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.

(KSL Salt Lake City)   Law-abiding citizen carries rifle into department store, minds own business, fails to murder anyone. It might take some effort, but we can all still feel threatened and outraged   (ksl.com) divider line 637
    More: Interesting, KSL, rifles, Riverdale, murders, J.C. Penney  
•       •       •

10749 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2013 at 4:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-18 02:46:45 PM  

BigNumber12: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What a worthless douchebag. It's legal to carry a chainsaw too, but you'd have to be a pathetic piece of shiat to walk around with one in a shopping mall.

[i186.photobucket.com image 325x265]


god forbid that one would need to return defective equipment to sears or to have it serviced...  I don't know about where you live, but my closest sears store is at a mall.
 
2013-01-18 02:46:48 PM  

Theburner: GUTSU: sethen320: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: You don't need a license to buy a car, or to even drive a car. You need a license to drive on public roads, you don't need one to drive on your own property. Being able to drive is a privilege, being able to defend yourself is a right.

Owning a car is not a right, but interstate travel is, just as being able defending yourself is. The arguments lie in regulation of ways to implement those rights.

If you ban cars that isn't taking away someones freedom of movement anymore than banning an AR-15 is limiting the 2nd amendment, people can still use bikes and horses to get around.

Yep =) My point exactly. Bikes and horses, hell just having feet and legs allows you to exercise your interstate travel rights. Allowing people to only one 1 handgun and 1 shotgun still allows them their right to bear arms and defend themselves.

I'll throw away 28 or my guns right now if every american vows never to use a motor-vehicle again.

See? This is what I was talking about earlier. Why did you have to tell everyone "28 guns"?

wouldn't "some of my guns" or just "my guns" have been.just as effective? By purposely injecting a high number its just rude bragging. No wonder anti-gun people have such a stereotype of gun owners. Learn some manners and get over yourself. you're not helping.

Sorry, I told a bunch of anonymous people on the internet that I have over 28 guns, sorry for having pride in owning firearms. I should have check my privilege.

See, I read 28 guns and thought... Lucky Bugger.


About 10 of them are .22s, 5 lever actions of differing calibers, I can't remember just how many shotguns I have but I think it's less than 7, a few muzzle loaders, a WASR, and a .223 handgun. It's not that impressive, it's not like I have a stg-44.
 
2013-01-18 02:47:35 PM  

GUTSU: Robert Farker: GUTSU: Robert Farker: hubiestubert: Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks turn to those crimes in the first place. It is essentially slapping a band aid over a suppurating wound and figuring so long as it's covered, it's cool, right?

I don't see how it's a useless debate unless I misunderstand what you mean by Gun control. We already do background checks for gun sales in stores don't we? We do this knowing that many criminals will buy guns illegally despite the law. How would adding background checks to private sales be any different? Nobody is trying to say it would stop people who want to buy and sell guns illegally. The goal of the law is to give private owners the incentive to actually check the background of someone they sell to instead of being unsure.

Many view it as an abridgement of their rights, not wanting the government to dictate what they can and can not do with their own property.

My argument was that the debate is not useless and I think what you said makes my point. Personal property rights are an important part of the discussion. I understand and agree with the desire to keep the government out of our personal business but at the same time I I'm willing to make the concession for guns.

the problem is that the government doesn't like giving up powers, if you give the government a precedent for controlling the transfer of private property they won't stop at firearms.


It's debatable if there is a significant chance of that or not. That could be said about any law so without a more detailed argument I can't really respond. It really depends on the voters/lobbyist/congress as a whole anyway.
 
2013-01-18 02:50:36 PM  

Robert Farker: GUTSU: Robert Farker: GUTSU: Robert Farker: hubiestubert: Gun control is a useless debate. Because it addresses nothing but the tools used in the commission of crimes, and does nothing to alleviate the reasons and conditions that folks turn to those crimes in the first place. It is essentially slapping a band aid over a suppurating wound and figuring so long as it's covered, it's cool, right?

I don't see how it's a useless debate unless I misunderstand what you mean by Gun control. We already do background checks for gun sales in stores don't we? We do this knowing that many criminals will buy guns illegally despite the law. How would adding background checks to private sales be any different? Nobody is trying to say it would stop people who want to buy and sell guns illegally. The goal of the law is to give private owners the incentive to actually check the background of someone they sell to instead of being unsure.

Many view it as an abridgement of their rights, not wanting the government to dictate what they can and can not do with their own property.

My argument was that the debate is not useless and I think what you said makes my point. Personal property rights are an important part of the discussion. I understand and agree with the desire to keep the government out of our personal business but at the same time I I'm willing to make the concession for guns.

the problem is that the government doesn't like giving up powers, if you give the government a precedent for controlling the transfer of private property they won't stop at firearms.

It's debatable if there is a significant chance of that or not. That could be said about any law so without a more detailed argument I can't really respond. It really depends on the voters/lobbyist/congress as a whole anyway.


If I honestly believed that the government had the peoples best interest in mind I couldn't be able to care less, but I believe that the government was become bloated and self-serving caring only to perpetuate itself.
 
2013-01-18 02:52:01 PM  

thaylin: CADMonkey79: Robert Farker: thaylin: Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.

hmm odd, I thought my sarcasm was fairly apparent, may need to adjust the filter.

/Catch and release.

No,it was apparent, it's just that my sarcasm was less obvious. I was pointing out that just because criminals don't follow the law is not a reason in itself to not make a law in the first place. No one thinks making a law will magically force criminals to comply. Your the only one that stated that claim, albeit sarcastically. It's just another silly strawman argument.

STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN!!!

/strawman
So my strawman vs his strawman, which is more of the strawman?



Hey now. Let's not turn this into some sort of strawman competition.
 
2013-01-18 02:52:31 PM  

Maul555: BigNumber12: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What a worthless douchebag. It's legal to carry a chainsaw too, but you'd have to be a pathetic piece of shiat to walk around with one in a shopping mall.

[i186.photobucket.com image 325x265]

god forbid that one would need to return defective equipment to sears or to have it serviced...  I don't know about where you live, but my closest sears store is at a mall.


Quote fail?
 
2013-01-18 02:53:26 PM  

GUTSU: Theburner: GUTSU: sethen320: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU:

See, I read 28 guns and thought... Lucky Bugger.

About 10 of them are .22s, 5 lever actions of differing calibers, I can't remember just how many shotguns I have but I think it's less than 7, a few muzzle loaders, a WASR, and a .223 handgun. It's not that impressive, it's not like I have a stg-44.


I have 14 AR's, and 4 AK's, 2 M-60's and 1-Gatling gun. I am still on the fence about adding an Assault Rifle though, not sure where to buy those. None of the gun stores I go to have any.
 
2013-01-18 03:00:14 PM  

Theburner: GUTSU: Theburner: GUTSU: sethen320: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU: stonicus: GUTSU:

See, I read 28 guns and thought... Lucky Bugger.

About 10 of them are .22s, 5 lever actions of differing calibers, I can't remember just how many shotguns I have but I think it's less than 7, a few muzzle loaders, a WASR, and a .223 handgun. It's not that impressive, it's not like I have a stg-44.

I have 14 AR's, and 4 AK's, 2 M-60's and 1-Gatling gun. I am still on the fence about adding an Assault Rifle though, not sure where to buy those. None of the gun stores I go to have any.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-18 03:03:30 PM  
Aw jeez, here we go again...
I lived in Utah in the 80's and 90's, and when I turned 21, I couldn't wait to get my first real pistol and wear it on my hip. That lasted approximately one day. Aside from the concerned looks and the one guy who made a comment, it was a PITA. Normal pants and belts aren't made to support the extra two pounds hanging off one side, the damn thing kept getting jammed up when I got in and out of my car, and before I went home, I ended up locking it in my trunk before going into the mall. After that, there were only a few other times I did wear one, and those coincided with either shooting excursions or when I was going camping in the canyons.
As a gun rights supporter, NRA member, and holder of a CCW, this dude is a world-class asshat. I carried a '16 for six years, and believe me, whenever I could stash it in a case out of sight I did (peacetime). The only time I carried a rifle openly was the time a buddy and I went to Crossroads of the West (a major gun show), at the Salt Palace downtown. We'd split up, and later I found out he went home because he forgot to bring his cash, and when I was finished and went to the place he'd parked, he was gone. After waiting two hours and four PA announcements, I had enough.

I took the magazine out of the .303 Enfield I'd just bought, removed the bolt, and slung it over my shoulder for the ten mile walk home. Had a couple folks slow down when they saw what I had, and about three-quarters a way home, SLPD stopped to investigate. When the cop saw the weapon's condition, (still had the yellow safety strap for lockout), and heard my explanation, he just laughed and got back in his car.

The point is, open carry shouldn't be penalized, nor should it be abused. This turd abused his right, and because of him, the ones of us who don't do anything wrong with our guns are going to be vilified even more.
 
2013-01-18 03:06:01 PM  
Wow. What a dickbag.


/may be applicable to the jerk with the gun, Subby for that trolly headline, or the trollmin who approved it
 
2013-01-18 03:07:25 PM  

Robert Farker: thaylin: CADMonkey79: Robert Farker: thaylin: Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.

hmm odd, I thought my sarcasm was fairly apparent, may need to adjust the filter.

/Catch and release.

No,it was apparent, it's just that my sarcasm was less obvious. I was pointing out that just because criminals don't follow the law is not a reason in itself to not make a law in the first place. No one thinks making a law will magically force criminals to comply. Your the only one that stated that claim, albeit sarcastically. It's just another silly strawman argument.

STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN!!!

/strawman
So my strawman vs his strawman, which is more of the strawman?


Hey now. Let's not turn this into some sort of strawman competition.


2 wrongs dont make a right, but 3 rights make a left?
 
2013-01-18 03:11:13 PM  

GUTSU: If I honestly believed that the government had the peoples best interest in mind I couldn't be able to care less, but I believe that the government was become bloated and self-serving caring only to perpetuate itself.


That's a pretty subjective argument. I think it would be fine. There are lot's of gun enthusiasts in congress and I feel like it's still possible to agree on some reasonable measures without going overboard.

I realize that my argument is just as subjective but at least it allows us to put the proverbial "band-aid" on the wound. It was never intended to address the source of the issue, only some of the symptoms. You have to do both when you do not posses the cure to the disease.
 
2013-01-18 03:24:39 PM  

Robert Farker: GUTSU: If I honestly believed that the government had the peoples best interest in mind I couldn't be able to care less, but I believe that the government was become bloated and self-serving caring only to perpetuate itself.

That's a pretty subjective argument. I think it would be fine. There are lot's of gun enthusiasts in congress and I feel like it's still possible to agree on some reasonable measures without going overboard.

I realize that my argument is just as subjective but at least it allows us to put the proverbial "band-aid" on the wound. It was never intended to address the source of the issue, only some of the symptoms. You have to do both when you do not posses the cure to the disease.


Reasonable gun control is a funny term, because it's apparently only reasonable to with restricting gun rights.
 
2013-01-18 03:25:30 PM  

thaylin: Robert Farker: thaylin: CADMonkey79: Robert Farker: thaylin: Robert Farker: thaylin: larrynightmarehotmail.com: [i48.tinypic.com image 600x467]

Good to know that currently all criminals get their weapons legally.

Actually, many criminals obtain their weapons illegally. I'm not sure what makes you think that they don't. Any law that controls guns is not going to be any more effective than any other law that restricts a specific item.

hmm odd, I thought my sarcasm was fairly apparent, may need to adjust the filter.

/Catch and release.

No,it was apparent, it's just that my sarcasm was less obvious. I was pointing out that just because criminals don't follow the law is not a reason in itself to not make a law in the first place. No one thinks making a law will magically force criminals to comply. Your the only one that stated that claim, albeit sarcastically. It's just another silly strawman argument.

STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN!!!

/strawman
So my strawman vs his strawman, which is more of the strawman?


Hey now. Let's not turn this into some sort of strawman competition.

2 wrongs dont make a right, but 3 rights make a left?



hmm, I think you may be on to something,

if 2wrong != right
and
3right = left
Then
6wrong != left

If you didn't go left you must have gone right. So mathematically it takes 6 wrongs to make a right.
 
2013-01-18 03:27:24 PM  

GUTSU: Robert Farker: GUTSU: If I honestly believed that the government had the peoples best interest in mind I couldn't be able to care less, but I believe that the government was become bloated and self-serving caring only to perpetuate itself.

That's a pretty subjective argument. I think it would be fine. There are lot's of gun enthusiasts in congress and I feel like it's still possible to agree on some reasonable measures without going overboard.

I realize that my argument is just as subjective but at least it allows us to put the proverbial "band-aid" on the wound. It was never intended to address the source of the issue, only some of the symptoms. You have to do both when you do not posses the cure to the disease.

Reasonable gun control is a funny term, because it's apparently only reasonable to with restricting gun rights.


This is not a specific argument so if you are looking for a response, I have none.
 
2013-01-18 03:36:08 PM  

thaylin: 2 wrongs dont make a right, but 3 rights make a left?


3 rights make you a UPS employee.
 
2013-01-18 03:56:43 PM  

Maul555: Robert Farker: Xenomech: Robert Farker: Your argument makes the assumption that people in favor of gun control and gun bans are not also focusing on the root causes of the issues including but not limited to mental health care.

If I could see significant evidence to the contrary I would not be making that assumption.

Let's be realistic: the mental health care aspect -- if it's even brought up at all -- always comes up *after* the immediate "we must ban guns!" reaction. It's always an afterthought in the discussion. My point is that banning guns is not an appropriate initial reaction. Mental health -- not weather or not guns should be banned -- should be the *primary focus* of the discussion.

This thread is about gun control so that is what we are discussing. Neither of us has the ability to accurately determine how much focus people are putting on one thing vs another. Even if I agreed with you that the focus was out of balance it still doesn't address the actual arguments that are being made by those you disagree with.

This thread is not about gun control. This thread is about a guy exercising his open carry rights in an inappropriate place. the fact that the thread has devolved into a debate on gun control just proves the point that we are focusing on the wrong stuff.


It's logical that the discussion would lead to such a relevant subject matter such as gun control. I would only imply in jest that a thread about a guy bringing a gun to the mall would lead to a discussion about mental health issues. Furthermore, seeing that we are, in fact, talking about gun control and not mental health that we at least make it productive. If you disagree with specific gun control measures, say why. Claiming there should be more focus elsewhere is a valid argument but it doesn't have anything to do with what gun control measures are appropriate.
 
2013-01-18 04:00:48 PM  
It's assholes like this who make the two or three dozen responsible gun owners in this country look bad.
 
2013-01-18 04:05:10 PM  
Seriously in need of mental health care, the lot of you so-terrified-I-have-to-carry-a-firearm-to-farking-Pennys from-my-cold-dead-hands Rambo/Action_hero/Marshall_Dillon_wannabe pants_wetters.
The United States of America is not a war zone.

You know it, too, farkwits: Legal or no, carrying a firearm to go shopping is an implied threat.
 
2013-01-18 04:38:34 PM  
at what point does carrying become brandishing? finger next to the trigger?

if i were concerned that he was going to start shooting the place up and were braver/stupider than i actually am, could i follow him around closely to be in position to disarm him?
 
2013-01-18 04:41:46 PM  

redlegrick: Aw jeez, here we go again...
I lived in Utah in the 80's and 90's, and when I turned 21, I couldn't wait to get my first real pistol and wear it on my hip. That lasted approximately one day. Aside from the concerned looks and the one guy who made a comment, it was a PITA. Normal pants and belts aren't made to support the extra two pounds hanging off one side, the damn thing kept getting jammed up when I got in and out of my car, and before I went home, I ended up locking it in my trunk before going into the mall. After that, there were only a few other times I did wear one, and those coincided with either shooting excursions or when I was going camping in the canyons.
As a gun rights supporter, NRA member, and holder of a CCW, this dude is a world-class asshat. I carried a '16 for six years, and believe me, whenever I could stash it in a case out of sight I did (peacetime). The only time I carried a rifle openly was the time a buddy and I went to Crossroads of the West (a major gun show), at the Salt Palace downtown. We'd split up, and later I found out he went home because he forgot to bring his cash, and when I was finished and went to the place he'd parked, he was gone. After waiting two hours and four PA announcements, I had enough.

I took the magazine out of the .303 Enfield I'd just bought, removed the bolt, and slung it over my shoulder for the ten mile walk home. Had a couple folks slow down when they saw what I had, and about three-quarters a way home, SLPD stopped to investigate. When the cop saw the weapon's condition, (still had the yellow safety strap for lockout), and heard my explanation, he just laughed and got back in his car.

The point is, open carry shouldn't be penalized, nor should it be abused. This turd abused his right, and because of him, the ones of us who don't do anything wrong with our guns are going to be vilified even more.


the fact that he's carrying it pointed out and loaded is what bothers me the most. I would have a MUCH easier time with this if he took the mag out and ran a bore strap through it and carried it properly. He'd be a garden-variety insane turdburgler instead of a nuclear-submarine class insane turdburgler.
And that cop could stop and laugh at you but he couldn't give you a lift down the road? what a dick he was, too, eh?
 
2013-01-18 04:51:26 PM  

Turbo Cojones: zerkalo: 22. High and tight haircut. AR-15 strapped. And you're not overseas serving your country, why?

somethings shoot back

THIS! I recently bought a copy of "Shotgun News" for the first time in a dozen years or so. I immediately noticed that the advertising centered around middle-aged men carrying AR-15s with a bunch of crap strapped to the rails (sporting guns?). The defining feature was that nearly every one had that same haircut, and was dressed in some sort of OD uniform, some with helmets and utility belts. The kicker was that several were wearing headsets (to communicate with other Real Patriots?).

Assuming that the ad writers know their market, this magazine made me feel uneasy about the mental health of its readership. Are all gun owners "coming out" and living their GI Joe fantasies? Combined with the number of morans who are suddenly feeling the need to pack rifles when they buy milk, I think it might be so.

/What kind of coward pussy does this?


Libertarians preparing for war against the evil government.
 
2013-01-18 04:51:56 PM  
img832.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-18 04:57:28 PM  

Vodka Zombie: When a Middle Eastern girl has better gun smarts than your dumb American ass, you really should not be walking around with the damn thing.


WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE POST PICTURES OF THE IDF WOMEN?!
 
2013-01-18 05:08:18 PM  

trappedspirit: IlGreven: If we cure the economic instability, we cure a lot of the factors that lead to the sort of hopelessness that leads to mass killings...

The hopelessness that leads to mass killings? Did you really just type that?


...do you really think that any of the mass killings would have happened had the killers been happy with their lot in life? Even if they were from rich families, they were ostracized even from them. Even if there was reason, you let someone who's a little off go into despair, these are the kinds of things they do.

That's why mental health alone will fix nothing, just like an assault weapons ban will fix nothing (except that the last one did fix something, but that's something the gun nuts won't admit or even acknowledge). And dismissing any mass killer as "just crazy" does more to exacerbate the problem than to fix anything.
 
2013-01-18 05:10:37 PM  
This is the gun-nut version of "I'm not touching you" that older siblings have tormented younger siblings with since the dawn of time.
 
2013-01-18 05:21:46 PM  

IlGreven: trappedspirit: IlGreven: If we cure the economic instability, we cure a lot of the factors that lead to the sort of hopelessness that leads to mass killings...

The hopelessness that leads to mass killings? Did you really just type that?

...do you really think that any of the mass killings would have happened had the killers been happy with their lot in life? Even if they were from rich families, they were ostracized even from them. Even if there was reason, you let someone who's a little off go into despair, these are the kinds of things they do.

That's why mental health alone will fix nothing, just like an assault weapons ban will fix nothing (except that the last one did fix something, but that's something the gun nuts won't admit or even acknowledge). And dismissing any mass killer as "just crazy" does more to exacerbate the problem than to fix anything.


What did the last AWB fix?
 
2013-01-18 05:30:57 PM  
sad that the thread is dying down, because i am genuinely curious what the reaction of concealed carry holders would be in this situation. if you were in the store and saw this guy would you follow him to ensure that he didn't start shooting, would you try to get away from him or would you do the same thing you would do if there weren't a guy with a loaded weapon strapped to his back.
 
2013-01-18 05:40:12 PM  

johnny queso: sad that the thread is dying down, because i am genuinely curious what the reaction of concealed carry holders would be in this situation. if you were in the store and saw this guy would you follow him to ensure that he didn't start shooting, would you try to get away from him or would you do the same thing you would do if there weren't a guy with a loaded weapon strapped to his back.


I got the certification, but I simply never carried.  It's hard to explain, but most CCW holders simply don't carry the vast majority of the time.  Because I'm in VA and wandering around with a long-arm with the magazine in is illegal, I would let the police know.
 
2013-01-18 05:41:26 PM  

johnny queso: sad that the thread is dying down, because i am genuinely curious what the reaction of concealed carry holders would be in this situation. if you were in the store and saw this guy would you follow him to ensure that he didn't start shooting, would you try to get away from him or would you do the same thing you would do if there weren't a guy with a loaded weapon strapped to his back.


With it over his shoulder and him at the counter, I would probably just raise my eyebrows since it's obviously a little unexpected. From the picture, he's not being a threat or even remotely acting like it. The lady in the article even said outright that she never felt threatened.
And no, I don't think what he did was a good idea. He isn't helping things.
 
2013-01-18 05:45:55 PM  

vygramul: justtray: Is that why the same people are also predominantly pro life?

Well, if we're going to take a term out of its issue-context, why are people who want to limit my firearms choices predominantly pro-choice?

/And why can they find their right to an abortion in the Constitution, but not my right to a gun?
//Inquiring minds want to know!


Because being against all restriction on personal freedoms isnt the same as believing some freedoms are deserving of some restriction. Which is how gun nut pro lifers differ from anti gun pro choicers
 
2013-01-18 05:52:53 PM  

vygramul: johnny queso: sad that the thread is dying down, because i am genuinely curious what the reaction of concealed carry holders would be in this situation. if you were in the store and saw this guy would you follow him to ensure that he didn't start shooting, would you try to get away from him or would you do the same thing you would do if there weren't a guy with a loaded weapon strapped to his back.

I got the certification, but I simply never carried.  It's hard to explain, but most CCW holders simply don't carry the vast majority of the time.  Because I'm in VA and wandering around with a long-arm with the magazine in is illegal, I would let the police know.


What if you were within a jurisdiction that allows it and you had your concealed weapon with you? That's the real question that was asked even if it would by hypothetical for you.
 
2013-01-18 05:55:19 PM  

justtray: vygramul: justtray: Is that why the same people are also predominantly pro life?

Well, if we're going to take a term out of its issue-context, why are people who want to limit my firearms choices predominantly pro-choice?

/And why can they find their right to an abortion in the Constitution, but not my right to a gun?
//Inquiring minds want to know!

Because being against all restriction on personal freedoms isnt the same as believing some freedoms are deserving of some restriction. Which is how gun nut pro lifers differ from anti gun pro choicers


Abortion is one of those things which, by its very nature, seems like people are either against it entirely, or believe in almost no restrictions.  Guns don't quite have that same quality.

That having been said, both advocates and both opponents have largely the same issue in mind: operationalizing the slippery slope.  Pro-choice people fight even later-term non-health-related abortion restrictions on children for the same reason that gun nuts don't want even a 100-round magazine cap: they're afraid of the precedent.

And that fear is not unwarranted.  Bot issues have had opponents state EXPLICITLY that the slippery-slope was their goal.  "We hope that when this passes, it will lead to more legislation."

And in both debates, adults are in extremely short supply.
 
2013-01-18 05:56:20 PM  

Farkage: johnny queso: sad that the thread is dying down, because i am genuinely curious what the reaction of concealed carry holders would be in this situation. if you were in the store and saw this guy would you follow him to ensure that he didn't start shooting, would you try to get away from him or would you do the same thing you would do if there weren't a guy with a loaded weapon strapped to his back.

With it over his shoulder and him at the counter, I would probably just raise my eyebrows since it's obviously a little unexpected. From the picture, he's not being a threat or even remotely acting like it. The lady in the article even said outright that she never felt threatened.
And no, I don't think what he did was a good idea. He isn't helping things.


At all.

there is no way of knowing his intention and the transition from carrying to shooting is a matter of a handful of seconds at most. wonder what his response would be upon encountering another dude similarly armed.
 
2013-01-18 06:02:04 PM  

Robert Farker: vygramul: johnny queso: sad that the thread is dying down, because i am genuinely curious what the reaction of concealed carry holders would be in this situation. if you were in the store and saw this guy would you follow him to ensure that he didn't start shooting, would you try to get away from him or would you do the same thing you would do if there weren't a guy with a loaded weapon strapped to his back.

I got the certification, but I simply never carried.  It's hard to explain, but most CCW holders simply don't carry the vast majority of the time.  Because I'm in VA and wandering around with a long-arm with the magazine in is illegal, I would let the police know.

What if you were within a jurisdiction that allows it and you had your concealed weapon with you? That's the real question that was asked even if it would by hypothetical for you.


He's probably harmless.  But he might be waiting for a confrontation.  I would leave and let mall security know and leave the mall.  A concealed weapon is for defense where it's needed.  It's not a license to stalk potential criminals a la Zimmerman, who did exactly the wrong thing to put himself in the situation where "stand your ground" became an issue.  Mall security needs to assess the issue, not me, and I can go shopping some other time.  People might consider that cowardly, but discretion is the better part of valor.
 
2013-01-18 06:04:14 PM  

johnny queso: Farkage: johnny queso: sad that the thread is dying down, because i am genuinely curious what the reaction of concealed carry holders would be in this situation. if you were in the store and saw this guy would you follow him to ensure that he didn't start shooting, would you try to get away from him or would you do the same thing you would do if there weren't a guy with a loaded weapon strapped to his back.

With it over his shoulder and him at the counter, I would probably just raise my eyebrows since it's obviously a little unexpected. From the picture, he's not being a threat or even remotely acting like it. The lady in the article even said outright that she never felt threatened.
And no, I don't think what he did was a good idea. He isn't helping things.

At all.

there is no way of knowing his intention and the transition from carrying to shooting is a matter of a handful of seconds at most. wonder what his response would be upon encountering another dude similarly armed.


Very true.

justtray: vygramul: justtray: Is that why the same people are also predominantly pro life?

Well, if we're going to take a term out of its issue-context, why are people who want to limit my firearms choices predominantly pro-choice?

/And why can they find their right to an abortion in the Constitution, but not my right to a gun?
//Inquiring minds want to know!

Because being against all restriction on personal freedoms isnt the same as believing some freedoms are deserving of some restriction. Which is how gun nut pro lifers differ from anti gun pro choicers


What about us pro-gun, pro-choice types? I've found that not many people really know what to make of a pretty liberal leaning but adamant 2nd amendment supporter.
 
2013-01-18 06:05:02 PM  

vygramul: Robert Farker: vygramul: johnny queso: sad that the thread is dying down, because i am genuinely curious what the reaction of concealed carry holders would be in this situation. if you were in the store and saw this guy would you follow him to ensure that he didn't start shooting, would you try to get away from him or would you do the same thing you would do if there weren't a guy with a loaded weapon strapped to his back.

I got the certification, but I simply never carried.  It's hard to explain, but most CCW holders simply don't carry the vast majority of the time.  Because I'm in VA and wandering around with a long-arm with the magazine in is illegal, I would let the police know.

What if you were within a jurisdiction that allows it and you had your concealed weapon with you? That's the real question that was asked even if it would by hypothetical for you.

He's probably harmless.  But he might be waiting for a confrontation.  I would leave and let mall security know and leave the mall.  A concealed weapon is for defense where it's needed.  It's not a license to stalk potential criminals a la Zimmerman, who did exactly the wrong thing to put himself in the situation where "stand your ground" became an issue.  Mall security needs to assess the issue, not me, and I can go shopping some other time.  People might consider that cowardly, but discretion is the better part of valor.


that is not cowardly.
 
2013-01-18 06:12:50 PM  

johnny queso: vygramul: Robert Farker: vygramul: johnny queso: sad that the thread is dying down, because i am genuinely curious what the reaction of concealed carry holders would be in this situation. if you were in the store and saw this guy would you follow him to ensure that he didn't start shooting, would you try to get away from him or would you do the same thing you would do if there weren't a guy with a loaded weapon strapped to his back.

I got the certification, but I simply never carried.  It's hard to explain, but most CCW holders simply don't carry the vast majority of the time.  Because I'm in VA and wandering around with a long-arm with the magazine in is illegal, I would let the police know.

What if you were within a jurisdiction that allows it and you had your concealed weapon with you? That's the real question that was asked even if it would by hypothetical for you.

He's probably harmless.  But he might be waiting for a confrontation.  I would leave and let mall security know and leave the mall.  A concealed weapon is for defense where it's needed.  It's not a license to stalk potential criminals a la Zimmerman, who did exactly the wrong thing to put himself in the situation where "stand your ground" became an issue.  Mall security needs to assess the issue, not me, and I can go shopping some other time.  People might consider that cowardly, but discretion is the better part of valor.

that is not cowardly.


Agreed
 
2013-01-18 06:32:33 PM  

Maul555: hubiestubert: Callous: hubiestubert: Callous: Abacus9: Gyrfalcon: Why do you need an assault rifle to go shopping? No, seriously. Bearing in mind that a weapon is only useful if it is in your hands when you need it, realistically speaking, why do you need a rifle when you're shopping?

What I always find odd is that they always just answer with: "I don't NEED it, but it's my RIGHT to carry it!" Seriously, when did grown adults start acting like this. Doing something just because you can, for no good reason.

Tell me about it.  This shiat really creeps some people out.

[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 640x480]

Got anything better than insults?

Didn't think so...

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 640x480]

Quit using firefly references! some of us gun nuts are fans of the show, and they used evil guns in the show too! Even assault rifles!


This is what I do...
 
2013-01-18 07:02:48 PM  

Baz the Spaz: In some places, like Israel, this is acceptable.

[www.theblaze.com image 600x449]
[frgdr.com image 850x637]
[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Just sayin'....


Active duty soldiers carrying weapons in what amounts to a combat zone is acceptable?
 
2013-01-18 07:54:26 PM  
Regulation is not banning, nor is it taking away all your guns.

There's no legitimate reason to carry an assault weapon with you to the mall when a pistol works just as well.

Look, pro-gun people, many of us are trying to be on your side, but you're not helping yourselves or us with your constant cries of "EVERYONE WANNA TAKE OUR GUNS COMPLETELY AWAY!!" and pulling stunts like this, especially after several mass shootings over a short amount of time.
 
2013-01-18 08:00:43 PM  

vygramul: Robert Farker: vygramul: johnny queso: sad that the thread is dying down, because i am genuinely curious what the reaction of concealed carry holders would be in this situation. if you were in the store and saw this guy would you follow him to ensure that he didn't start shooting, would you try to get away from him or would you do the same thing you would do if there weren't a guy with a loaded weapon strapped to his back.

I got the certification, but I simply never carried.  It's hard to explain, but most CCW holders simply don't carry the vast majority of the time.  Because I'm in VA and wandering around with a long-arm with the magazine in is illegal, I would let the police know.

What if you were within a jurisdiction that allows it and you had your concealed weapon with you? That's the real question that was asked even if it would by hypothetical for you.

He's probably harmless.  But he might be waiting for a confrontation.  I would leave and let mall security know and leave the mall.  A concealed weapon is for defense where it's needed.  It's not a license to stalk potential criminals a la Zimmerman, who did exactly the wrong thing to put himself in the situation where "stand your ground" became an issue.  Mall security needs to assess the issue, not me, and I can go shopping some other time.  People might consider that cowardly, but discretion is the better part of valor.


Dude. Take the mag out. Don't be a douche.
 
2013-01-18 09:27:58 PM  

TommyymmoT: Eventually, one of those assholes are going to get shot by somebody thinking they're some crazed gunman, because seriously, who brings an AR-15 to the mall?


This was my reaction.
 
2013-01-18 10:14:28 PM  

utah dude: [img832.imageshack.us image 54x11]


Hah! Yep.
 
2013-01-19 12:05:53 AM  

way south: Z-clipped:
What the hell are you talking about? Attempting to draw a slung or holstered firearm when you've already lost the initiative and are standing at barrel's end is about the quickest way to die I can think of. You're saying THAT's what a highly-trained civilian gun owner is likely to do!? What you're proposing is ridiculous. It presupposes rational behavior on the part of the criminal, and irrational behavior on the part of the victim.

No, I'm saying that is what a criminal fears.
Irrational behavior isn't limited to the crooks side of this equation. They know that, which is why it isn't any more common for them to challenge armed citizens than it is for birds to attack brightly colored snakes.
If I've got to mug several people to make ends meet, picking the visibly armed ones is a quick way to earn a Darwin award.


You're making the common mistake of assuming that you know what a criminal is thinking just because something seems rational to you.

It seems reasonable to you that mugging an armed victim would be more difficult or more risky. Except that in reality, it's not. That assumption is based on flawed reasoning.

A mugger looks for two things: 1. Do you have something worth taking? 2. Are you paying attention to your surroundings? If you aren't aware of what's happening around you, the gun you're carrying may as well be a diamond necklace. A mugger knows this, whether you do or not.
 
2013-01-19 12:08:25 AM  
FTFA: Aposhian believes exposure to weapons like this may make people more tolerant of them in the future, but, for now, he says carrying weapons this way is a bad idea, even if it is legal.

Yeah, pretty much.
 
2013-01-19 12:32:55 AM  

muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

facepalm. Everything i said about you is correct


ad homming again? shame on you.
 
2013-01-19 12:41:51 AM  

Bucky Katt: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

facepalm. Everything i said about you is correct

ad homming again? shame on you.


You're still stupid? I won't shame you for that, you were just born that way.
 
2013-01-19 12:50:44 AM  

muck4doo: Bucky Katt: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

facepalm. Everything i said about you is correct

ad homming again? shame on you.

You're still stupid? I won't shame you for that, you were just born that way.


Always going with the personal insult instead of actual thought? Yep, that's you. You are SO profound.
 
2013-01-19 02:59:16 AM  

Bucky Katt: muck4doo: Bucky Katt: muck4doo: HotWingConspiracy: An assault rifle ban isn't a gun ban. You can still own guns.

facepalm. Everything i said about you is correct

ad homming again? shame on you.

You're still stupid? I won't shame you for that, you were just born that way.

Always going with the personal insult instead of actual thought? Yep, that's you. You are SO profound.


You should try being profound sometime. It's hard work. Obama ain't just going to give you that gift no mater what you believe.
 
Displayed 50 of 637 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report