situation, I would like it to be someone with the training you have obtained. I'm rereading your posts, and you've intimated you carry in a professional capacity.

However, most people are wanna-be Rambos like this asshat. I don't know about you, but having a guy like this being able to obtain and carry a weapon--and be exposed as a danger only after his act of negligence has been committed--does not make me feel safer.
 
2012-12-21 10:10:47 AM

GanjSmokr: stevarooni: Chummer45: This seems appropriate:

It would be, yes, if the Aurora theater murders had been done by someone wearing body armor at all.

And if there had been an actual "machine gun" used...

Other than those two little details, Wonka's right.


And that it was just a smoke bomb and not tear gas.

Other than those three little details, Wonka's right.
 
2012-12-21 10:11:33 AM

Chummer45: I am of the view that the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the rights of the states to have well-regulated militias, to ease the concerns of anti-federalists who were worried that the federal government may get too powerful by disbanding the militias and raising a standing army. Why do I think that? Because it is one sentence that immediately announces its purpose - preserving the right of the people to operate "well-regulated militias." A militia is "regulated" by the state, which expresses the will of its citizens. So in that sense, the word "people" as used in the amendment has the same as "we the people" in the preamble of the constitution - it refers to the "people" in the collective sense. The right of the "people" in the second amendment is referring to the citizens of the states (through their state governments).


"'A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.' I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that." -- Bruce Tiemann
 
2012-12-21 10:12:34 AM
Must have been the first level of Scavenger Mode

Stupid Assignments

/Crossbow
 
2012-12-21 10:14:50 AM

Callous: GanjSmokr: stevarooni: Chummer45: This seems appropriate:

It would be, yes, if the Aurora theater murders had been done by someone wearing body armor at all.

And if there had been an actual "machine gun" used...

Other than those two little details, Wonka's right.

And that it was just a smoke bomb and not tear gas.

Other than those three little details, Wonka's right.


Well.... it was dark and crowded... and they were in a theater.... so Wonka has that going for his argument still.
 
2012-12-21 10:16:19 AM

Subtle_Canary: .380? That better have been a PPK or he's up for losing man points as well...


Actually, this looks like a Pietro Beretta model 1935 to me. so far I have not found it listed as anything other than a .32 ACP (7.65mm). As the woman I work with just told me, she can yell more harshly than that.

/yes, it is still a firearm and can be lethal.
/will probably not stop a coked up attacker. He will die, but not before ripping your face off. But he was going to do that anyway.
 
2012-12-21 10:16:58 AM

you have pee hands: Solaris: Wonka doesn't know that I'm am trained in active shooter response, so yes, yes I could have done something. And I would have used a firearm to do it (gasp)

Let's say there's 4 of you in the theater all trained in active shooter response.  It's dark.  How do you be sure you're shooting at the original shooter and not each other?


www.episd.org

A four person response team looks something like this. This is not the only pattern to do this, but notice the officers are close and will move together. Communicate, communicate, communicate.
 
2012-12-21 10:17:26 AM

charttn: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: And he's a licensed gun dealer. But this won't affect THAT license.

I did not see that in the article. Did I misread?


It's not in subby's link, but in mine, above.

"He's also a licensed gun dealer, but said he does very little selling and mostly steers buyers to good websites."
 
2012-12-21 10:18:11 AM

Chinchillazilla: I'm guessing he's never actually "had to" fire his weapon to scare off animals. Someone this eager to shoot something (the safety off? Really?) probably wanders around taking potshots at squirrels because "It was coming right at me!"


i478.photobucket.com


Approve
 
2012-12-21 10:19:19 AM

Solaris: you have pee hands: Solaris: Wonka doesn't know that I'm am trained in active shooter response, so yes, yes I could have done something. And I would have used a firearm to do it (gasp)

Let's say there's 4 of you in the theater all trained in active shooter response.  It's dark.  How do you be sure you're shooting at the original shooter and not each other?

[www.episd.org image 275x184]

A four person response team looks something like this. This is not the only pattern to do this, but notice the officers are close and will move together. Communicate, communicate, communicate.


Funny way to watch a movie.
 
2012-12-21 10:19:54 AM
This is like a guy with a Geo saying he will race anyone, anytime, anywhere.
 
2012-12-21 10:21:54 AM

Solaris: A four person response team looks something like this. This is not the only pattern to do this, but notice the officers are close and will move together. Communicate, communicate, communicate.


That's all well and good if it's you and three of your friends who went to the movie and are sitting together so you know where each other are and who you need to be communicating with (or if you're outside, hear shooting, and decide to move in as a group).  But what if it's you and three other people who are sitting separately, ignorant of the fact that each is prepared to respond, when Johnny Nutjob throws his smokebombs and starts shooting into the crowd?
 
2012-12-21 10:23:46 AM

Chummer45: I am of the view that the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the rights of the states to have well-regulated militias, to ease the concerns of anti-federalists who were worried that the federal government may get too powerful by disbanding the militias and raising a standing army. Why do I think that? Because it is one sentence that immediately announces its purpose - preserving the right of the people to operate "well-regulated militias." A militia is "regulated" by the state, which expresses the will of its citizens.

(emphasis mine)

Know how I know you don't understand contextual meaning? :-P At the time, the militia was comprised of all able-bodied men between 18 and 45. Well-regulated wasn't what we'd say is "regulation", but rather "well-equipped". So for modern readers: "[A well-equipped body of protection comprised of all able-bodied men], being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
2012-12-21 10:24:14 AM
 
2012-12-21 10:26:35 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Solaris: you have pee hands: Solaris: Wonka doesn't know that I'm am trained in active shooter response, so yes, yes I could have done something. And I would have used a firearm to do it (gasp)

Let's say there's 4 of you in the theater all trained in active shooter response.  It's dark.  How do you be sure you're shooting at the original shooter and not each other?

[www.episd.org image 275x184]

A four person response team looks something like this. This is not the only pattern to do this, but notice the officers are close and will move together. Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Funny way to watch a movie.


The caffeine from the $38 coke helps
 
2012-12-21 10:26:49 AM

charttn: Subtle_Canary: .380? That better have been a PPK or he's up for losing man points as well...

Actually, this looks like a Pietro Beretta model 1935 to me. so far I have not found it listed as anything other than a .32 ACP (7.65mm). As the woman I work with just told me, she can yell more harshly than that.

Oops, found it, the model 1934 is a .380 Also found that it has these safeties:
- manual hammer-block safety
- half-cock position of hammer
which should help prevent accidental, err, negligent discharge if it fell on the floor hitting the hammer with a round in the chamber.

 
2012-12-21 10:27:26 AM
Whew, that was close. Who knows what kind of mayhem that killer gun may have committed on its own.

The guy is a freaking idiot.
The overreaction in the story is Just as stupid.

Cops leave guns laying around in public about 5 times a year...what? Crickets? Oh that's right, their guns are specially trained. That or cops are such crappy shots that it's not really a threat anyway.
 
2012-12-21 10:27:49 AM

you have pee hands: But what if it's you and three other people who are sitting separately, ignorant of the fact that each is prepared to respond, when Johnny Nutjob throws his smokebombs and starts shooting into the crowd?


In this specific situation...I'd say that a moment's glance will tell you that everyone who starts shooting is shooting at the lone figure at the base of the stairs, rather than the audience trying to flee.

Hypothetically, there's a lot of potential for crossfire accidents. Empirically, a lot of people died...so the chance to do something doesn't bother me too much. I'm sure someone has a good analysis, but I think that a lone nut with the luxury of shooting at people unchallenged is going to cause more guaranteed deaths than the possible chaos that ensues with multiple shooters in a dark theater.
 
2012-12-21 10:30:28 AM

you have pee hands: Solaris: A four person response team looks something like this. This is not the only pattern to do this, but notice the officers are close and will move together. Communicate, communicate, communicate.

That's all well and good if it's you and three of your friends who went to the movie and are sitting together so you know where each other are and who you need to be communicating with (or if you're outside, hear shooting, and decide to move in as a group).  But what if it's you and three other people who are sitting separately, ignorant of the fact that each is prepared to respond, when Johnny Nutjob throws his smokebombs and starts shooting into the crowd?


We could play the "what if" game all day on an infinite number of possibilites or scenarios you can imagine. No situation is ever the same, it is dynamic and constantly changing.
 
2012-12-21 10:31:57 AM

computerguyUT: Whew, that was close. Who knows what kind of mayhem that killer gun may have committed on its own.


He left a loaded gun, with the safety off, in a theater full of children showing a family-friendly movie all day.

If you don't see how that situation could have ended very badly, you are willfully obtuse.
 
2012-12-21 10:32:22 AM

stevarooni: you have pee hands: But what if it's you and three other people who are sitting separately, ignorant of the fact that each is prepared to respond, when Johnny Nutjob throws his smokebombs and starts shooting into the crowd?

In this specific situation...I'd say that a moment's glance will tell you that everyone who starts shooting is shooting at the lone figure at the base of the stairs, rather than the audience trying to flee.

Hypothetically, there's a lot of potential for crossfire accidents. Empirically, a lot of people died...so the chance to do something doesn't bother me too much. I'm sure someone has a good analysis, but I think that a lone nut with the luxury of shooting at people unchallenged is going to cause more guaranteed deaths than the possible chaos that ensues with multiple shooters in a dark theater.


Seems like this would be easy enough to test, though I'm not sure who would do it.
 
2012-12-21 10:34:07 AM
How do you not notice your gun missing?

It's go weight to it. You have it in a pocket, in a holster on your belt, in a coat pocket, etc. You can't fail to notice even a small gun.

If it's in an inside-the-waist holster, your pants will fit differently with the gun out vs in.

Didn't he notice something was a little odd when he got up?

I'm trying really hard to figure out how I would fail to notice that my gun was still in the seat, or how I would not notice that the gun wasn't exactly where it was supposed to be.
 
2012-12-21 10:36:11 AM
OK. I'm convinced. I'm carrying with a round in the chamber from now on. That way I don't have to take my left hand out of the popcorn to take somebody down.

Just kidding. I carry a revolver so I didn't have that problem anyway. Hope I'm never actually in that situation, though. Movie tickets are expensive. Don't distract me with your random shooting!
 
2012-12-21 10:38:46 AM

Solaris: We could play the "what if" game all day on an infinite number of possibilites or scenarios you can imagine. No situation is ever the same, it is dynamic and constantly changing.


Legitimate question in the vein of "What If?"

What if you see a patron with a gun tucked into his pants? Do you assume he has a license to carry the weapon?
Do you assume he is responsible? Do you assume he is there to protect everyone or kill everyone? Do you call the authorities?
 
2012-12-21 10:43:06 AM

Free Radical: What if you see a patron with a gun tucked into his pants? Do you assume he has a license to carry the weapon?
Do you assume he is responsible? Do you assume he is there to protect everyone or kill everyone? Do you call the authorities?



Given that 40 or so states are shall issue, why would anyone assume that a person carrying a concealed firearm must NOT be licensed? We don't do with cars and their drivers.

I act the same as I do people driving cars. I couldn't care less about whether they're licensed or not. I watch their actual behavior. If they act dangerously, I (re)act accordingly. If they don't act dangerously, I (re)act accordingly.

It's the same thing with a guy dressed up as a cop. We don't assume he must be an imposter, do we? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's a cop, but if tries to hold the place up, or start killing people at random, I'll (once again) react accordingly.
 
2012-12-21 10:43:36 AM
I think everyone's missing the big picture here: for 24 hours, this true American had to face the trials and tribulations of life unarmed. Imagine his terror and fear. What was he supposed to do if those black people over there decided to make him their next target? How was he supposed to get it up if his wife wanted to make love to him? What if they made him wait 3 days to get a replacement gun?

You people mocking him should be ashamed. He's one of the bravest American gun owners I've seen in a long while.
 
2012-12-21 10:44:46 AM

pedrop357: How do you not notice your gun missing?


Now hear me out! This ties in with his comments about the movie. The movie seemed boring to him, so maybe he developed a severe case of Rock Butt (you know, that phenomenon whereby one's lower extremities lose sensation after sitting for a certain amount of time). It's The Hobbit what made him lose his gun!
 
2012-12-21 10:49:17 AM

Free Radical: Solaris: We could play the "what if" game all day on an infinite number of possibilites or scenarios you can imagine. No situation is ever the same, it is dynamic and constantly changing.

Legitimate question in the vein of "What If?"

What if you see a patron with a gun tucked into his pants? Do you assume he has a license to carry the weapon?
Do you assume he is responsible? Do you assume he is there to protect everyone or kill everyone? Do you call the authorities?


If the weapon is visible, then it is not "concealed" therefore that patron is violating law/permit regulations. Having a permit doesn't matter now, they are not abiding by it. I assume that every weapon is a potential threat. And I would notify police.
 
2012-12-21 10:49:27 AM

pedrop357: How do you not notice your gun missing?


Because the majority of gun owners are 180 IQ, responsible, profitable small business owners employing and providing healthcare to Americans, citizens. It's just this case, and all the other cases we hear about in the news, that are isolated incidents and bad apples.
 
2012-12-21 10:58:21 AM

Solaris: Free Radical: Solaris: We could play the "what if" game all day on an infinite number of possibilites or scenarios you can imagine. No situation is ever the same, it is dynamic and constantly changing.

Legitimate question in the vein of "What If?"

What if you see a patron with a gun tucked into his pants? Do you assume he has a license to carry the weapon?
Do you assume he is responsible? Do you assume he is there to protect everyone or kill everyone? Do you call the authorities?

If the weapon is visible, then it is not "concealed" therefore that patron is violating law/permit regulations. Having a permit doesn't matter now, they are not abiding by it. I assume that every weapon is a potential threat. And I would notify police.


Why notify police? If you live in certain states, and feel threatened by someone you see carrying a gun, you can "stand your ground" and shoot the guy.

Ain't life great when everyone's armed and the NRA and ALEC write the laws?
 
2012-12-21 10:59:09 AM

WhippingBoy: I think everyone's missing the big picture here: for 24 hours, this true American had to face the trials and tribulations of life unarmed. Imagine his terror and fear. What was he supposed to do if those black people over there decided to make him their next target? How was he supposed to get it up if his wife wanted to make love to him? What if they made him wait 3 days to get a replacement gun?


Since he's a gun dealer he may have a few more lying around.
 
2012-12-21 11:00:58 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: WhippingBoy: I think everyone's missing the big picture here: for 24 hours, this true American had to face the trials and tribulations of life unarmed. Imagine his terror and fear. What was he supposed to do if those black people over there decided to make him their next target? How was he supposed to get it up if his wife wanted to make love to him? What if they made him wait 3 days to get a replacement gun?

Since he's a gun dealer he may have a few more lying around.


Thank God. At least that's some small relief.
 
2012-12-21 11:03:59 AM

Doc Daneeka: If you live in certain states, and feel threatened by someone you see carrying a gun, you can "stand your ground" and shoot the guy.


Hence the term "concealed carry". In states where open carry is permitted, it takes more to be considered to be offering deadly force. But if someone with a CCW reveals his gun and is threatening, that's a threat of deadly force. Assault, if you will.
 
2012-12-21 11:33:44 AM

Solaris: We could play the "what if" game all day on an infinite number of possibilites or scenarios you can imagine. No situation is ever the same, it is dynamic and constantly changing.


Sure, but I think mentally playing through "what ifs" is an important part of preparedness and planning. I think self defense presents a lot of them, because there's the obvious split between the safest way to store a gun (unloaded, with ammo locked separately) and the way it's most useful for self defense (quickly accessible and loaded).  There are some cases where they'd be more useful, like the Columbine shooting which was organized, methodical, and went on for quite a long time and some where they'd be less useful, like IMO the Aurora shooting which was especially chaotic.
 
2012-12-21 12:17:56 PM

poughdrew: Because the majority of gun owners are 180 IQ, responsible, profitable small business owners employing and providing healthcare to Americans, citizens. It's just this case, and all the other cases we hear about in the news, that are isolated incidents and bad apples.


blah blah blah.

I find it amazing that he didn't notice his gun missing. I also wonder how it's possible when the cops do it (which happens pretty regularly if you believe all the news articles about people finding cops' guns.)
 
2012-12-21 12:18:18 PM

Doc Daneeka: lewismarktwo: So this happens all the time right? I'm sure it was only reported on this time because of the current 'guns guns guns!' fever.

It does. Or at least, it happens a hell of a lot more often than gun being used for any legitimate self-defense purpose.

For every single time a gun is used in self defense, there are:
-four accidental shootings
-seven criminal assaults or homicides
-eleven attempted or completed suicides
(source)

A gun kept in a household is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or a visitor than an intruder.
(source)


Lies, damned lies and statistics.
 
2012-12-21 12:38:25 PM
Quackenbush?
Really?
That is all.
 
2012-12-21 01:04:44 PM

Big Ramifications: [i49.tinypic.com image 416x375]


i49.tinypic.com

That is a bad post, Big Ramifications, and you should feel bad.
 
2012-12-21 01:10:04 PM

Dimensio: You are correct. In civilized, sane, societies, citizens submit to the whims of violent attackers.


Better than all of us being a potential violent attacker. Which, like the first guy said, means that we have failed as a society. We don't all want to be a part of your dystopian fantasy land.
 
2012-12-21 01:19:02 PM

stevarooni: Chummer45: I am of the view that the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the rights of the states to have well-regulated militias, to ease the concerns of anti-federalists who were worried that the federal government may get too powerful by disbanding the militias and raising a standing army. Why do I think that? Because it is one sentence that immediately announces its purpose - preserving the right of the people to operate "well-regulated militias." A militia is "regulated" by the state, which expresses the will of its citizens. (emphasis mine)

Know how I know you don't understand contextual meaning? :-P At the time, the militia was comprised of all able-bodied men between 18 and 45. Well-regulated wasn't what we'd say is "regulation", but rather "well-equipped". So for modern readers: "[A well-equipped body of protection comprised of all able-bodied men], being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Bullshiat. Well-regulated in this context means disciplined--not mere armed rabble.
 
2012-12-21 02:09:37 PM

Chummer45: This seems appropriate:

i.qkme.me


He didn't have a machine gun. He didn't have full body armor. But don't let reality get in the way of your stupidity.

Also, the point is to be prepared. Nobody thinks that being armed will guarantee their survival. Nobody thinks that being armed will guarantee they can stop a criminal like in Aurora. What people who carry daily think is that if they are unarmed their odds of survival go down dramatically, and that if they are armed their odds of stopping a shooter like in Aurora go from 0 to something better than 0.

Honestly, people that don't carry have NO CLUE why those who do do. You can explain it to them for hours on end and all they end up hearing is either "I am afraid" or "I think I am a badass".... But neither of those is the motivation for 99% of CPL holders.
 
2012-12-21 02:17:46 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [www.oceleb.com image 247x335][www.oceleb.com image 247x335][www.oceleb.com image 247x335]


You win the thread. Done in one.
 
2012-12-21 03:14:44 PM

sufferpuppet: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [www.oceleb.com image 247x335][www.oceleb.com image 247x335][www.oceleb.com image 247x335]

You win the thread. Done in one.


You're the first to mention it.
 
2012-12-21 03:47:27 PM
And the number of gun owners who can truthfully be called responsible takes yet another hit.
 
2012-12-21 03:48:24 PM
How else would he have done his civic duty and dropped the crazed shooter who was gonna sneak in through the exit doors with a semi-automatic rifle, high capacity clips and smoke grenades?
 
2012-12-21 04:08:12 PM
But I guarantee you this would never happen to a teacher in the classroom.
 
2012-12-21 04:32:56 PM

arentol: Chummer45: This seems appropriate:

i.qkme.me

He didn't have a machine gun. He didn't have full body armor. But don't let reality get in the way of your stupidity.

Also, the point is to be prepared. Nobody thinks that being armed will guarantee their survival. Nobody thinks that being armed will guarantee they can stop a criminal like in Aurora. What people who carry daily think is that if they are unarmed their odds of survival go down dramatically, and that if they are armed their odds of stopping a shooter like in Aurora go from 0 to something better than 0.

Honestly, people that don't carry have NO CLUE why those who do do. You can explain it to them for hours on end and all they end up hearing is either "I am afraid" or "I think I am a badass".... But neither of those is the motivation for 99% of CPL holders.


Penis substitute? I'm just askin questions.
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report