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.

(SFGate)   Looks like California is going to get a lot more polite. Or something   (sfgate.com) divider line 404
    More: Interesting, California law, San Francisco County Superior Court, concealed weapons  
•       •       •

10362 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2014 at 6:15 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



404 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-13 04:54:15 PM  
When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.
 
2014-02-13 05:00:56 PM  
No texting in movie theatres!
 
2014-02-13 05:02:06 PM  

AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.


I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.
 
2014-02-13 05:03:56 PM  

James!: AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.

I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.


But if the ninth is in agreement with the more conservative circuits, then... good grief... you think the SC is going to rule otherwise?
 
2014-02-13 05:09:34 PM  
Well that's a crappy decision. Hopefully the state appeals quickly.
 
2014-02-13 05:29:47 PM  
Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread
 
2014-02-13 05:38:54 PM  

AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.


MaudlinMutantMollusk: Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread


And that sums it up nicely.
 
2014-02-13 05:44:02 PM  
So I've read a couple of different articles about this, and what I get from it is that nothing really changed except in San Diego county, where, in addition to a waiting period and mandatory safety training, you were required to prove that you had immediate need to defend yourself with a carried gun.

It seems like this ruling, even if it is not appealed, doesn't directly affect more than a handful of counties, and at most removes the requirement for the applicant to indicate their immediate need, in favor of a more general explanation of need. The waiting period and mandatory safety training are still in place and weren't even challenged. And the local government gets to decide what type of carry permit you receive.
 
2014-02-13 05:47:08 PM  
State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns

"Hmm, I see hear you once rented "SEX STARVED fark SLUTS #22: STINKY WHITE WOMEN". Application denied."
 
2014-02-13 05:51:59 PM  

fusillade762: State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns

"Hmm, I see hear you once rented "SEX STARVED fark SLUTS #22: STINKY WHITE WOMEN". Application denied."


I am saddened by the fact that the funny button has not yet made an appearance in this thread.
 
2014-02-13 06:16:28 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread


I will shoot you in the face
 
2014-02-13 06:18:07 PM  
I don't have enough popcorn in the world to keep reading what will follow in this thread.
 
2014-02-13 06:18:41 PM  
Hurray! It is safe to go in public with a tiny penis again!
 
2014-02-13 06:19:27 PM  
Activist judges do suck, don't see what that has to do with this ruling though.
 
2014-02-13 06:19:52 PM  
I'm Californian, and a "lib" by Fark standards - I have no problem with this. Anybody who's rich or famous can get one anyway.
 
2014-02-13 06:20:21 PM  
So they're not breaking away from the US and joining Canada?  Pity.
 
2014-02-13 06:22:08 PM  

AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.


B-b-b-but the comma!  That comma means that the 2nd Amendment totes doesn't protect a personal right, rather a collective right!
 
2014-02-13 06:22:37 PM  
I don't feel safer or less safe with people here being able to concealed carry. There are times however I feel safer when I carry than not. I haven't had to ever draw thankfully, but I would rather have that ability should I need it than not. I have known far too many people who have suffered from not being armed than I know people who have been the victim of an accident (none) or the victim of someone who carries legally (none).
 
2014-02-13 06:22:54 PM  
Yeah, I think we know what happens next. Rivers of blood, piles of bodies, dogs/cats living together.

/ yawn
 
2014-02-13 06:23:22 PM  
Someone may have to update that color-coded map. Other than that, everything will be ok.
 
2014-02-13 06:23:37 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread

I will shoot you in the face


If you were clear across the continent I'd ignore that

/but you're actually close enough to stalk me
//now I need a CCW permit
 
2014-02-13 06:24:35 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: So they're not breaking away from the US and joining Canada?  Pity.


As a Californian, I agree.
 
2014-02-13 06:24:50 PM  
i184.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-13 06:25:50 PM  
The dissenting spokes-judge (Judge Sidney Thomas) still holds the liberal bias against law abiding citizens and their 2nd Amendment arms bearing rights and those non-law-abiding folks who will still carry concealed weapons regardless of their felonious past/ domestic violence misdemeanoring, or any stinking paperwork from the County Sheriff... so no big change in LA, Oakland, or other neighborhoods beset by drug trafficking, gang warfare or other murderous intent...  so, no, I wouldn't take that midnight to 8am gas station cashier job!
 
2014-02-13 06:30:06 PM  

crotchgrabber: Day_Old_Dutchie: So they're not breaking away from the US and joining Canada?  Pity.

As a Californian, I agree.


You Californians deserve to have Bieber.
 
2014-02-13 06:32:51 PM  

PowerSlacker: crotchgrabber: Day_Old_Dutchie: So they're not breaking away from the US and joining Canada?  Pity.

As a Californian, I agree.

You Californians deserve to have Bieber.


We seem to already have him. Doesn't seem to matter either way. Besides, he hangs out in the gross end of the state.
 
2014-02-13 06:34:58 PM  
i would like to vote for 'something"
 
2014-02-13 06:36:26 PM  
This isn't the only 'bear' case that is winding its way through the courts. There are a couple others further along. Look for SCOTUS to take up a concealed carry case as early as its next term.
 
2014-02-13 06:38:16 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: I don't feel safer or less safe with people here being able to concealed carry. There are times however I feel safer when I carry than not. I haven't had to ever draw thankfully, but I would rather have that ability should I need it than not. I have known far too many people who have suffered from not being armed than I know people who have been the victim of an accident (none) or the victim of someone who carries legally (none).


I must live in a bubble. A bubble that is on a main street, six blocks north of Oakland, CA.

In all the years that I've lived in this area, I've never once know anyone who has been the victim of a crime where having a carry permit would have helped. In 20 years of living in urban areas, I've known only one couple who were asleep during a home invasion, and only woke up as the tweekers started beating on them in their bed. They didn't have a gun, but neither did the tweekers, who ran off before doing any serious bodily harm.

I always wonder about social circles where many people are involved in, or victims of, violent crime.
 
2014-02-13 06:38:20 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Well that's a crappy decision. Hopefully the state appeals quickly.


That constitutional 'the people'-type stuff is a real biatch when you disagree with it, isn't it?

Any thoughts on any of those other obnoxious amendments?
 
2014-02-13 06:38:21 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Contrabulous Flabtraption: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread

I will shoot you in the face

If you were clear across the continent I'd ignore that

/but you're actually close enough to stalk me
//now I need a CCW permit


Hey did your bar ever get the stuffed wolverine or whatever it was back?
 
2014-02-13 06:40:13 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: This isn't the only 'bear' case that is winding its way through the courts. There are a couple others further along. Look for SCOTUS to take up a concealed carry case as early as its next term.


Oops, now with linkage.
 
2014-02-13 06:40:53 PM  

AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.


This.
 
2014-02-13 06:42:56 PM  

AntiGravitas: James!: AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.

I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.

But if the ninth is in agreement with the more conservative circuits, then... good grief... you think the SC is going to rule otherwise?


The ninth is only agreeing on how the Constitution should be read, not that the Constitution is above scrutiny. Conservatives tend to treat the Constitution like it is the immutable Word of God*, despite the fact that it has been changed multiple times, and changed back once.

*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state, separation of powers, or when the president is near.
 
2014-02-13 06:47:26 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread


The activist judges are in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits.  The 9th essentially said as much, excerpt from the decision below:

9th Circuit
We are unpersuaded by the decisions of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits for several reasons. First, contrary to the approach in Heller, all three courts declined to undertake a complete historical analysis of the scope and nature of the Second Amendment right outside the home. Compare Heller, 554 U.S. at 605 (examining the post-ratification interpretations of the Second Amendment because "the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification" is "a critical tool of constitutional interpretation" (emphasis omitted)), with Drake, 724 F.3d at 431 (noting that the court was "not inclined to address [text, history, tradition and precedent] by engaging in a round of fullblown historical analysis" and relying on the Second Circuit's conclusion that "[h]istory and tradition do not speak with one voice" (quoting Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 91)); Woollard, 712 F.3d at 874-76 (declining to "impart a definitive ruling" regarding the scope of the Second Amendment right), and Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 91 (refusing to look at "highly ambiguous history and tradition to determine the meaning of the Amendment"). As a result, they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right and the implications of state laws that prevent the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense purposes.

There is more, see page 67 in the ruling, and the footnote on the bottom of 67 carried to 68.

It will be interesting how this plays out.  The majority of the urban counties (aside from Sacramento) in CA have the same policy as San Diego.

The funny/sad/ironc thing about this is it may not have happened without the unloaded-open-carry nitwits pissing all the soccer moms off.  The original case lost in part, because according to the judge at least, unloaded-open-carry fulfilled the "Bear" portion of the 2nd.  CA banning all open carry in urban areas took that off the table.

We have a big circuit split now, with 7th and 9th saying "bear arms" means "bear arms", and 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clinging to the pre-Heller bear-only-means-militia.  Hopefully this will finally get SCOTUS to take a case, Drake v. Jerejian has been filed, regarding New Jersey's nearly identical CCW Good cause policy to CA.
 
2014-02-13 06:52:00 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-13 06:53:38 PM  
Make a bunch of stupid knee jerk reaction laws, get a knee jerk reaction ruling in court that undoes the BS and moves the bar back a few steps. Maybe in 50 years we'll be able to restore all the "rights" that have been eroded.
 
2014-02-13 06:54:47 PM  

LoneWolf343: The ninth is only agreeing on how the Constitution should be read, not that the Constitution is above scrutiny. Conservatives tend to treat the Constitution like it is the immutable Word of God*, despite the fact that it has been changed multiple times, and changed back once.


Yea, see... that's the deal. If people want it changed, they need to change it. It specifically allows for a process to do just that. If people don't like the Second Amendment... draft legislation, have all those votes, put it down in black and white with a number in front of it, and staple these new rules to the corner of it if need be. 'Reinterpretation from a previously acceptable meaning' is not change.

Personally, I'd like to put a little rework on that 1st Amendment, but just grandly announcing that "Everything is ok. It's changed now because we're going to do it like this instead." doesn't get the job done.
 
2014-02-13 06:56:35 PM  
FTA:
Martin Mayer, a lawyer for statewide organizations of law enforcement officers, endorsed Thomas' view. He said the ruling would lead to a proliferation of guns on the streets.
"The majority of peace officers killed in the line of duty are killed by guns," Mayer said. "If you have a domestic violence incident and a gun is available, it's more likely to be used. ...It increases the harm to law enforcement and to the public."


Ahem, 36% is not a majority.   1540 total killed 2003 - 2012, 564 shot. More are killed in vehicle-related accidents than are shot.

As for the "domestic incident" - wouldn't most of those take place INSIDE the home, where the permit doesn't apply?

Google-fu on non-fatal assaults was weaker.
 
2014-02-13 06:57:42 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Hey did your bar ever get the stuffed wolverine or whatever it was back?


Naw... DFG kept it, the bestids

/they took the dead chupacabra, too
//they're just no fun at all
 
2014-02-13 06:59:47 PM  
the money is in the banana stand:
*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state, separation of powers, or when the president is near.

You realize, right, that neither marriage nor religion or mentioned in the constitution?
 
2014-02-13 07:01:47 PM  
The stripping of rights is slowly being reversed as people realize the FUD on the 2nd amendment was never justified. Now we need to do the same thing about our other rights.
 
2014-02-13 07:06:42 PM  

Itstoearly: the money is in the banana stand:
*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state, separation of powers, or when the president is near.

You realize, right, that neither marriage nor religion or mentioned in the constitution?


did you really just say that religion isn't mentioned in the constitution?

read the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
2014-02-13 07:11:20 PM  
My question to our collection of farklawyerguys: Can I apply for a CCW if I don't own a weapon? Planning on getting my Boobiesol some time this year ... I guess I'll need it before applying?
/live in Oakland
 
2014-02-13 07:14:38 PM  
Get ready to add CA and HI to the shall-issue states. Take note, other may-issue states/localities.
 
2014-02-13 07:17:09 PM  
All this does is remove the arbitrary issue of permits to campaign donors and famous people.

Making the rules non-subjective is not a bad thing.
 
2014-02-13 07:17:40 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Well that's a crappy decision. Hopefully the state appeals quickly.


I said WHAT?!  and then I remembered what website I was on...
 
2014-02-13 07:17:50 PM  

LoneWolf343: AntiGravitas: James!: AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.

I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.

But if the ninth is in agreement with the more conservative circuits, then... good grief... you think the SC is going to rule otherwise?

The ninth is only agreeing on how the Constitution should be read, not that the Constitution is above scrutiny. Conservatives tend to treat the Constitution like it is the immutable Word of God*, despite the fact that it has been changed multiple times, and changed back once.

*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state, separation of powers, or when the president is near.


Yes it has, why don't liberals go through the defined method of changing it rather than trying to twist new meanings out of old established words?
 
2014-02-13 07:18:12 PM  
"The majority of peace officers killed in the line of duty are killed by guns," Mayer said. "If you have a domestic violence incident and a gun is available, it's more likely to be used. ...It increases the harm to law enforcement and to the public."

And since domestic violence takes place, you know, at home then the concealed carry rule would have absolutely no effect in deterring this and your comment is totally irrelevant.
 
2014-02-13 07:19:55 PM  
tea baggers and deniers.
 
2014-02-13 07:20:13 PM  

lostcat: So I've read a couple of different articles about this, and what I get from it is that nothing really changed except in San Diego county, where, in addition to a waiting period and mandatory safety training, you were required to prove that you had immediate need to defend yourself with a carried gun.

It seems like this ruling, even if it is not appealed, doesn't directly affect more than a handful of counties, and at most removes the requirement for the applicant to indicate their immediate need, in favor of a more general explanation of need. The waiting period and mandatory safety training are still in place and weren't even challenged. And the local government gets to decide what type of carry permit you receive.


The way California does it (or did it I guess) makes it essentially impossible to ever get a carry permit unless you have a job that requires it or you knew someone in the sheriffs dept.. The laws say that it's allowed but the number of approved applications was close to zero. As I understand it the sheriffs departments from all of the counties had an informal agreement to not issue the permits using the explanation that the person applying hadn't shown a need for it, wanting it wasn't good enough even if you met all of the "Official" state law requirements. This ruling means that it's up to the sheriffs departments to show cause for not issuing and not just saying no with no reason given other than "Not needing" it.

I think that if someone can pass the background checks, has been trained in gun safety (including passing a written test on the related laws including what states they would get in trouble in if they carried in them) and has shown at least a good familiarity with the weapon that they will be carrying on a range (using the USNs scoring system should work) then there should be no reason to deny them the right to carry. After that if they are caught by the police brandishing or otherwise being provably unsafe then their permit gets pulled until they can show that it won't happen again (so probably for life for most people).
 
2014-02-13 07:21:09 PM  

fusillade762: State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns


In the county of my old boss, this meant letting the police chief feel up your wife. But damned if he didn't get one of only a dozen allowed CC permits.

/serious
//no names
 
2014-02-13 07:21:16 PM  
Guns are for pussies.
 
2014-02-13 07:22:00 PM  
I can't decide if this makes the police more likely to shoot you dead or less.

Gonna go with "more".
 
2014-02-13 07:22:43 PM  
Bout time fer chrisakes.
 
2014-02-13 07:23:11 PM  
FTFA: "In this file photo, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer points to a shooting target in his office that was used during his firearm training for a concealed weapon permit he obtained because of death threats he received following his 2005 same-sex marriage ruling in San Francisco."

I looked at the photo in the article of the judge pointing to the target from his CCW test and my first thought was, "Holy crap dude, they gave you a CCW with grouping like that?"
 
2014-02-13 07:23:28 PM  
cdn.styleforum.net
 
2014-02-13 07:23:29 PM  
guns are for pussies
 
2014-02-13 07:25:58 PM  
One day, in a glorious, shining future, everyone will carry at least three guns, all the time, everywhere, and peace and happiness and serenity will reign forever.

/also we need to get rid of 0bummercare and require picture IDs for voters and control lady parts and drive all 11 million illegal immigrants out of the country and also BENGHAZI
 
2014-02-13 07:26:09 PM  

Raging Whore Moans: guns are for pussies


Sorry, you don't medal in the Troll Olympics.
The Russian judge gave you a two, but all the others gave you the finger. Better luck in four years.
 
2014-02-13 07:30:12 PM  
LoneWolf343

AntiGravitas: James!: AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over. Seriously.

I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.

But if the ninth is in agreement with the more conservative circuits, then... good grief... you think the SC is going to rule otherwise?

The ninth is only agreeing on how the Constitution should be read, not that the Constitution is above scrutiny. Conservatives tend to treat the Constitution like it is the immutable Word of God*, despite the fact that it has been changed multiple times, and changed back once.

*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state,
I'll give you 50 bucks if you can provide that quote "separation of church and state" from the US Constitution.

separation of powers
You mean like zero re-writing obama care? I would have sworn the USC said Congress not the exec. branch writes law.,
or when the president is near.
WTF are you talking about?
 
2014-02-13 07:32:36 PM  
Holy crap!  Awesome!  Now I can finally get a CCW here!

If I wanted to...probably won't.  Nah, definitely won't.  But, sweet!
 
2014-02-13 07:32:48 PM  

tylerdurden217: Guns are for pussies.


Raging Whore Moans: guns are for pussies


This is for fighting, this is for fun!
 
2014-02-13 07:32:49 PM  

Raging Whore Moans: guns are for pussies




Whatever floats your boat I guess? I use my penis for those...
 
2014-02-13 07:32:58 PM  

OnlyM3: LoneWolf343

AntiGravitas: James!: AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over. Seriously.

I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.

But if the ninth is in agreement with the more conservative circuits, then... good grief... you think the SC is going to rule otherwise?

The ninth is only agreeing on how the Constitution should be read, not that the Constitution is above scrutiny. Conservatives tend to treat the Constitution like it is the immutable Word of God*, despite the fact that it has been changed multiple times, and changed back once.

*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state,I'll give you 50 bucks if you can provide that quote "separation of church and state" from the US Constitution.

separation of powersYou mean like zero re-writing obama care? I would have sworn the USC said Congress not the exec. branch writes law.,
or when the president is near.WTF are you talking about?


You missed 'gay marriage.' It doesn't mention that, either.
 
2014-02-13 07:35:51 PM  

moike: FTFA: "In this file photo, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer points to a shooting target in his office that was used during his firearm training for a concealed weapon permit he obtained because of death threats he received following his 2005 same-sex marriage ruling in San Francisco."

I looked at the photo in the article of the judge pointing to the target from his CCW test and my first thought was, "Holy crap dude, they gave you a CCW with grouping like that?"


Well since most states don't even require live fire (or often training/testing of any sort), it seems like a minor point.
 
2014-02-13 07:37:37 PM  

ElLoco: OnlyM3: LoneWolf343

AntiGravitas: James!: AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over. Seriously.

I think there's at least one more place for the debate to go after the ninth.

But if the ninth is in agreement with the more conservative circuits, then... good grief... you think the SC is going to rule otherwise?

The ninth is only agreeing on how the Constitution should be read, not that the Constitution is above scrutiny. Conservatives tend to treat the Constitution like it is the immutable Word of God*, despite the fact that it has been changed multiple times, and changed back once.

*Except when it comes to gay marriage, separation of church and state,I'll give you 50 bucks if you can provide that quote "separation of church and state" from the US Constitution.

separation of powersYou mean like zero re-writing obama care? I would have sworn the USC said Congress not the exec. branch writes law.,
or when the president is near.WTF are you talking about?

You missed 'gay marriage.' It doesn't mention that, either.


I think the 14th amendment covers it.
 
2014-02-13 07:38:07 PM  
As a California resident, I can say that I am happy with this news. I cannot count the times I've had an officer ask me if I was concealing a large-caliber gun in my crotch area.
 
2014-02-13 07:40:26 PM  

moike: FTFA: "In this file photo, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer points to a shooting target in his office that was used during his firearm training for a concealed weapon permit he obtained because of death threats he received following his 2005 same-sex marriage ruling in San Francisco."

I looked at the photo in the article of the judge pointing to the target from his CCW test and my first thought was, "Holy crap dude, they gave you a CCW with grouping like that?"


you don't even need to take a shooting test to get a CCW in my state. I took a test on the internet.

at the range of most defensive shootings, marksmanship isn't a huge concern.
see Zimmerman, George vs Martin, Trayvon.
 
2014-02-13 07:40:33 PM  
About time, but I'll believe it when I see it.

/Californian.
 
2014-02-13 07:40:58 PM  

Finger51: My question to our collection of farklawyerguys: Can I apply for a CCW if I don't own a weapon? Planning on getting my Boobiesol some time this year ... I guess I'll need it before applying?
/live in Oakland


Yes, you can apply without owning a handgun (unless your area requires a CCW tied to each handgun you own), but to complete the safety course you will need access to one.  Most classes have a few 9mm or .22 pistols for rent during the class.
 
2014-02-13 07:43:09 PM  

moike: I looked at the photo in the article of the judge pointing to the target from his CCW test and my first thought was, "Holy crap dude, they gave you a CCW with grouping like that?"


Hey, if 20 out of 30 anywhere on a human sized silhouette at 15 yards is good enough for the military then it should be good enough for everyone else. It's not like the police have a great record of hitting a target based upon past news reports of shootouts where ~60 bullets are fired and the bad guys getting hit once or twice if at all. Remember those woman in a truck during the recent manhunt for that deranged ex-cop? A hail of gunfire and not one of them got hit.

The average person who doesn't shoot a lot is usually a lousy shot. I was an RSO in the navy and if I had to keep training people on the range until everyone was a good shot I'd have blown through my yearly ammo budget really quickly and not had enough qualified watch standers to perform our mission.
 
2014-02-13 07:45:33 PM  
Well, that debate is over.

Last one out turn out the lights.

Besides, we have a lot of important debates to have. We can focus some energy on those now.
 
2014-02-13 07:45:48 PM  

ChaosStar: Raging Whore Moans: guns are for pussies

Sorry, you don't medal in the Troll Olympics.
The Russian judge gave you a two, but all the others gave you the finger. Better luck in four years.


Oh I get it. That's clever because the Winter Olympics are underway in Sochi.
 
2014-02-13 07:46:11 PM  

Finger51: My question to our collection of farklawyerguys: Can I apply for a CCW if I don't own a weapon? Planning on getting my Boobiesol some time this year ... I guess I'll need it before applying?
/live in Oakland


Don't waste your time.  Regardless of this court decision, neither Sheriff Ahern nor Oakland's Chief of the Month are going to approve your application.
 
2014-02-13 07:46:14 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: I don't feel safer or less safe with people here being able to concealed carry. There are times however I feel safer when I carry than not. I haven't had to ever draw thankfully, but I would rather have that ability should I need it than not. I have known far too many people who have suffered from not being armed than I know people who have been the victim of an accident (none) or the victim of someone who carries legally (none).


I don't feel safer when carrying.. I have a spare tire and jack in my car, and a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Neither one of them protects me from flats or fires, so neither make me feel safer.

They all, however, make me more prepared in case something does go wrong.
 
2014-02-13 07:47:59 PM  
lostcat:
It seems like this ruling, even if it is not appealed, doesn't directly affect more than a handful of counties, and at most removes the requirement for the applicant to indicate their immediate need, in favor of a more general explanation of need. The waiting period and mandatory safety training are still in place and weren't even challenged. And the local government gets to decide what type of carry permit you receive.

Slightly wrong on that. 

The AWESOME decision by the 9th basically says that a county saying that you needed justifiable "good cause" (IE: restraining order by the courts, proof that you've been threatened requiring a signed statement by the person doing the threatening, politician, judge, celebrity, someone that donated a fark-ton of money to the county Sheriff...) can no longer deny you your application based upon just listing "self defense" on the good cause part of the application.

Pretty much if you can legally own a gun in CA, and you wish to carry concealed, then the counties can no longer deny you the issuance of the CCW if your reason is self-defense.  In other words, you can now get one in LA county provided you aren't a prohibited person, which is HUGE.
 
2014-02-13 07:54:23 PM  

shda5582: Pretty much if you can legally own a gun in CA, and you wish to carry concealed, then the counties can no longer deny you the issuance of the CCW if your reason is self-defense

.

I believe that's what the ruling says.

I'd be willing to place a significant wager that Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties still refuse to issue permits to anyone who isn't "connected."
 
2014-02-13 07:54:50 PM  
Well, at least we'll get some interesting data to add to this chart over the next two decades.

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-13 07:55:49 PM  

fnordfocus: Don't waste your time. Regardless of this court decision, neither Sheriff Ahern nor Oakland's Chief of the Month are going to approve your application.


Probably not at first but this decision opens them up to civil lawsuits if they can't show cause for denying the application. This case was all about how the sheriffs were enacting their own de facto gun bans that the law didn't allow for. At the very least they will have to do a lot more in documenting why they denied it other than a well used red rubber stamp that says rejected and nothing else.
 
2014-02-13 07:56:40 PM  

fnordfocus: shda5582: Pretty much if you can legally own a gun in CA, and you wish to carry concealed, then the counties can no longer deny you the issuance of the CCW if your reason is self-defense.

I believe that's what the ruling says.

I'd be willing to place a significant wager that Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties still refuse to issue permits to anyone who isn't "connected."


Oh, I have no doubt.  I'm saving my popcorn for the "try to deny when people file using "self-defense"" lawsuits  :)
 
2014-02-13 07:57:15 PM  
KInda makes you wonder how people in countries like Canada survive. Why are we not all dead from raging armed maniacs on the street?

Or maybe we just are not collective cowards.
 
2014-02-13 07:58:27 PM  

fnordfocus: I'd be willing to place a significant wager that Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties still refuse to issue permits to anyone who isn't "connected."


And I'm willing to bet that they will get sued over it (and lose based upon this decision).
 
2014-02-13 07:59:22 PM  

lostcat: It seems like this ruling, even if it is not appealed, doesn't directly affect more than a handful of counties, and at most removes the requirement for the applicant to indicate their immediate need, in favor of a more general explanation of need. The waiting period and mandatory safety training are still in place and weren't even challenged. And the local government gets to decide what type of carry permit you receive.


What it does do is remove the idea  that in order to get a CCW, you have to show "need" - a nebulous concept that can be interpreted in many arbitrary ways.
 
2014-02-13 07:59:50 PM  

lewismarktwo: Finger51: My question to our collection of farklawyerguys: Can I apply for a CCW if I don't own a weapon? Planning on getting my Boobiesol some time this year ... I guess I'll need it before applying?
/live in Oakland

Yes, you can apply without owning a handgun (unless your area requires a CCW tied to each handgun you own), but to complete the safety course you will need access to one.  Most classes have a few 9mm or .22 pistols for rent during the class.


When I got my original CCW (20+ years ago now.  Yeesh ) they required you to qualify with a .45 ACP and a .44 revolver.  There were some small boned people sweating that when they heard the news.

Fortunately we were also qualifying with "Range Ammo" which apparently had just enough grunt to get the ACP to cycle.
 
2014-02-13 08:00:12 PM  
This is a serious problem. I do not understand why the judges did not take into account the substantially high rate of violent crime committed by concealed weapons permit holders when issuing their ruling.
 
2014-02-13 08:00:53 PM  
Since CA is usually a festival of anti-gun legislation, this is a really amazing development and I really hope this stands.  We really needed a win in contrast to all the usual setbacks crafted by our legislators who are busy quaking in fear of "ghost guns", Bullet Buttons, and repair kits for our magazines.  Since the last attempt to make this a Shall Issue state died quickly in committee last year, I fully expect them to fight this.

I just wish they understood that carrying does not turn us into the roving thugs they think it does.
 
2014-02-13 08:01:54 PM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: KInda makes you wonder how people in countries like Canada survive. Why are we not all dead from raging armed maniacs on the street?

Or maybe we just are not collective cowards.


Population density?

Ever wonder why there's more crime committed in cities than in rural areas? It's because there are more people per unit area.
 
2014-02-13 08:02:03 PM  

OnlyM3: You mean like zero re-writing obama care? I would have sworn the USC said Congress not the exec. branch writes law.,


Except that didn't happen.
 
2014-02-13 08:03:45 PM  
When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?
 
2014-02-13 08:04:17 PM  

Skyd1v: Fortunately we were also qualifying with "Range Ammo" which apparently had just enough grunt to get the ACP to cycle.


Probably because it saves on wear and tear on  weapons that get fired thousands of times and not so much to make it easier on the shooter.
 
2014-02-13 08:08:22 PM  
Feinstein, Pelosi, and Boxer must be spinning in their graves at this news.
 
2014-02-13 08:09:06 PM  

fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?


Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)
 
2014-02-13 08:09:34 PM  
*reads thresd*

I love this sh*t.
 
2014-02-13 08:10:31 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: I have known far too many people who have suffered from not being armed than I know people who have been the victim


Your conclusion that their being armed would have always ended in a better outcome for your victims is, at best, debatable.
 
2014-02-13 08:13:41 PM  

Radioactive Ass: And I'm willing to bet that they will get sued over it (and lose based upon this decision).


Considering that OPD has taken essentially no action on the the terms of the Riders settlement over a decade ago, I'm confident that no permits will get issued even if the City and County do lose.

By the way, does anyone have an idea if this ruling affects whether cities must issue permits?  In at least some counties, the Sheriff has a stated policy of only considering permits for residents of unincorporated areas.
 
2014-02-13 08:14:17 PM  

ElLoco: LoneWolf343: The ninth is only agreeing on how the Constitution should be read, not that the Constitution is above scrutiny. Conservatives tend to treat the Constitution like it is the immutable Word of God*, despite the fact that it has been changed multiple times, and changed back once.

Yea, see... that's the deal. If people want it changed, they need to change it. It specifically allows for a process to do just that. If people don't like the Second Amendment... draft legislation, have all those votes


The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money.

Personally, I'd like to put a little rework on that 1st Amendment, but just grandly announcing that "Everything is ok. It's changed now because we're going to do it like this instead." doesn't get the job done.

I'd like to hear what your issues with the 1st Amendment are.
 
2014-02-13 08:16:44 PM  

lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)


Wow. They count suicides?

Also, they count people who live in states that don't require a CCW permit to carry a firearm. I guess they need to pump up their numbers.

So, by that logic, every suicide in Arizona would be counted as a 'murder committed by a CCW permit holder.'

Unbelievable.

"Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Carey H. Dyess
Suicide
Date: June 2, 2011
People Killed: 6 (including shooter)
Circumstances: On June 2, 2011, Carey H. Dyess, 73, went on an hours-long shooting
rampage in two communities, killing five before taking his own life. In Arizona legal gun
owners can carry concealed handguns without a permit."

As Arizona does not issue CCW permits, how could this guy be a "Concealed Handgun Permit Holder"?
 
2014-02-13 08:17:44 PM  

fnordfocus: Radioactive Ass: And I'm willing to bet that they will get sued over it (and lose based upon this decision).

Considering that OPD has taken essentially no action on the the terms of the Riders settlement over a decade ago, I'm confident that no permits will get issued even if the City and County do lose.

By the way, does anyone have an idea if this ruling affects whether cities must issue permits?  In at least some counties, the Sheriff has a stated policy of only considering permits for residents of unincorporated areas.


Decision sounds pretty definitive.  They'll appeal to SCOTUS and get smacked down like DC did with Heller.  The Supreme Court doesn't like to reverse itself.  Then they'll have to be reasonable about it.

Same old story everywhere.  Wonder how many law abiding citizens will have to suffer before the municipalities get their heads out of their asses.

Oh and I'm sure there's a presidential "I'm very disappointed in this decision" coming too
 
2014-02-13 08:19:28 PM  

sugar_fetus: the money is in the banana stand: I don't feel safer or less safe with people here being able to concealed carry. There are times however I feel safer when I carry than not. I haven't had to ever draw thankfully, but I would rather have that ability should I need it than not. I have known far too many people who have suffered from not being armed than I know people who have been the victim of an accident (none) or the victim of someone who carries legally (none).

I don't feel safer when carrying.. I have a spare tire and jack in my car, and a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Neither one of them protects me from flats or fires, so neither make me feel safer.

They all, however, make me more prepared in case something does go wrong.


I've been assured time and again on Fark that preparation for unlikely events indicates paranoia.  That's why I stopped wearing a seat belt and threw away my smoke detectors.
 
2014-02-13 08:19:34 PM  

lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)


Many of the homicides were committed without use of firearms or in private residences were no permit was necessary. Additionally, several of the listed "killers" did not actually hold concealed weapons permits; the Violence Policy Center dishonestly conflates "security guard" permits (which only allow carrying when on duty as a security guard) and pistol purchase permits (which do not carry at all) with concealed weapons permits. In several cases, no information relating to any actual criminal conviction could be located. In other cases, no evidence that the killer held any permit at all could be located.

The Violence Policy Center is as valid a source of information regarding firearms as is the National Rifle Association.
 
2014-02-13 08:20:42 PM  

sugar_fetus: lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)

Wow. They count suicides?

Also, they count people who live in states that don't require a CCW permit to carry a firearm. I guess they need to pump up their numbers.

So, by that logic, every suicide in Arizona would be counted as a 'murder committed by a CCW permit holder.'

Unbelievable.

"Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Carey H. Dyess
Suicide
Date: June 2, 2011
People Killed: 6 (including shooter)
Circumstances: On June 2, 2011, Carey H. Dyess, 73, went on an hours-long shooting
rampage in two communities, killing five before taking his own life. In Arizona legal gun
owners can carry concealed handguns without a permit."

As Arizona does not issue CCW permits, how could this guy be a "Concealed Handgun Permit Holder"?


The Center also includes homicides committed by individuals residing in "may issue" states for whom no information regarding any issued permit is available.
 
2014-02-13 08:20:50 PM  
'Bout farking time.
 
2014-02-13 08:21:22 PM  

Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money


So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.
 
2014-02-13 08:22:13 PM  

OnlyM3: I'll give you 50 bucks if you can provide that quote "separation of church and state" from the US Constitution.


Don't be stupid. You're positing something impossible and trying to play it off like it's intelligence. One, you know that quote isn't in there, and two, the Bill of Rights is a separate document from the Constitution (I'd like to ask you to show me, then, where in the Constitution it says you can have a gun).

But you do know the 1st Amendment -- hey that's before they even talked about guns! -- says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

...and you know that's what we mean when we say "separation of church and state." Because the latter is fewer words than the former. Should we just go with Establishment Clause then? Our point won't change, and won't be any less valid, but maybe you can drop your shenanigans.
 
2014-02-13 08:22:45 PM  

AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money

So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.


The Founders did not consider the existence of semi-automatic firearms fed from detachable magazines when authoring the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, therefore the Amendment is not applicable to possession of such firearms, unlike the applicability of the First and Fourth amendments to speech transmitted and stored electronically.
 
2014-02-13 08:27:23 PM  

fnordfocus: Considering that OPD has taken essentially no action on the the terms of the Riders settlement over a decade ago, I'm confident that no permits will get issued even if the City and County do lose.


Oh, I have no doubts about them trying to drag their feet on the matter but they would still lose and depending upon how many permit requests they turn down it could be a lot more money than $10 million.
 
2014-02-13 08:27:28 PM  

Dimensio: AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money

So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.

The Founders did not consider the existence of semi-automatic firearms fed from detachable magazines when authoring the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, therefore the Amendment is not applicable to possession of such firearms, unlike the applicability of the First and Fourth amendments to speech transmitted and stored electronically.


Totally agreed!  We should only have, relatively speaking, what they had in the 18th century.  Of course, the flintlock musket was the pinnacle of technology.  So citizens owned the exact same weapons that the military carried in the field of battle.....wait.
 
2014-02-13 08:27:42 PM  
"I don't know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house, The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth. Why can't we go after handguns, period?   I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it, but people should not have handguns."

- Some total libtard from California
 
2014-02-13 08:30:13 PM  

AngryDragon: Decision sounds pretty definitive. They'll appeal to SCOTUS and get smacked down like DC did with Heller. The Supreme Court doesn't like to reverse itself. Then they'll have to be reasonable about it.


Agreed.

My point is, I don't believe California Police Chiefs and Sheriffs are particularly concerned with obeying court orders.
 
2014-02-13 08:31:35 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: "I don't know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house, The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth. Why can't we go after handguns, period?   I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it, but people should not have handguns."

- Some total libtard from California


That seems more like the sentiment of an authoritarian who will readily disregard the Constitution when convenient than a "total libtard".
 
2014-02-13 08:33:50 PM  
Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners
 
2014-02-13 08:35:02 PM  

sugar_fetus: lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)

Wow. They count suicides?

Also, they count people who live in states that don't require a CCW permit to carry a firearm. I guess they need to pump up their numbers.

So, by that logic, every suicide in Arizona would be counted as a 'murder committed by a CCW permit holder.'

Unbelievable.

"Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Carey H. Dyess
Suicide
Date: June 2, 2011
People Killed: 6 (including shooter)
Circumstances: On June 2, 2011, Carey H. Dyess, 73, went on an hours-long shooting
rampage in two communities, killing five before taking his own life. In Arizona legal gun
owners can carry concealed handguns without a permit."

As Arizona does not issue CCW permits, how could this guy be a "Concealed Handgun Permit Holder"?


Yea... vpc. What a credible site. Here's an interesting tidbit there to look up... check out the Jason Kenneth Hamilton entry. It frequently gets used for 'has anyone ever been killed with an actual automatic weapon' discussions. Except that he didn't have a 'federally registered automatic weapon.' He didn't have a select-fire or full auto at all. They got that part from a witness statement of 'he was shooting really fast'... so naturally, that equates to a registered full auto if you're a site with a clear agenda.
 
2014-02-13 08:40:35 PM  

Finger51: My question to our collection of farklawyerguys: Can I apply for a CCW if I don't own a weapon? Planning on getting my Boobiesol some time this year ... I guess I'll need it before applying?
/live in Oakland


When I applied for mine; I had to list the caliber/ make/ model/ barrel length and serial number; and go to a training class where I shot said weapon to the enjoyment of a firearms instructor... so, buy one first, then apply to carry...

and when you do the back ground check; you also have to list the weapon you are buying; which is one of the issues with the back ground check/ registration = confiscation debate...
 
2014-02-13 08:42:38 PM  

AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners


The ruling was 2-1 along ideological lines.  Luck of the draw the case ended up with two judges with conservative leanings (one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee) and one with liberal leanings (a Clinton appointee).
 
2014-02-13 08:44:30 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

The ruling was 2-1 along ideological lines.  Luck of the draw the case ended up with two judges with conservative leanings (one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee) and one with liberal leanings (a Clinton appointee).


So you're saying we need another recount?
 
2014-02-13 08:47:05 PM  

ElLoco: sugar_fetus: lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)

Wow. They count suicides?

Also, they count people who live in states that don't require a CCW permit to carry a firearm. I guess they need to pump up their numbers.

So, by that logic, every suicide in Arizona would be counted as a 'murder committed by a CCW permit holder.'

Unbelievable.

"Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Carey H. Dyess
Suicide
Date: June 2, 2011
People Killed: 6 (including shooter)
Circumstances: On June 2, 2011, Carey H. Dyess, 73, went on an hours-long shooting
rampage in two communities, killing five before taking his own life. In Arizona legal gun
owners can carry concealed handguns without a permit."

As Arizona does not issue CCW permits, how could this guy be a "Concealed Handgun Permit Holder"?

Yea... vpc. What a credible site. Here's an interesting tidbit there to look up... check out the Jason Kenneth Hamilton entry. It frequently gets used for 'has anyone ever been killed with an actual automatic weapon' discussions. Except that he didn't have a 'federally registered automatic weapon.' He didn't have a select-fire or full auto at all. They got that part from a witness statement of 'he was shooting really fast'... so naturally, that equates to a registered full auto if you're a site with a clear agenda.


The only one I can think of was a cop that killed someone with a MAC-10 stolen from evidence.
 
2014-02-13 08:49:38 PM  

AngryDragon: Feinstein, Pelosi, and Boxer must be spinning in their graves at this news.


Senator Boxer will be quite upset at the ruling; she has twice presented legislation to require all states to use a "may issue" standard, in an effort to federally override "shall issue" permit systems for no rationally justified reason.
 
2014-02-13 08:50:59 PM  

AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

The ruling was 2-1 along ideological lines.  Luck of the draw the case ended up with two judges with conservative leanings (one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee) and one with liberal leanings (a Clinton appointee).

So you're saying we need another recount?


I think he's saying that it wasn't along  his ideological lines, therefore, decisions based on ideologies are bad. Unless the decision goes the other way. Then it's ok.
 
2014-02-13 08:56:31 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Remember those woman in a truck during the recent manhunt for that deranged ex-cop? A hail of gunfire and not one of them got hit.


Nope.  One of the women was hit, but fortunately it wasn't too serious.  However, your point is still valid.  The police are pretty shiatty marksmen because they spend so little time practicing, unlike private citizens who tend to target shoot a damn lot if they are into guns at all.
 
2014-02-13 08:56:40 PM  

AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

The ruling was 2-1 along ideological lines.  Luck of the draw the case ended up with two judges with conservative leanings (one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee) and one with liberal leanings (a Clinton appointee).

So you're saying we need another recount?


Just pointing out that the 9th Circuit isn't some liberal hippy paradise court as some people seem to be implying.

This does bring into focus why the GOP has been working as hard as they have been to prevent Obama from filling vacant federal judge positions.  The more liberally inclined judges he can stack the courts with, the better the chances are that when something like this comes up the balance is shifted the other way and so with it the result.
 
2014-02-13 08:58:53 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Don't be stupid. You're positing something impossible and trying to play it off like it's intelligence. One, you know that quote isn't in there, and two, the Bill of Rights is a separate document from the Constitution (I'd like to ask you to show me, then, where in the Constitution it says you can have a gun).


How wrong you are.  The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  They are by every legal definition, a part of the Constitution.
 
2014-02-13 09:01:09 PM  
Gerry Brown is still governor again right? so makes sense since his aura smiles and never frowns.
 
2014-02-13 09:01:17 PM  

Dimensio: AngryDragon: Feinstein, Pelosi, and Boxer must be spinning in their graves at this news.

Senator Boxer will be quite upset at the ruling; she has twice presented legislation to require all states to use a "may issue" standard, in an effort to federally override "shall issue" permit systems for no rationally justified reason.


It's important to point out that Senator Boxer once had a CCW, which are almost impossible to obtain here in California.  She gave it up when it became publicly known and a political liability.
 
2014-02-13 09:02:51 PM  

OgreMagi: Scrotastic Method: Don't be stupid. You're positing something impossible and trying to play it off like it's intelligence. One, you know that quote isn't in there, and two, the Bill of Rights is a separate document from the Constitution (I'd like to ask you to show me, then, where in the Constitution it says you can have a gun).

How wrong you are.  The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  They are by every legal definition, a part of the Constitution.


I suspect that you will next claim that the Bill of Rights has a preamble.

/Encountered a firearm prohibition advocate who actually denied the existence of the preamble to the Bill of Rights.
//She initially rejected an actual picture of the document hosted on a federal website as possibly having been planted by right wing extremists.
 
2014-02-13 09:04:31 PM  

OgreMagi: Radioactive Ass: Remember those woman in a truck during the recent manhunt for that deranged ex-cop? A hail of gunfire and not one of them got hit.

Nope.  One of the women was hit, but fortunately it wasn't too serious.  However, your point is still valid.  The police are pretty shiatty marksmen because they spend so little time practicing, unlike private citizens who tend to target shoot a damn lot if they are into guns at all.


That's what I tended to notice when I used to spend a good deal of time at the range on a regular basis.

You had cops that came in regularly who practiced and were good shots, but they usually tended to be the type who would be firearms enthusiasts even if they were not LEOs.

And then you had cops who would come in once in a while who would put a target 15 feet out and still be bouncing rounds off the overhead rail and target hanger.  The worst offender I ever saw answered his cellphone while in the stall and lost all muzzle awareness, finger on the trigger, barrel swinging around wildly.  He had the balls to look pissed when the rest of us started ducking and screaming at him.

That guy shouldn't have been a cop... he didn't have enough common sense to work the fryolator at a McJob.
 
2014-02-13 09:13:10 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Just pointing out that the 9th Circuit isn't some liberal hippy paradise court as some people seem to be implying.


lol
 
2014-02-13 09:15:58 PM  

moike: OgreMagi: Radioactive Ass: Remember those woman in a truck during the recent manhunt for that deranged ex-cop? A hail of gunfire and not one of them got hit.

Nope.  One of the women was hit, but fortunately it wasn't too serious.  However, your point is still valid.  The police are pretty shiatty marksmen because they spend so little time practicing, unlike private citizens who tend to target shoot a damn lot if they are into guns at all.

That's what I tended to notice when I used to spend a good deal of time at the range on a regular basis.

You had cops that came in regularly who practiced and were good shots, but they usually tended to be the type who would be firearms enthusiasts even if they were not LEOs.

And then you had cops who would come in once in a while who would put a target 15 feet out and still be bouncing rounds off the overhead rail and target hanger.  The worst offender I ever saw answered his cellphone while in the stall and lost all muzzle awareness, finger on the trigger, barrel swinging around wildly.  He had the balls to look pissed when the rest of us started ducking and screaming at him.

That guy shouldn't have been a cop... he didn't have enough common sense to work the fryolator at a McJob.


Too bad he didn't "answer" his pistol when his phone rang.
 
2014-02-13 09:18:46 PM  
Oh yay.

FFS.
 
2014-02-13 09:20:22 PM  

SubBass49: Oh yay.

FFS.


I concur. I cannot understand why judges believe that concealed weapons permits should be issued to people who are not able to provide substantial campaign contributions to local sheriffs.
 
2014-02-13 09:23:43 PM  

Callous: sugar_fetus: the money is in the banana stand: I don't feel safer or less safe with people here being able to concealed carry. There are times however I feel safer when I carry than not. I haven't had to ever draw thankfully, but I would rather have that ability should I need it than not. I have known far too many people who have suffered from not being armed than I know people who have been the victim of an accident (none) or the victim of someone who carries legally (none).

I don't feel safer when carrying.. I have a spare tire and jack in my car, and a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Neither one of them protects me from flats or fires, so neither make me feel safer.

They all, however, make me more prepared in case something does go wrong.

I've been assured time and again on Fark that preparation for unlikely events indicates paranoia.  That's why I stopped wearing a seat belt and threw away my smoke detectors.


Smoke detectors and seat belts are for pussies!  Why are you so afraid?
 
2014-02-13 09:24:02 PM  

OgreMagi: Dimensio: AngryDragon: Feinstein, Pelosi, and Boxer must be spinning in their graves at this news.

Senator Boxer will be quite upset at the ruling; she has twice presented legislation to require all states to use a "may issue" standard, in an effort to federally override "shall issue" permit systems for no rationally justified reason.

It's important to point out that Senator Boxer once had a CCW, which are almost impossible to obtain here in California.  She gave it up when it became publicly known and a political liability.


Many published figures for San Francisco list TWO permits issued to private citizens in the entire City... while Boxer and Feinstein (although hers was a loooong time ago) both had them.

Double standard much?
 
2014-02-13 09:32:23 PM  
Something else to keep in mind, for the folks that say this only effects SD county, the same panel at the 9th also heard Richards v. Prieto the same day, which dealt with essentially the same issues, but in Yolo county.  I can't see them ruling differently.
 
2014-02-13 09:35:40 PM  

OgreMagi: Scrotastic Method: Don't be stupid. You're positing something impossible and trying to play it off like it's intelligence. One, you know that quote isn't in there, and two, the Bill of Rights is a separate document from the Constitution (I'd like to ask you to show me, then, where in the Constitution it says you can have a gun).

How wrong you are.  The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.  They are by every legal definition, a part of the Constitution.


No, I know that. I can't remember with whom I was arguing, but me saying said "Bill of Rights" only to get a response of, "ha! and that was 12 years after the Constitution!" or whatever, like it was some gotcha moment, is exactly the kind of goalpost movement the conservatives are so proud of. Trying to "win" via semantic horseshiat instead of having a viable argument. I was heading that off.
 
2014-02-13 09:40:56 PM  

AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money

So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.


First, I wouldn't attempt to conflate health and family decisions with those of the desire to possess a firearm.

And second, I believe Heller was one of the worst decisions the court ever made, maybe only trumped in modern times by Citizens United. I side with Stevens on that one, who wrote in his dissent, which is summarized better on Wikipedia than I would do here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenti ng _opinions

Interestingly, his main points were:
-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,
-- We're trumping states' rights,
-- We're legislating from the bench, and,
-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

All of which are, you know, the kinds of things conservatives are supposed to be against. A true conservative should be against the Heller decision, but since it gave them what they wanted, they are willing to compromise their principles.

Compromising of principle being, of course, the foundation of the right wing. See also: things Jesus really said and did.
 
2014-02-13 09:43:54 PM  

skinink: I don't have enough popcorn in the world to keep reading what will follow in this thread.


Just don't throw any popcorn, you are liable to get shot.
 
2014-02-13 09:45:14 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,


Denial of reality does not alter reality.

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


-- We're legislating from the bench, and,

Overturning an Unconstitutional law is not "legislating from the bench".


-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

The main point of contention was that the law of the District of Columbia was Unconstitutional, which was affirmed by the court.
 
2014-02-13 09:47:18 PM  

fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?


The guy in the Florida movie theater who got murdered for texting his daughter.
 
2014-02-13 09:47:58 PM  

Scrotastic Method: AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money

So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.

First, I wouldn't attempt to conflate health and family decisions with those of the desire to possess a firearm.

And second, I believe Heller was one of the worst decisions the court ever made, maybe only trumped in modern times by Citizens United. I side with Stevens on that one, who wrote in his dissent, which is summarized better on Wikipedia than I would do here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenti ng _opinions

Interestingly, his main points were:
-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,
-- We're trumping states' rights,
-- We're legislating from the bench, and,
-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

All of which are, you know, the kinds of things conservatives are supposed to be against. A true conservative should be against the Heller decision, but since it gave them what they wanted, they are willing to compromise their principles.

Compromising of principle being, of course, the foundation of the right wing. See also: things Jesus really said and did.


Right, everybody knows that the Bill of Rights are all about collective rights and not individual rights.  Or are you arguing that the 2nd is the only amendment that recognizes a collective right rather than an individual right and did the founders just farked up the wording?
 
2014-02-13 09:50:26 PM  

Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.



The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.
 
2014-02-13 09:51:07 PM  

AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners


Dear Responsible Gun Owner,

I'm sorry to inform you that even if your second biggest fantasy comes true and everyone succumbs to your ideology, you still won't be able to maintain an erection.

Don't worry, there's always paper targets and a lot of ammo.

Sincerely,
Someone who may disagree with one of your opinions
 
2014-02-13 09:51:24 PM  

badLogic: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

The guy in the Florida movie theater who got murdered for texting his daughter.


For fair consideration, as a retired police officer he was allowed to carry a concealed firearm by federal law, even without a Florida issued permit.
 
2014-02-13 09:52:31 PM  

fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?


Here's a list just from Florida.
 
2014-02-13 09:53:35 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.


"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.
 
2014-02-13 09:54:15 PM  

badLogic: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

The guy in the Florida movie theater who got murdered for texting his daughter.


He was a retired police chief so he would be able to carry a gun anyway.
 
2014-02-13 09:54:17 PM  

tylerdurden217: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

Dear Responsible Gun Owner,

I'm sorry to inform you that even if your second biggest fantasy comes true and everyone succumbs to your ideology, you still won't be able to maintain an erection.

Don't worry, there's always paper targets and a lot of ammo.

Sincerely,
Someone who may disagree with one of your opinions thinks insulting platitudes are a substitute for reasoned debate.


Fixed that for ya.
 
2014-02-13 09:58:15 PM  

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.


That's the problem.  The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth.  Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.
 
2014-02-13 09:58:37 PM  

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.


The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.
 
2014-02-13 10:01:03 PM  
Wouldn't people be more polite if they knew you were carrying a weapon?
 
2014-02-13 10:02:05 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.


Guess what? I didn't support Prop 8.So, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

But, you're one of those people who thinks anyone who supports individual gun rights is an evilbadwrongrepublicanconservative.
 
2014-02-13 10:02:55 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Many published figures for San Francisco list TWO permits issued to private citizens in the entire City... while Boxer and Feinstein (although hers was a loooong time ago) both had them.


It's been made very difficult to even get a registered handgun into your home for self defense for a looong time as well unless you know someone with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) that also sells guns. Most people just go to a gun shop.

Step 1: Go buy a pistol. But not in San Francisco proper, there is exactly one gun shop that sells pistols in the city and it sells strictly to LEOs only. So you need to go a couple of miles south to someplace like Jackson Arms to buy it.

Step 2: Go through (and pay for) the California and San Mateo County background checks and registration fees..

Step 3: Once the checks are completed then you can go get your new pistol... no wait, you can't do that yet if you live in San Francisco. Instead to have to get it "exported" by someone with a FFL in San Mateo County to someone in San Francisco with a FFL who can legally "Import" it. Of course there are fees and such to pay at both ends for that to happen.

Step 4: Ok, the pistol is now officially "Imported" so now you can go get it right? No so fast there buddy. The city requires that they do their own background checks and registration. So even more fees to be paid (and it ain't cheap either).

Step 5: Ok now you can go get the pistol and take it home provided that you have an approved storage container and trigger locks. Time spent, about 1 month. Money spent on fees, licenses and registrations (not including the cost of the pistol itself, which by the way can't be an inexpensive "Saturday Night Special" as they define it but a much more expensive pistol that's on their "approved list") over $500 in paperwork alone when everything is said and done. At least seven transactions not including the gun proper.

All told the final cost for the least expensive pistol that they will let you have as a registered handgun is north of $1,000. And that's not even for a carry weapon. I can't imagine what they would ding a citizen to get a carry permit, open or concealed (if they ever issued them).

It could be at least a little bit cheaper if they would issue business licenses to gun shops within the city limits but good luck getting that through the zoning process. It's much quicker and cheaper for the gun shop to move south a couple of miles instead.
 
2014-02-13 10:03:23 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem.  The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth.  Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.


"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.
 
2014-02-13 10:05:08 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.


So you supported Prop 8 then, right?  Will of the majority and all.
 
2014-02-13 10:06:10 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.


"The Republicans" were mistaken then, and TuteTibiImperes is mistaken now.
 
2014-02-13 10:08:02 PM  

sugar_fetus: Scrotastic Method: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.

Guess what? I didn't support Prop 8.So, I'm not trying to have it both ways.

But, you're one of those people who thinks anyone who supports individual gun rights is an evilbadwrongrepublicanconservative.


I have been assured that, despite my advocacy of same-sex marriage, the teaching of evolution in public schools, a fair and progressive tax rate, health care reform and easy access to birth control and abortion, I am a "bagger" because I believed that a proposed law to ban .50 caliber rifles -- and to mandate surrender of any currently owned rifles to the government -- was not reasonable.
 
2014-02-13 10:12:02 PM  

Scrotastic Method: The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.


Neither can you.
 
2014-02-13 10:14:21 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Scrotastic Method: The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.

Neither can you.


You got anything to show that he did support Prop 8?
 
2014-02-13 10:17:03 PM  

Scrotastic Method: The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.


First of all there is no enumeration of the right to get married (gay or straight) in the constitution that I'm aware of while there is a very definitely an enumeration regarding the right to bear arms.

But let's just say that there is for the sake of argument. If you were "For" the overturning of Prop 8 then you must also be "For" this decision as well. You also don't get to have it both ways.
 
2014-02-13 10:19:08 PM  

Callous: Pray 4 Mojo: Scrotastic Method: The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.

Neither can you.

You got anything to show that he did support Prop 8?


WTF difference does that make? He CAN have it both ways if I don't?
 
2014-02-13 10:20:40 PM  

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem.  The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth.  Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.


You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.
 
2014-02-13 10:21:45 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem.  The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth.  Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.

You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.


Your statement implies that I believe that the amendment was "reinterpreted" in those cases, but I do not.
 
2014-02-13 10:27:20 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Callous: Pray 4 Mojo: Scrotastic Method: The Republicans said it was when Prop 8 was being challenged. You can't have it both ways.

Neither can you.

You got anything to show that he did support Prop 8?

WTF difference does that make? He CAN have it both ways if I don't?


No one can have it both ways.  But he was pointing out that the Prop 8 ruling was inline with this ruling.  Meaning no tyranny of the majority over the minority.  During the run up to the decision that tossed Prop 8 the Republicans were making the same arguments that you are about this one.  That the majority should be able to dictate the rights, of lack there of, of the minority.  so if you are being intellectually honest and you oppose this ruling then you must oppose the ruling on Prop 8, you can't have it both ways.  He made no statement as to his support or opposition to the ruling on Prop 8.

You replied with "Neither can you" as if he had made an assertion that he supported one ruling and not the other.  So I ask you again, do you have any evidence that he opposed the ruling that put the kaibosh on Prop 8 but supported this ruling?
 
2014-02-13 10:29:11 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.


Actually I don't know that they had ever "Interpreted" the 2nd amendment in the first place. As I recall when their, as you put it, "reinterpretation" took place in Heller one of the things that was widely talked about what how the SCOTUS had been studiously avoiding getting into it into the past which was one of the reasons that it was called a landmark case.

If you can cite where the original SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd is that you imply happened in the past that would be good.
 
2014-02-13 10:32:25 PM  
WTF do they mean good moral character? If you stole someones watch or cheated on your wife 20 years ago you can't expect to get a permit?

Weird.
 
2014-02-13 10:33:56 PM  

AntiGravitas: When the NINTH circuit sides with gun advocates, the debate is over.  Seriously.


Given the makeup of the 3-judge panel, no. I assume the full panel will overturn it.
 
2014-02-13 10:37:20 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: WTF do they mean good moral character? If you stole someones watch or cheated on your wife 20 years ago you can't expect to get a permit?

Weird.


This is the kind of thing that allowing the police departments to have their own "discretion" about who can and can't have a permit leads to.

Boston.com article
Edward Arsenault, 70, of Fairhaven, was turned down for his license renewal earlier this year because he had been convicted in juvenile court of stealing a chicken from a chicken coop when he was 9 years old, in 1946.
 
2014-02-13 10:38:29 PM  
This is a temporary decision.  The San Diego DA and County Counsel has already asked for a stay of the decision and the full 9th Circuit to examine the case again and issue a new ruling.  Chances are the 9th Circuit will agree and the decision will go the other way.  If this does happen, there is some comfort for those requesting CCW permits in the fact that the 9th Circuit is the most overruled jurisdictions in the country when the Supreme Court takes a case and this issue will be going before the court at some point given the split in the various jurisdictions.

If you read over the decision, it does seem to be pretty well crafted in terms of historical analysis and why this California restriction by certain counties really is more burdensome than in other states given California's near total prohibition on open carry. If the right to self-defense is meaningful, it has to be able to be exercised and California has made that nearly impossible outside of ones home given the existing state gun control laws.

It will be interesting to see how they get around this issue in an opinion overturning this decision.  My prediction is the disparity in urban and rural crime and difficulties law enforcement faces allows such reasonable restriction as to requiring additional means to justify a permit. Furthermore rural counties basically operate under a "shall" type issuing of CCW gives individuals the opportunity to move to those areas or to use the political process and elect a sheriff that will operate "shall" issuing method in urban counties.
 
2014-02-13 10:38:55 PM  
"The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?
 
Rat
2014-02-13 10:42:22 PM  
Good thread.  Two thumb up to progress!

© will read again later from red line if time permits
 
2014-02-13 10:43:21 PM  

mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?


If you feel as if you need a gun with you at all times to be safe there are problems far greater than CCW permits.  The logical course of action would be to address why the police presence in the area is either inadequate or ineffective and take measures to fix that.  It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.
 
2014-02-13 10:44:19 PM  

mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?


1. What if she is forced to live in a dangerous neighborhood due to housing costs and availability and therefore must travel a dangerous area everyday.
2. Many companies/businesses don't care assuming the gun isn't brought on premises so long as the hypothetical individual left it in the vehicle (which is a safety issue given storage options but a separate issue).
 
2014-02-13 10:44:51 PM  

sugar_fetus: tylerdurden217: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

Dear Responsible Gun Owner,

I'm sorry to inform you that even if your second biggest fantasy comes true and everyone succumbs to your ideology, you still won't be able to maintain an erection.

Don't worry, there's always paper targets and a lot of ammo.

Sincerely,
Someone who may disagree with one of your opinions thinks insulting platitudes are a substitute for reasoned debate.

Fixed that for ya.


No, I was intentionally trite and insulting.

I have no desire to debate tonight.

PS... Guns are marketed towards pussies.

Fark all you gun toting hip gangster wannabes.
 
2014-02-13 10:46:31 PM  

mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?


Hopefully we get more reasonable outcomes in this debate.  I'd rather there be a healthy scattering of properly trained CCW folks in society, than being at the complete mercy of police response to a shooter.
 
2014-02-13 10:47:29 PM  

mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?


I'm in telecom and we are required by the FCC to have 99.95% uptime on circuits that carry 911 traffic. We have techs that have to go out at all hours of the day and night into good and bad neighborhoods.  We can't wait for conditions to improve, they have to go immediately.  These guys have tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment(test sets, OTDRs, etc) in their trucks.  While our employee handbook doesn't endorse them carrying firearms it also doesn't prohibit it.  It's kind of a don't ask, don't tell kinda thing.
 
2014-02-13 10:48:28 PM  

tylerdurden217: No, I was intentionally trite and insulting.

Fark all you gun toting hip gangster wannabes.


Hey, at least you're honest.
 
2014-02-13 10:49:07 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public


No, it's not.
 
2014-02-13 10:49:50 PM  
TuteTibiImperes:t's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

Not according to the Supremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "
 
2014-02-13 10:50:07 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

Hopefully we get more reasonable outcomes in this debate.  I'd rather there be a healthy scattering of properly trained CCW folks in society, than being at the complete mercy of police response to a shooter.


Especially when the SCOTUS has ruled on more than one occasion that the police have no duty to protect you.
 
2014-02-13 10:50:31 PM  

lewismarktwo: Finger51: My question to our collection of farklawyerguys: Can I apply for a CCW if I don't own a weapon? Planning on getting my Boobiesol some time this year ... I guess I'll need it before applying?
/live in Oakland

Yes, you can apply without owning a handgun (unless your area requires a CCW tied to each handgun you own), but to complete the safety course you will need access to one.  Most classes have a few 9mm or .22 pistols for rent during the class.


COOL! gonna make the bang thing go LOUD!   WEEEEEEEEEE!!!11111
 
2014-02-13 10:51:02 PM  

tylerdurden217: sugar_fetus: tylerdurden217: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

Dear Responsible Gun Owner,

I'm sorry to inform you that even if your second biggest fantasy comes true and everyone succumbs to your ideology, you still won't be able to maintain an erection.

Don't worry, there's always paper targets and a lot of ammo.

Sincerely,
Someone who may disagree with one of your opinions thinks insulting platitudes are a substitute for reasoned debate.

Fixed that for ya.

No, I was intentionally trite and insulting.

I have no desire to debate tonight.

PS... Guns are marketed towards pussies.

Fark all you gun toting hip gangster wannabes.


Your open admission that you are entirely incapable of rational thought is appreciated.
 
2014-02-13 10:51:20 PM  

sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes:t's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

Not according to the Supremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "


I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.
 
2014-02-13 10:53:29 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes:t's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

Not according to the Supremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "

I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.


Your willingness to continue issuing a statement even after it has been proven to be false is admirable, in the same way that a creationist's insistence upon denying decades of established scientific research is admirable.
 
2014-02-13 10:53:34 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes:t's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

Not according to the Supremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "

I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.


True, but many feel that when you are seconds away from harm, the police are often minutes away and want the means to protect themselves.
 
2014-02-13 10:54:43 PM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: KInda makes you wonder how people in countries like Canada survive. Why are we not all dead from raging armed maniacs on the street?

Or maybe we just are not collective cowards.


pretty good, I'll go 6/10   .    .    .   ok 7/10.   .   [rereads]... naaa 6. yea, 6/10
 
2014-02-13 10:55:58 PM  

Callous: EdNortonsTwin: mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

Hopefully we get more reasonable outcomes in this debate.  I'd rather there be a healthy scattering of properly trained CCW folks in society, than being at the complete mercy of police response to a shooter.

Especially when the SCOTUS has ruled on more than one occasion that the police have no duty to protect you.


This!  The people I know that hunt and shoot value their right to do so to such a degree, they would be the last person I could think of to commit a crime with a gun. This for fear they could lose the right forever.

I hope this ruling  materializes in to expanded rights for us in CA
 
2014-02-13 10:58:50 PM  

tylerdurden217: PS... Guns are marketed towards pussies.

Fark all you gun toting hip gangster wannabes.


Yeah...dat.
 
2014-02-13 10:58:56 PM  

sugar_fetus: lostcat: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Found this:

Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 465 incidents in 33 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 622 deaths. In 84 percent of the incidents (390) the concealed carry killer committed suicide (189), has already been convicted (151), perpetrated a murder-suicide (38), or was killed in the incident (12). Of the 60 cases still pending, the vast majority (50) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 15 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. At least 14 of the victims were law enforcement officers. Twenty-seven of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 128 victims.
(http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm)

Wow. They count suicides?

Also, they count people who live in states that don't require a CCW permit to carry a firearm. I guess they need to pump up their numbers.

So, by that logic, every suicide in Arizona would be counted as a 'murder committed by a CCW permit holder.'

Unbelievable.

"Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Carey H. Dyess
Suicide
Date: June 2, 2011
People Killed: 6 (including shooter)
Circumstances: On June 2, 2011, Carey H. Dyess, 73, went on an hours-long shooting
rampage in two communities, killing five before taking his own life. In Arizona legal gun
owners can carry concealed handguns without a permit."

As Arizona does not issue CCW permits, how could this guy be a "Concealed Handgun Permit Holder"?


Arizona does issue Concealed Weapons Permits. Arizona is also a constitutional carry state, which means that pretty much any idiot over 21 may legally walk around armed in public, and several idiots do. And he was legally carrying concealed until he started murdering people. That page says nothing about permits.
 
2014-02-13 10:59:15 PM  

Callous: No one can have it both ways.


Sweet. Then we agree.

But he was pointing out that the Prop 8 ruling was inline with this ruling. Meaning no tyranny of the majority over the minority. During the run up to the decision that tossed Prop 8 the Republicans were making the same arguments that you are about this one.

Excuse me?
 
2014-02-13 11:00:15 PM  

Scrotastic Method: -- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,
-- We're trumping states' rights,
-- We're legislating from the bench, and,
-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.


It is what the Bill of Rights says.  And if you read the Federalist Papers, you would know that it was the intent of the authors.
Our Rights as recognized by the Constitution take precedence over state law.
Since they did not create a new law, they are not legislating from the bench.
The main point of contention absolutely was whether it was an individual right.
 
2014-02-13 11:03:26 PM  

mrlewish: 2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?


Mine does... since you asked.
 
2014-02-13 11:03:57 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.


The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie).  Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?
 
2014-02-13 11:04:50 PM  

tylerdurden217: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

Dear Responsible Gun Owner,

I'm sorry to inform you that even if your second biggest fantasy comes true and everyone succumbs to your ideology, you still won't be able to maintain an erection.

Don't worry, there's always paper targets and a lot of ammo.

Sincerely,
Someone who may disagree with one of your opinions


Why are gun haters so obsessed with penises?
 
2014-02-13 11:10:50 PM  

Radioactive Ass: someplace like Jackson Arms to buy it.


I used to go there about every other week to target shoot.
 
2014-02-13 11:11:42 PM  

OgreMagi: Why are gun haters so obsessed with penises?


Well... they are pretty neat.
 
2014-02-13 11:12:23 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Callous: No one can have it both ways.

Sweet. Then we agree.

But he was pointing out that the Prop 8 ruling was inline with this ruling. Meaning no tyranny of the majority over the minority. During the run up to the decision that tossed Prop 8 the Republicans were making the same arguments that you are about this one.

Excuse me?


It is a stupid irrelevant argument trying to point out the hypocrisy on both sides.   The popular opinion argument was used by republican backers of the Prop 8 decision which passed by a majority.  A majorities opinion was irrelevant in that case where the rights of a minority were being restricted.  Similarly some democrats use polling stating a majority of individuals wish to restrict the rights of gun ownership and it should be allowed.  Situations are viewed by gun proponents that the majority is illegally trying to restrict the granted rights of a minority based on popular opinion.  Who cares as we know consistency in values and arguments is not something either party can rely on?

This is irrelevant to the practical decisions the court is making concerning an actual interpretation of the issue at hand.  In some counties in California, there is no legal way that private citizens can be granted the ability to legally carry weapons outside their home.  Is this consistent with the 2nd amendment and Supreme Court cases as the 9th Circuit understands it?  The decision today by 3 justices on the 9th Circuit says the present system of CCW permits violates the 2nd amendment, but the full 9th Circuit may hear this issue and may go the other way. It has nothing to do with popular will and opinion polls and instead rests on how you interpret the 2nd amendment and the rights it grants to citizens.
 
2014-02-13 11:13:50 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem.  The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth.  Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.

You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.


You have a very distinct lack of knowledge about the history of the 2nd Amendment our courts.  The Supreme Court did not go off into some radical new territory with their decision.  They stuck with how they had ruled before, and only CLARIFIED things to make it impossible for state governments to weasel around what they had stated in the past.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:20:42 PM  

That's 'Master Troll' to You: Hurray! It is safe to go in public with a tiny penis again!


Which I am sure is good news for you.

/get a life loser troll
 
2014-02-13 11:21:50 PM  

Daedalus27: In some counties in California, there is no legal way that private citizens can be granted the ability to legally carry weapons outside their home.


It's worse than that... private citizens who are white, wealthy and politically connected have them issued at exponentially greater rates than the other side of the demographic spectrum.

Interesting that so many on the left support such racism and class bias.
 
2014-02-13 11:27:40 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Daedalus27: In some counties in California, there is no legal way that private citizens can be granted the ability to legally carry weapons outside their home.

It's worse than that... private citizens who are white, wealthy and politically connected have them issued at exponentially greater rates than the other side of the demographic spectrum.

Interesting that so many on the left support such racism and class bias.


It is interesting that the equal protection argument was so casually dismissed in the dissent given the realities of CCW permit issuing in the urban counties.
 
2014-02-13 11:30:27 PM  

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes:t's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

Not according to the Supremes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

"The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, "

I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Your willingness to continue issuing a statement even after it has been proven to be false is admirable, in the same way that a creationist's insistence upon denying decades of established scientific research is admirable.


The statement has not been proven false, you just keep attempting to argue it on a different basis than I am.  Police officers are paid to investigate crimes, stop crimes in progress, and protect the peace.  Even if they do not have a constitutional duty to intervene, that does not change the fact that it's their job to protect people who are in danger due to those who break the law.

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie).  Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?


No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment.  Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

Pray 4 Mojo: Daedalus27: In some counties in California, there is no legal way that private citizens can be granted the ability to legally carry weapons outside their home.

It's worse than that... private citizens who are white, wealthy and politically connected have them issued at exponentially greater rates than the other side of the demographic spectrum.

Interesting that so many on the left support such racism and class bias.


In an ideal world no one would be issued a CCW except for sworn law enforcement officers.  That would be equitable and allow the police to more effectively prevent gun violence.  If only police can carry guns in public, anyone else seen with a gun in public can automatically be assumed to be up to no good and appropriate action can be taken.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:30:34 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Here's a list just from Florida.


LOL. That site is the weakest lying distorting link I have seen you post EVA.

/go regroup and try again with more gusto, you usually do much better than that
 
2014-02-13 11:33:43 PM  

gja: TuteTibiImperes: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Here's a list just from Florida.

LOL. That site is the weakest lying distorting link I have seen you post EVA.

/go regroup and try again with more gusto, you usually do much better than that


Are you suggesting that the gunmen were not CCW holders and that they did not shoot the other people?
 
2014-02-13 11:34:02 PM  
As a liberal California Democrat....Yay!
 
2014-02-13 11:37:22 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public,


No. No it is not. At least not in the way that you're implying. Police are specifically exempt from being liable for your personal safety or defense. They are supposed to try (that is their duty) but if they don't you have no recourse against them or the city or county that they work for.

If that weren't true it would be an impossible burden to meet without putting a cop every 10 feet on every possible road or path.

one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

So it's your contention that self-defense is not a basic human right recognized since before civilization began? If someone decided to walk up to you, punch you in the face repeatedly that you shouldn't be able to try and stop it using the best means possible at your disposal?
 
2014-02-13 11:39:01 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.


Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.
 
2014-02-13 11:40:44 PM  

Scrotastic Method: AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The problem being, our legislature is bought out by the gun lobby. Despite overwhelming public outcry for gun legislation, from more rules to a reworking of the amendment, neither house of Congress is capable of passing that legislation. Because money

So abortion under Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct because it's an interpreted right, but the individual right to bear arms under Heller is relative despite being an enumerated right because the government is bought out.  Got it.

First, I wouldn't attempt to conflate health and family decisions with those of the desire to possess a firearm.

And second, I believe Heller was one of the worst decisions the court ever made, maybe only trumped in modern times by Citizens United. I side with Stevens on that one, who wrote in his dissent, which is summarized better on Wikipedia than I would do here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenti ng _opinions

Interestingly, his main points were:
-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,
-- We're trumping states' rights,
-- We're legislating from the bench, and,
-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

All of which are, you know, the kinds of things conservatives are supposed to be against. A true conservative should be against the Heller decision, but since it gave them what they wanted, they are willing to compromise their principles.

Compromising of principle being, of course, the foundation of the right wing. See also: things Jesus really said and did.


Interestingly, his main points were:
-Completely incorrect, a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that
-Not trumping STATES' rights, protecting INDIVIDUAL rights
-eh
-Not important

A true liberal should agree with the government protecting their PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL rights...which they claim they are when they invent the right to have abortionsbut close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears when the 2nd Amendment appears.
 
2014-02-13 11:41:42 PM  

Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public,

No. No it is not. At least not in the way that you're implying. Police are specifically exempt from being liable for your personal safety or defense. They are supposed to try (that is their duty) but if they don't you have no recourse against them or the city or county that they work for.

If that weren't true it would be an impossible burden to meet without putting a cop every 10 feet on every possible road or path.


I agree.  I'm not saying that you have legal recourse if they fail to protect you, but it is their job, and they should be expected to do it.  You (or your family) just can't sue if they fail.

one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.

So it's your contention that self-defense is not a basic human right recognized since before civilization began? If someone decided to walk up to you, punch you in the face repeatedly that you shouldn't be able to try and stop it using the best means possible at your disposal?


I respect the right to defend yourself if there is no option to retreat and notify law enforcement.  If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns, and such conflicts would result in death or serious injury less often.
 
2014-02-13 11:42:41 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.


LOL, then have that majority write a document with full force of the law that trumps the U.S. Constitution.
 
Rat
2014-02-13 11:44:21 PM  
I notice you guys keep arguing with Tute.  The only way to win that argument is with squirrels.  The ADHD in him will see the squirrel, and invariably end up in the entertainment thread with no means to get out, as his back button is disabled.

For those of you not arguing with Tute, I welcome California to the rest of the world.  Now can we get some nat'l reciprocity discussion going?  New York, are you listening?

 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:45:06 PM  

gja: TuteTibiImperes: fluffy2097: When was the last time someone was murdered with a concealed carry weapon?

Here's a list just from Florida.

LOL. That site is the weakest lying distorting link I have seen you post EVA.

/go regroup and try again with more gusto, you usually do much better than that


I am suggesting your site is shiat. The last time I saw some with a view that tilted italians were worried it would fall the fark over.
Get serious. Weak, dude.
Also, your silliness about the police being required to protect/serve, or any inane bullshiat you wanna spout is plain wrong.
Wanna go 'round and round with me? I can pull down the NYPD, NassauPD, and SuffolkPD charters and quote from them.
Hint: none of them are required to come save my life. Just maintain general order.
 
2014-02-13 11:45:36 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem.  The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth.  Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.


What you're proposing is called "legislating from the bench" and "fascism"

"I don't like that one...say it says something different...please!"
 
2014-02-13 11:46:18 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.


Well, too bad.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:46:30 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns


That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.
 
2014-02-13 11:49:13 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence.  If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else.  This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

"A majority of Californians" is not a legal basis for violation of Constitutionally protected rights.

That's the problem.  The 2nd amendment is outdated and causes more trouble than its worth.  Unfortunately the Constitution is so difficult to amend that it's not going anywhere, especially in this political climate.

The only sanity will come with the balance of power in the Supreme Court finally changes and enough cases helping to redefine the limits of the right to bear arms are decided in a manner that re-establish restrictions on personal firearm ownership.

"Reinterpreting" an established liberty due to an inability to actually amend the Constitution is intellectually bankrupt.

You don't seem to have a problem with how the Supreme Court reinterpreted it in Heller or McDonald.


Please explain how these decisions were "reinterpretations," that requires PRIOR SCOTUS decisions to have said the opposite. None have, look it up

/Waiting for Miller decision...
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:49:27 PM  

Rat: I notice you guys keep arguing with Tute.  The only way to win that argument is with squirrels.  The ADHD in him will see the squirrel, and invariably end up in the entertainment thread with no means to get out, as his back button is disabled.

For those of you not arguing with Tute, I welcome California to the rest of the world.  Now can we get some nat'l reciprocity discussion going?  New York, are you listening?



I am here in NY and can tell you with all certainty....forget it. My state is run by Cuomo the merciless.
It would be easier to get a permit for a moat filled with sharks with frikkin laser beams than a ccw.
 
2014-02-13 11:50:44 PM  
It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.
 
2014-02-13 11:51:22 PM  
have*
 
2014-02-13 11:51:54 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

If you feel as if you need a gun with you at all times to be safe there are problems far greater than CCW permits.  The logical course of action would be to address why the police presence in the area is either inadequate or ineffective and take measures to fix that.  It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.


LOL...yep its Law Enforcements "duty" to protect the vague and nebulous "public" without ever having a duty to protect any individual people...sounds plausible and effective
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-13 11:52:46 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.


img.fark.net

Flights out available at any hour, feel free to join Anne Coulter and GTFO.
 
2014-02-14 12:02:01 AM  

sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.


These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.


Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2014-02-14 12:02:27 AM  

OgreMagi: Radioactive Ass: someplace like Jackson Arms to buy it.

I used to go there about every other week to target shoot.


I haven't been by there in years (I think that I've gone there twice to shoot in the last two decades and that was someone elses idea, not mine). I got sick and tired of working with firearms during my time in the navy (between getting a hundred people per year qualified to be armed and doing the related paperwork along with the weekly maintenance duties for an entire submarines worth of firearms for almost 8 years if I never have to touch another one I'm just fine with it). I don't even own one, but I do recognize the rights of others to do so if they want and I'm definitely not irrationally afraid of them like a lot of people seem to be. Don't point it at someone and keep your finger off of the trigger and it's as harmless as a hammer or screwdriver. Oh yeah, and don't keep it 'Hidden" inside of an oven (don't ask).

I mainly know about the difficulties in legally acquiring a handgun in San Francisco (that I mentioned above) because of other people that I know who went through it and listening to them biatch about it.
 
2014-02-14 12:03:08 AM  

The Southern Dandy: It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.


Yet people living in nations where there are strong firearm safety regulations still manage to protect themselves without carrying guns around.
 
2014-02-14 12:10:33 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes


None of those will do. They may serve to protect someone - or may not. Either way,. there is no specific duty to protect the individual.

So, as there is no enumerated duty to protect people, and the Supreme Court has said that there is no duty to protect individuals...you still maintain that it is their job.

Please, provide a cite that shows that it is their responsibility. I'm sure you have one.
 
2014-02-14 12:16:45 AM  
I'm a pro.

I'm pro gun, pro choice, pro equality for all men, women, GLBT and other. Pro diversity, pro race, pro race mixing, go pro, pro tect,  pro wrestling, pro hunter, pro 1st Amendment through the last Amendment, pro geek, pro nerd, pro hipster (because I don't give a fark if they want to look silly or not) pro athelete, pro pr0n, proton, pro gram, pro MJ, pro sex worker, pro mo,  proto, zoic, ...homo, because I'm human 1st and generally in favor of people being allowed to do whatever the fark they want as long as they aren't farking other people over.

I am the living man.

/go like a pro, bro.
 
2014-02-14 12:16:47 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I agree. I'm not saying that you have legal recourse if they fail to protect you, but it is their job, and they should be expected to do it. You (or your family) just can't sue if they fail.


Job, not duty. Duty has a very specific meaning. You can be found in dereliction of your duty and punished for it in a court of law (civil if not criminal). Fail to do your job and you just get fired. This is where your comment went off of the rails.

TuteTibiImperes: I respect the right to defend yourself if there is no option to retreat and notify law enforcement. If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns, and such conflicts would result in death or serious injury less often.


Chicago has had almost no person walking around legally carrying around a firearm, and it had one of the highest murder rates at the time, the same with many other large cities (DC, Detroit, Oakland and so on). The facts are that criminals will always be able to get guns. I'm willing to bet you, without even looking it up, that the vast majority of gun deaths outside of the home of the person owning the gun are not being caused by CCW permit holders but by illegal guns in the hands of criminals.
 
2014-02-14 12:17:29 AM  

deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that


The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?
 
2014-02-14 12:20:20 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


Why is Mexico excluded in that diagram? They are currently fighting the other side of our drug war. What would the gun murder rate be in the US and Mexico if we weren't both currently engaged in a futile drug war?
 
2014-02-14 12:21:37 AM  

Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I agree. I'm not saying that you have legal recourse if they fail to protect you, but it is their job, and they should be expected to do it. You (or your family) just can't sue if they fail.

Job, not duty. Duty has a very specific meaning. You can be found in dereliction of your duty and punished for it in a court of law (civil if not criminal). Fail to do your job and you just get fired. This is where your comment went off of the rails.


OK, I used job and duty interchangeably.  If you prefer job, I have no issue going with that.  If you're in trouble, the police are expected to come and help, that's what they're there for.  

TuteTibiImperes: I respect the right to defend yourself if there is no option to retreat and notify law enforcement. If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns, and such conflicts would result in death or serious injury less often.

Chicago has had almost no person walking around legally carrying around a firearm, and it had one of the highest murder rates at the time, the same with many other large cities (DC, Detroit, Oakland and so on). The facts are that criminals will always be able to get guns. I'm willing to bet you, without even looking it up, that the vast majority of gun deaths outside of the home of the person owning the gun are not being caused by CCW permit holders but by illegal guns in the hands of criminals.


Chicago has a huge gang violence problem which is the cause of the majority of their murder rate.  Guns can also easily come in from outside of the city, making the ban in the city not as effective as it could be.  If the bans were expanded to a larger geographical area, it would be harder for the guns to get in.
 
2014-02-14 12:22:26 AM  
TuteTibiImperes:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Chart is missing Mexico... that's odd. Oh... wait... guns are illegal there... so it must be a rate of zero.

/or Mexico isn't the "developed world"
 
2014-02-14 12:23:34 AM  

Descartes: No texting in movie theatres!

img5.joyreactor.com
 
2014-02-14 12:23:36 AM  

violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Why is Mexico excluded in that diagram? They are currently fighting the other side of our drug war. What would the gun murder rate be in the US and Mexico if we weren't both currently engaged in a futile drug war?


Probably a lot lower, and I'm all for ending it.

Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.
 
2014-02-14 12:27:11 AM  

Scrotastic Method: deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that

The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?


GMOs and gun rights, vs AGW and health insurance - he two sets of issues that make my left-wing friends and right-wing friends sound just as farking crazy and steeped in denialism as eachother.
 
2014-02-14 12:27:41 AM  

Scrotastic Method: deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that

The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?


What a steaming pile of crap that was.
 
2014-02-14 12:29:22 AM  

That's 'Master Troll' to You: Hurray! It is safe to go in public with a tiny penis again!


Now even people with tiny peni are safe with The Equalizer.
 
2014-02-14 12:30:30 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


Move to Japan then.
 
2014-02-14 12:37:20 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.


You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.
 
2014-02-14 12:37:56 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.


So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.
 
2014-02-14 12:41:20 AM  

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running forI Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.


I like the way you think, OgreMagi.
 
2014-02-14 12:42:08 AM  

fnordfocus: AngryDragon: Decision sounds pretty definitive. They'll appeal to SCOTUS and get smacked down like DC did with Heller. The Supreme Court doesn't like to reverse itself. Then they'll have to be reasonable about it.

Agreed.

My point is, I don't believe California Police Chiefs and Sheriffs are particularly concerned with obeying court orders.


Getting tossed in their own jail for contempt would probably be an enlightening experience.
 
2014-02-14 12:43:44 AM  

violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.


I can't find the same graph including Mexico, but this is total homicides:

3.bp.blogspot.com

We're not the highest, but we're at the unfortunate end of the spectrum.  Mexico is just insane.  Estonia's position is surprising.

Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier.  We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.
 
2014-02-14 12:43:48 AM  

violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

Well, too bad.


Right!
 
2014-02-14 12:45:04 AM  

IronTom: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running forI Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.

I like the way you think, OgreMagi.


I'm glad not everyone on Fark is a GFW (Gun Fearing Wussie).

And thanks for the TF.

I was just discussing the court decision and this thread with my sister.  She's in agreement that it was the correct ruling.  She's also an uber-crunchy, organic eating, yoga instructor, Wiccan hippy.
 
2014-02-14 12:45:24 AM  

shda5582: lostcat:
It seems like this ruling, even if it is not appealed, doesn't directly affect more than a handful of counties, and at most removes the requirement for the applicant to indicate their immediate need, in favor of a more general explanation of need. The waiting period and mandatory safety training are still in place and weren't even challenged. And the local government gets to decide what type of carry permit you receive.

Slightly wrong on that. 

The AWESOME decision by the 9th basically says that a county saying that you needed justifiable "good cause" (IE: restraining order by the courts, proof that you've been threatened requiring a signed statement by the person doing the threatening, politician, judge, celebrity, someone that donated a fark-ton of money to the county Sheriff...) can no longer deny you your application based upon just listing "self defense" on the good cause part of the application.

Pretty much if you can legally own a gun in CA, and you wish to carry concealed, then the counties can no longer deny you the issuance of the CCW if your reason is self-defense.  In other words, you can now get one in LA county provided you aren't a prohibited person, which is HUGE.


Could reciprocity from other states be next?  I'm still not sure why all states have to honor the drivers license from that state but not another state issued license (e.g.: ccw permit).
 
2014-02-14 12:45:41 AM  

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.


Why?  Legislation and Supreme Court cases address individual amendments all the time.  When prohibition was repealed they didn't throw out the whole constitution, they addressed the problem amendment only.
 
2014-02-14 12:48:43 AM  

violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.


Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.
 
2014-02-14 12:49:14 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: OK, I used job and duty interchangeably. If you prefer job, I have no issue going with that. If you're in trouble, the police are expected to come and help, that's what they're there for.


But not obligated to get there on time, that's not even in the job description. This is where people diverge in a discussion like this. Odds are that if it gets to the point where deadly force is required to protect yourself (in other words kill (or maimed) or be killed (or maimed)) that the police are not going to be there.

Just to make it clear here is the definition of deadly force that I learned in the navy:

Deadly force is that force which a person uses or plans to use, that can cause (or should know that it can cause), death or serious bodily harm. It's use is justified only in extreme conditions of last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. It then goes on to cover what is considered justified. It was a long list with a lot of it involving nuclear weapons (which is beyond the scope here) but protecting yourself and others was specifically covered as being justified.

A cell phone call to the police may not stop it from happening and I doubt that throwing the cell phone at your attacker is going to stop them either. That would be lesser means available, but when that doesn't work and you know that serious bodily harm is about to be done to you, or could be done to you, the definition explicitly permits its use.
 
2014-02-14 12:51:32 AM  

OgreMagi: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.


If the US were a mostly lawless free-for-all where drug kingpins who were in league with the police ran the show I'd be far more sympathetic towards universal CCW permits.  That, however, is not the case here.
 
2014-02-14 12:51:57 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier. We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_de at h_rate

We're 15th. So it's not just Mexico that's our Mississippi.

/and them central americans sure do like shooting each other!
 
2014-02-14 12:53:41 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running for Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.

Why?  Legislation and Supreme Court cases address individual amendments all the time.  When prohibition was repealed they didn't throw out the whole constitution, they addressed the problem amendment only.


So pass a farking amendment.  Until then, STFU about my rights.
 
2014-02-14 12:54:28 AM  

Thingster: All this does is remove the arbitrary issue of permits to campaign donors and famous people.

Making the rules non-subjective is not a bad thing.


When I managed a shooting range that was one of the most annoying things.  The people that came in with concealed weapons either were one's you'd recognize from movies/news or tossed someones re-election campaign between $10k - $20k. 

TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

I can't find the same graph including Mexico, but this is total homicides:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 545x477]

We're not the highest, but we're at the unfortunate end of the spectrum.  Mexico is just insane.  Estonia's position is surprising.

Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier.  We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.


WTH is going on in Estonia? o.O
 
2014-02-14 12:55:15 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.

If the US were a mostly lawless free-for-all where drug kingpins who were in league with the police ran the show I'd be far more sympathetic towards universal CCW permits.  That, however, is not the case here.


I take it you've never been to Oakland or Detroit.
 
2014-02-14 12:57:09 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: TuteTibiImperes: Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier. We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_de at h_rate

We're 15th. So it's not just Mexico that's our Mississippi.

/and them central americans sure do like shooting each other!


The chart was developed nations.  My point still stands if you substitute 'developing and third world countries' for Mexico.
 
2014-02-14 12:59:04 AM  

OgreMagi: So pass a farking amendment. Until then, STFU about my rights.


I think it's important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not "give" the people the right to bear arms... the right simply exists... the 2nd Amendment just prevents the right from being infringed.
 
2014-02-14 12:59:10 AM  

JDJoeE: WTH is going on in Estonia? o.O


Crime. Organized and otherwise would be my guess.
 
2014-02-14 01:00:14 AM  

OgreMagi: IronTom: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: Scrotastic Method: Interestingly, his main points were:

-- We're trumping states' rights,

"Rights" are a property of individuals, not of states.


The individuals of California chose elected officials who ran on reducing gun violence. If the majority of Californians wanted to trade safety for the ability to carry a firearm around with them all the time, they would have voted for someone else. This suit comes from a minority of people in the state who are trumping the individual rights of the majority.

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How about if the majority of Kansas chose to outlaw religions they deem unacceptable (anything not fundie). Would that be ok with you because it's a majority choice, or would you go running forI Constitutional protection that you so casually tossed aside just a moment ago?

No, I wouldn't be OK with that, but I respect the 1st amendment. Actually, I pretty much agree with all of them except for the 2nd.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts should be defended or not.  It's a package deal.

I like the way you think, OgreMagi.

I'm glad not everyone on Fark is a GFW (Gun Fearing Wussie).

And thanks for the TF.

I was just discussing the court decision and this thread with my sister.  She's in agreement that it was the correct ruling.  She's also an uber-crunchy, organic eating, yoga instructor, Wiccan hippy.


I would like to point out that not all Wiccans are uber-crunchy, organic eating, yoga instructor libtard types.  Some, surprisingly, are even pro-gun.

/speaking from experience
 
2014-02-14 01:03:32 AM  

Pray 4 Mojo: OgreMagi: So pass a farking amendment. Until then, STFU about my rights.

I think it's important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not "give" the people the right to bear arms... the right simply exists... the 2nd Amendment just prevents the right from being infringed.


That is correct.  Those Rights are considered natural, we are born with them (or god given for you religious types).  However, without the 2nd Amendment's protection, I would guarantee a lot of states would outright ban all types of firearms in private possession.
 
2014-02-14 01:04:52 AM  

Scrotastic Method: deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that

The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?


The first clause of the amendment announced the reason, it is not a requirement. In your example he IS expressly limited.

 QUOTE: "WHENEVER you get an A..." now, in this case, per the "agreement" with Timmy, you are not obliged to give him pizza, but you are not prohibited from doing so, nor is he prohibited from ASKING.  Your example (politely) fails.

Everything prior to the comma in the 2A simply explains WHY everything after the comma exists.  They can be broken into two sentences that retain the exact same meaning.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. FULL STOP

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. FULL STOP...not "as long as they're in a government sponsored militia."

If they wanted it to apply to the militia solely and not to the general populace they would have said militia twice, not people the second time.

\PS - amendment doesn't say guns, it says arms. This includes (but is not limited to) guns, knives, clubs, spears, swords, whips, chains, knuckledusters, stilettos, garrotes, or ANYTHING else that can be "borne"
 
2014-02-14 01:07:24 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

Why is Mexico excluded in that diagram? They are currently fighting the other side of our drug war. What would the gun murder rate be in the US and Mexico if we weren't both currently engaged in a futile drug war?

Probably a lot lower, and I'm all for ending it.

Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.


Doesn't fit the narrative...got it.
 
2014-02-14 01:07:33 AM  

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.

If the US were a mostly lawless free-for-all where drug kingpins who were in league with the police ran the show I'd be far more sympathetic towards universal CCW permits.  That, however, is not the case here.

I take it you've never been to Oakland or Detroit.


Or Stockton...

Or East St. Louis.
 
2014-02-14 01:10:11 AM  

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: OgreMagi: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

Until recently, gun ownership was illegal.  Supposedly they've loosened that up a little.  Now you can get a pea-shooter to go up against the cartels AK-47s.  However, I'm sure the law was implemented in such a way that your average Mexican citizen won't be able to get a firearm.  The people, though, are now ignoring the law, arming themselves, and taking matters in their own hands because the police are worse than useless since they are actively working with the cartels.

If the US were a mostly lawless free-for-all where drug kingpins who were in league with the police ran the show I'd be far more sympathetic towards universal CCW permits.  That, however, is not the case here.

I take it you've never been to Oakland or Detroit.


Or the National Park I like to hike around in.

www.nps.gov
 
2014-02-14 01:12:57 AM  

deadlyplatypus: Scrotastic Method: deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that

The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?

The first clause of the amendment announced the reason, it is not a requirement. In your example he IS expressly limited.

 QUOTE: "WHENEVER you get ....


I just punished you with a month of TF for actually responding to that drivel.

You wanna go for 6?
 
2014-02-14 01:18:35 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: The Southern Dandy: It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.

Yet people living in nations where there are strong firearm safety regulations still manage to protect themselves without carrying guns around.


This guy would like a word with you.

thenypost.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-14 01:19:34 AM  

JDJoeE: shda5582: lostcat:
It seems like this ruling, even if it is not appealed, doesn't directly affect more than a handful of counties, and at most removes the requirement for the applicant to indicate their immediate need, in favor of a more general explanation of need. The waiting period and mandatory safety training are still in place and weren't even challenged. And the local government gets to decide what type of carry permit you receive.

Slightly wrong on that. 

The AWESOME decision by the 9th basically says that a county saying that you needed justifiable "good cause" (IE: restraining order by the courts, proof that you've been threatened requiring a signed statement by the person doing the threatening, politician, judge, celebrity, someone that donated a fark-ton of money to the county Sheriff...) can no longer deny you your application based upon just listing "self defense" on the good cause part of the application.

Pretty much if you can legally own a gun in CA, and you wish to carry concealed, then the counties can no longer deny you the issuance of the CCW if your reason is self-defense.  In other words, you can now get one in LA county provided you aren't a prohibited person, which is HUGE.

Could reciprocity from other states be next?  I'm still not sure why all states have to honor the drivers license from that state but not another state issued license (e.g.: ccw permit).


Hey, guess what Gabby Giffords cosponsored two days before she was shot.
 
2014-02-14 01:26:31 AM  

The Southern Dandy: TuteTibiImperes: The Southern Dandy: It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.

Yet people living in nations where there are strong firearm safety regulations still manage to protect themselves without carrying guns around.

This guy would like a word with you.

[thenypost.files.wordpress.com image 300x300]


If Tute had been there he would have saved that young soldier's life with a chart or perhaps a witty quip
 
2014-02-14 01:30:51 AM  

kombat_unit: The Southern Dandy: TuteTibiImperes: The Southern Dandy: It's my body. It's my life. The govt doesn't the right to tell me how I can defend my body/my life. It's the most basic freedom there is.

Yet people living in nations where there are strong firearm safety regulations still manage to protect themselves without carrying guns around.

This guy would like a word with you.

[thenypost.files.wordpress.com image 300x300]

If Tute had been there he would have saved that young soldier's life with a chart or perhaps a witty quip


I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much.  My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that.  Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.
 
2014-02-14 01:39:01 AM  

deadlyplatypus: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. FULL STOP

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. FULL STOP.


Correct. The people who don't understand this need it broken down just a little bit more though so if I may...

If the amendment says what they think that it says then it would have read:

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. FULL STOP

The right of the people militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. FULL STOP.

The militias were mentioned in the first part to recognize that even a free state (or nation) needs a military from time to time to protect itself from enemies both foreign and domestic, and that forming a military in and of itself is not an indication of the decline of a free state or nation.

If the second line was written as above (in my example) replacing people with militias then only things like a state national guard and the military would be permitted to bear arms and any people NOT in those organizations would have been explicitly denied the right to bear arms.

But that's not what it says nor was it ever implied. Only those who hate the idea of guns read it the way that my example gives (they read people and get dyslexic and think that it means militia).
 
2014-02-14 01:46:02 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.


I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.
 
2014-02-14 01:57:34 AM  

Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.


And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.
 
2014-02-14 02:17:36 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.


So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.
 
2014-02-14 02:18:14 AM  
there*
 
2014-02-14 02:26:03 AM  

The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.


Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?
 
2014-02-14 02:33:09 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?


Shot him.
 
2014-02-14 02:50:17 AM  

The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

Shot him.


Right. Two men in a car who swerved at the last second and hit you in the back.
They took out an active-duty infantryman, but you're claiming that you would have identified the threat, turned, drawn, aimed, and shot two men in a car without hitting any bystanders, and got out of its path in the time it takes to swerve off the road and run you over from behind.
/Damn, Marshal Rambo Dillon, that's really farking impressive.
//Totally only-in-the-movies fictional, but really farking impressive.
 
2014-02-14 03:03:33 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an unarmed active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?


FTFY.
 
2014-02-14 03:13:12 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Right. Two men in a car who swerved at the last second and hit you in the back.
They took out an active-duty infantryman, but you're claiming that you would have identified the threat, turned, drawn, aimed, and shot two men in a car without hitting any bystanders, and got out of its path in the time it takes to swerve off the road and run you over from behind.
/Damn, Marshal Rambo Dillon, that's really farking impressive.
//Totally only-in-the-movies fictional, but really farking impressive.


You do understand the concept of "show of force", yes?
My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car.
So if he was able to draw on the two gentleman, maybe they would have reconsidered their little plan and fled.
If not, he could have opened fire, and hopefully ended the altercation there, whether he hit one of them or not.
If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him.
Arguing the hypothetical what-ifs of a specific situation are stupid.
But for me, I'd still prefer to have that option available to me if worse comes to worse.

I will be interested to see where this goes for CA, and if it has any noticeable effect on the current trending in violent crime, firearms related homicide, etc.
 
2014-02-14 03:26:15 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

Shot him.

Right. Two men in a car who swerved at the last second and hit you in the back.
They took out an active-duty infantryman, but you're claiming that you would have identified the threat, turned, drawn, aimed, and shot two men in a car without hitting any bystanders, and got out of its path in the time it takes to swerve off the road and ...


Hold on, I'm trying to get a grip on all the rules for your game here.  So I get run over by a car...am I still able to reach weapon?  If so, I want my weapon to be a gun, and not a rubber chicken, which the govt may require I defend myself with. Guns work much better.  I just want the right to use the best tool to defend my life.

OK. so I've been run over.  If I'm already out of it...oh well, bad guy wins, but he won because he got the drop on me, not because the govt prevented me from defending myself. Do you understand that concept.  The govt preventing you from defending your own life?  The govt taking away that basic human right of survival.  The govt took it, not the bad guy.  If the bad guy took it by running me down with a car, so be it...he's a bad guy. He doesn't give a fark about my right to survival.  The govt shouldn't be the bad guy.  The govt shouldn't take away my right to survival.
 
2014-02-14 03:48:04 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an unarmed active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

FTFY.


Riiiiiight.
She saw the Tigra strike Fusilier Rigby and carry him until the car crashed into a road sign.
"The young man flew off the bonnet and landed about two feet in front of the car," Mr Whittam said.
"She (Bailey) saw that his eyes were open but they looked frozen."
Mr Whittam said the men left the car.
"The driver was carrying a cleaver in his hand. He knelt down by Lee Rigby and took hold of his hair.
"He then repeatedly hacked at the right side of his neck just below the jawline."
 
2014-02-14 03:52:43 AM  
ww4.hdnux.com

This was a passing grade in CCW class?

:stare:   Can I change sides in this debate?
 
2014-02-14 04:37:26 AM  

Kahabut: [ww4.hdnux.com image 628x418]

This was a passing grade in CCW class?

:stare:   Can I change sides in this debate?


He isn't trying to qualify as an expert marksman.  If that is a bad guy, he isn't walking away. I am more worried that the person with the weapon knows basic safety and when and where he should use his weapon than his exact score. After all, when circumstances dictate a use of a weapon and you get that adrenaline dump, your not going to be too steady no matter what your shooting and most people just don't have the time and training to counter that circumstance. We saw 7 LAPD officers shoot 100 rounds at 2 newspaper delivery women and only got 1 hit on one and a graze on the other.

It is more important to show familiarity of the weapon and the appropriate places to draw and make ready to use your weapon that is all you have to do to deescalate the situation.  A movie theater after someone has thrown popcorn in your face is not appropriate.  A mall shooting where there isn't a clear shot so you don't discharge the weapon, yes.
 
2014-02-14 05:23:44 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: WhiskeyBoy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an unarmed active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

FTFY.

Riiiiiight.
She saw the Tigra strike Fusilier Rigby and carry him until the car crashed into a road sign.
"The young man flew off the bonnet and landed about two feet in front of the car," Mr Whittam said.
"She (Bailey) saw that his eyes were open but they looked frozen."
Mr Whittam said the men left the car.
"The driver was carrying a cle ...


What are you contesting here?  He was unarmed.
If you meant to quote where I said "My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car." I understand, and retract my statement in light of new information you have provided.
Of course, I did also say "If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him."
 
2014-02-14 06:30:03 AM  

That's 'Master Troll' to You: Hurray! It is safe to go in public with a tiny penis again!


NOT A FETISH!!!
 
2014-02-14 06:47:58 AM  

Scrotastic Method: First, I wouldn't attempt to conflate health and family decisions with those of the desire to possess a firearm.

And second, I believe Heller was one of the worst decisions the court ever made, maybe only trumped in modern times by Citizens United. I side with Stevens on that one, who wrote in his dissent, which is summarized better on Wikipedia than I would do here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenti ng _opinions

Interestingly, his main points were:
-- That's not what the Bill of Rights says,
-- We're trumping states' rights,
-- We're legislating from the bench, and,
-- We're not even addressing a main point of contention.

All of which are, you know, the kinds of things conservatives are supposed to be against. A true conservative should be against the Heller decision, but since it gave them what they wanted, they are willing to compromise their principles.

Compromising of principle being, of course, the foundation of the right wing. See also: things Jesus really said and did


Really?

--  You really need to re-read the Bill of Rights
--  All of a sudden, we care about states' rights on the liberal side?  Or is it only where the 2nd amendment is concerned?  I don't hear this argument when it comes to voter registration, abortion, gay marriage, or anything else.
--  Upholding a Supreme Court precedent is not legislating from the bench by any stretch
--  Ironic.  Because trigger locks, gun safes, magazine limits, and cosmetic limitations don't address the main point of contention either.  Since when does imposing a restriction on a law abiding citizen do anything to prevent crime?

As far as Stevens' position of "the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".  Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont."?  Live by the Supremeacy clause, die by the Supremacy clause.

Dimensio: I have been assured that, despite my advocacy of same-sex marriage, the teaching of evolution in public schools, a fair and progressive tax rate, health care reform and easy access to birth control and abortion, I am a "bagger" because I believed that a proposed law to ban .50 caliber rifles -- and to mandate surrender of any currently owned rifles to the government -- was not reasonable


Me too.  I share all of your positions.  It's really ironic for a group that purport to be open-minded.  Nothing gets you labeled a right wing radical faster than saying that people should be able to defend themselves with a firearm.  Bizarre.
 
2014-02-14 06:56:01 AM  
This makes me wanna shoot!
 
2014-02-14 07:09:06 AM  

The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.


Except that's not true at all.  The government absolutely has the right to tell you if you can carry a gun around or not, it's a basic public safety policy decision.

The incident regarding the guy in London is pretty horrific, but it's also an isolated incident.  Overall the per-capita homicide rate in the UK is less than half that of the US, and the firearm related homicide rate is less than 1/10th that of the US, so obviously gun policy plays a pretty big role.

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carrying around guns in public'.
 
2014-02-14 08:57:38 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Except that's not true at all.  The government absolutely has the right to tell you if you can carry a gun around or not, it's a basic public safety policy decision.

The incident regarding the guy in London is pretty horrific, but it's also an isolated incident.  Overall the per-capita homicide rate in the UK is less than half that of the US, and the firearm related homicide rate is less than 1/10th that of the US, so obviously gun policy plays a pretty big role.

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carry ...


And yet, in the US, it's STILL, by percentages, rare that a person dies from gun violence if it's NOT suicide or gang-related.

If you don't like living around guns, move to England. Simple as that.
 
2014-02-14 10:29:07 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: mrlewish: "The risk of armed confrontation "is not limited to the home," O'Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of "a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site."

1. You are supposed to avoid going into a dangerous neighborhood if you carry a gun. One of the first rules of carry and conceal is to avoid situations in which you might have to use a weapon.
2. So what company allows their workers to carry guns at their job site?

If you feel as if you need a gun with you at all times to be safe there are problems far greater than CCW permits.  The logical course of action would be to address why the police presence in the area is either inadequate or ineffective and take measures to fix that.  It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.


You do realize that the courts have repeatedly and consistently ruled that the Police are under no obligation to protect you, right??
 
2014-02-14 10:34:44 AM  

Farkage: If you feel as if you need a gun with you at all times to be safe there are problems far greater than CCW permits.  The logical course of action would be to address why the police presence in the area is either inadequate or ineffective and take measures to fix that.  It's the duty of law enforcement to protect the public, one shouldn't ever be expected to carry a gun in order to do it oneself.


You do realize that the courts have repeatedly and consistently ruled that the Police are under no obligation to protect you, right??


Don't bother.  They will never listen.  It's willful blindness.
 
2014-02-14 10:41:12 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

I can't find the same graph including Mexico, but this is total homicides:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 545x477]

We're not the highest, but we're at the unfortunate end of the spectrum.  Mexico is just insane.  Estonia's position is surprising.

Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier.  We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.


Can you do a comparison between major metropolitan areas in the US?  Maybe a comparison between rural areas?
 
2014-02-14 11:00:48 AM  

Scrotastic Method: deadlyplatypus: a 5th grade understanding of English grammar and sentence structure prove that

The second amendment says, in 5th grade language, that since we need a militia people can have guns. The Supreme Court later decided that the "militia" part, because of a comma, wasn't the only reason people get to have guns. Grammatically, that is nonsense.

Here's an example: "Hey Timmy, whenever you get an A on your report card, you get to have pizza for dinner." Timmy brings home a C. He requests pizza, and says that since you didn't expressly limit the scope of pizza events to A grades, he can have pizza with a C. Are you buying that line of reasoning?


"A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." - Forgot the author

So you're saying no books for people that don't vote?
/you fail
 
2014-02-14 11:14:15 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: demaL-demaL-yeH: WhiskeyBoy: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Southern Dandy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Radioactive Ass: TuteTibiImperes: I don't know who that is, but isolated data points don't mean much. My statement was that people in other nations manage to defend themselves without the right to carry guns around, and the charts do show that. Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying developed nations, but as we're also one, those are the best comparison.

I'm pretty sure that modern day London England qualifies as a developed nation (and just so happens to not allow the right to bear arms). That guy had just hacked a man to death in broad daylight on a London city street in case you didn't hear about it. Link, may be a bit gory depending on your stomach.

And a woman talked them into stopping. Then the special cops showed up and shot them.

So my point is that you, the govt, or whoever ...do not have the right to tell me how I can defend my own life from the guy. It's my life.  I can defend it however I see fit.  You might tell me..."no, you must talk him down and wait until the special cops come"  fark you, I want to live and Im not sure talking him down will work.  You might say "You can use a knife or a club to defend your life"  Fark you. I want to live and I have a better chance of living if I use a gun to defend my life.  Survival: It's the most basic right their is.

Hmm. Try pulling that on a cop. I'll ask your next of kin how that went.
PS There were two of them. And they hit him with a car before they got all choppy on the victim - an unarmed active duty infantryman.
So tell me, gunslinger, what the fark could you have done in that situation?

FTFY.

Riiiiiight.
She saw the Tigra strike Fusilier Rigby and carry him until the car crashed into a road sign.
"The young man flew off the bonnet and landed about two feet in front of the car," Mr Whittam said.
"She (Bailey) saw that his eyes were open but they looked frozen."
Mr Whittam said the men left the car.
"The driver w ...


Don't bother even arguing with him.  When he gets proven wrong, he just ignores what you said and keeps on going.
 
2014-02-14 11:15:50 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: violentsalvation: TuteTibiImperes: Right now Mexico's government is teetering on the edge between troubled and completely ineffective.  Given the the internal turmoil, it doesn't make sense to compare numbers there.

So for the purposes of the diagram, Mexico is no longer part of the developed world, or they chose to omit Mexico considering so many of the country's murders are an affect of the war on drugs. Seems strange they didn't consider to do the same for the US. Even stranger since gun ownership is strictly controlled in Mexico.

I can't find the same graph including Mexico, but this is total homicides:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 545x477]

We're not the highest, but we're at the unfortunate end of the spectrum.  Mexico is just insane.  Estonia's position is surprising.

Even if Mexico were included in the first and is higher than us, it's the statistical outlier.  We shouldn't rest our hats on 'Well, we're not as bad as Mexico'.


And for the Mexican homicide rate we can mostly thank..... the American War on Drugs.  Nancy Reagan, you farked us all.
 
2014-02-14 11:19:08 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: sugar_fetus: TuteTibiImperes: I've had this discussion on various gun threads many time.  Regardless of if they have a legally mandated duty to do so, it's still their job.

Here's the job description for police officers in the LAPD.

http://www.lapdonline.org/join_the_team/content_basic_view/9127#Poli ce %20Officer

Please tell me where the duty to protect individuals is stated.

These would all qualify:

Responding to the scene of a crime or an accident

Responding to radio calls

Monitoring any suspicious activity of ongoing crimes

gja: TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns

That is about as naive a statment as I have ever heard. Even here on FARK.

Hardly.  The US has more guns per capita and a higher gun murder rate than other developed nations.  Places like the UK, Japan, and Germany that have stronger firearm regulations have fewer incidents of gun crime because the guns are more easily controlled, causing them to fall into the hands of criminals less often.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


more guns arguably yields more gun related deaths.  However, less guns does not mean less deaths overall.  I imagine a state with lots of lakes or a long coastline has more drwoning a year than a landlocked arid state.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-14 11:41:32 AM  
johnny_vegas

Is it weird that the first thing I noticed about your map is that it seems to have entirely excised the Caspian from existence, instead marking its southernmost reaches as an apparent country that doesn't exist in our world?

I don't know what the UNODC is up to, but it strikes me fair odd.
 
2014-02-14 11:47:51 AM  
TuteTibiImperes:

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carry ...

Except it isn't.   The violent crime rate in England is approximately double that of the USA once you correct England's stats to US metrics.

And before you get your panties in a twist, "correcting" UK stats drops their violent crime rate significantly.
 
2014-02-14 11:51:49 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: What are you contesting here?  He was unarmed.
If you meant to quote where I said "My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car." I understand, and retract my statement in light of new information you have provided.
Of course, I did also say "If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him."


*DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING*
Now look upthread and see where some mentally-disadvantaged farkers claimed that firearms would make a difference in the UK, citing this very horrific murder as support.
 
2014-02-14 11:55:08 AM  

Thingster: TuteTibiImperes:

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carry ...

Except it isn't.   The violent crime rate in England is approximately double that of the USA once you correct England's stats to US metrics.

And before you get your panties in a twist, "correcting" UK stats drops their violent crime rate significantly.


Um, no. No, it isn't. Simple assault (i.e. I'm going to kick your arse,") and BB gun wars/shooting lightbulbs are classified as violent crimes in the UK. The FBI stats don't even count them at all.
 
2014-02-14 11:55:31 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: WhiskeyBoy: What are you contesting here?  He was unarmed.
If you meant to quote where I said "My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car." I understand, and retract my statement in light of new information you have provided.
Of course, I did also say "If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him."

*DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING*
Now look upthread and see where some mentally-disadvantaged farkers claimed that firearms would make a difference in the UK, citing this very horrific murder as support.


You do know it's ok to shoot as a bystander?

You see someone hit by a car, then a guy jumps out and starts stabbing him, you shoot.

That's a good shoot in all 50 states.
 
2014-02-14 11:58:38 AM  

Facetious_Speciest: johnny_vegas

Is it weird that the first thing I noticed about your map is that it seems to have entirely excised the Caspian from existence, instead marking its southernmost reaches as an apparent country that doesn't exist in our world?

I don't know what the UNODC is up to, but it strikes me fair odd.


Great point

/specifically to answer your question, not odd at all
 
2014-02-14 12:00:07 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Thingster: TuteTibiImperes:

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carry ...

Except it isn't.   The violent crime rate in England is approximately double that of the USA once you correct England's stats to US metrics.

And before you get your panties in a twist, "correcting" UK stats drops their violent crime rate significantly.

Um, no. No, it isn't. Simple assault (i.e. I'm going to kick your arse,") and BB gun wars/shooting lightbulbs are classified as violent crimes in the UK. The FBI stats don't even count them at all.


Which is where my "correcting to US metrics" statement comes in.

The raw numbers show the UK being 5x more violent than the US.

working their numbers down to the Big Four the FBI look at, the UK is still about 2x as violent as the US.
 
2014-02-14 12:06:04 PM  

Thingster: demaL-demaL-yeH: Thingster: TuteTibiImperes:

Looking at the big picture it's safer for citizens to walk around in the UK than it is in the US in a large part because the government has exerted it's right to say 'people shouldn't be carry ...

Except it isn't.   The violent crime rate in England is approximately double that of the USA once you correct England's stats to US metrics.

And before you get your panties in a twist, "correcting" UK stats drops their violent crime rate significantly.

Um, no. No, it isn't. Simple assault (i.e. I'm going to kick your arse,") and BB gun wars/shooting lightbulbs are classified as violent crimes in the UK. The FBI stats don't even count them at all.

Which is where my "correcting to US metrics" statement comes in.

The raw numbers show the UK being 5x more violent than the US.

working their numbers down to the Big Four the FBI look at, the UK is still about 2x as violent as the US.


Accepting your claim (which I don't, b the way), that still leaves the UK far, far less deadly, maimy, vegetably, and paralyzedy.
 
2014-02-14 12:29:11 PM  

Daedalus27: He isn't trying to qualify as an expert marksman.  If that is a bad guy, he isn't walking away.


Neither is anyone in the vicinity.

You don't think that's a problem?

Look, it's simple.  I don't care if you carry a gun.  I care that when you pull it out, you know how to use it properly.  The real world isn't as forgiving as a target range, you go wide on your shots like that picture and you're going to kill some innocent third party.  That target wasn't moving, so this guy shoots so bad AT A STATIONARY target that he can't even hit the silhouette every time?  And you gave him a permit to carry?  fark that.

/CCW 3 counties
//never missed a stationary target in my life
///no where near the best shooter I know
 
2014-02-14 12:31:25 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: WhiskeyBoy: What are you contesting here?  He was unarmed.
If you meant to quote where I said "My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car." I understand, and retract my statement in light of new information you have provided.
Of course, I did also say "If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him."

*DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING*
Now look upthread and see where some mentally-disadvantaged farkers claimed that firearms would make a difference in the UK, citing this very horrific murder as support.


See, this is where people like you can't seem to wrap your head around the bigger picture.
Guy gets run over
Bad guys in the car get out to knife run over guy
A half dozen bystanders draw their CCW's and the bad guys are either prodigiously perforated or they run away at the show of force
Run over guy survives, depending on injuries sustained by meeting a bumper

It's not about just one person, it's about the entire collective. So yes, more guns could have very well helped him.
 
2014-02-14 12:34:28 PM  

Kahabut: Neither is anyone in the vicinity.


Only two rounds missed the target, and one of those went over the targets head.
It's a little hyperbolic to say no one in the vicinity is walking away, don't you think?
 
2014-02-14 12:39:23 PM  
Kahabut

Look, it's simple. I don't care if you carry a gun. I care that when you pull it out, you know how to use it properly. The real world isn't as forgiving as a target range, you go wide on your shots like that picture and you're going to kill some innocent third party. That target wasn't moving, so this guy shoots so bad AT A STATIONARY target that he can't even hit the silhouette every time? And you gave him a permit to carry? fark that.

In the theory, of course, we're all of the same mind. But as it happens, in the real world, we not only let people walk around with such skills or their lack, we give them special dispensation of authority. That in mind, I don't find it unimaginable that such a person should have the right to defend himself, what with those we expect to do more showing the same lack of acuity.

/see: Empire State Building shootings, 2012
 
2014-02-14 12:44:06 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: I think it's important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not "give" the people the right to bear arms... the right simply exists... the 2nd Amendment just prevents the right from being infringed.


Nonsense. As living creature we have the natural right to self-defense. Not a natural freedom to firearms.

Farkage: "A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." - Forgot the author

So you're saying no books for people that don't vote?
/you fail


Well had the founders written that, yes it would have been the law, and yes I would advocate an amendment to change it. Just like when the founders specifically wrote that militias were the reasons for guns and here I am advocating for changing that.

Lucky for us, we've changed the voting rules. Here's hoping we change the gun rules.

deadlyplatypus: FULL STOP


Commas are not full stops. They directly announce that one thing is related to the other.

If we apply your broken grammar rules to the First Amendment, we'd look at all those dependent clauses as "full stops" too, and then some nutjob would think that meant we could make laws against religion.

The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller.

And you know how that makes sense? Because the claims that "weapons are a natural right" has no bounds. Can I have a .50 cal machine gun on my roof? A bank of SAMs in my backyard? Can I walk through Times Square with a bazooka on my back? Of course not, and you know you wouldn't want that. So you know that there need to be controls on what firearms the population has.

/I'm not a liberal gun nut.
//I used to be a ranked competitive trap (skeet) shooter
///took my wife to a range this summer to teach her how to use handguns...just in case
////understands there's no reason for the average civilian to own anything outside of shotguns and rifles for hunting
 
2014-02-14 12:46:34 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Just like when the founders specifically wrote that militias were the reasons for guns and here I am advocating for changing that.


I botched that line and got two ideas mixed up but everyone should know what I meant. But then, this is Fark, so, a mistake just means I'm wrong.

/notice how the commas in that last sentence don't mean the last 6 words stand alone?
 
2014-02-14 12:48:47 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Pray 4 Mojo: I think it's important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not "give" the people the right to bear arms... the right simply exists... the 2nd Amendment just prevents the right from being infringed.

Nonsense. As living creature we have the natural right to self-defense. Not a natural freedom to firearms.

Farkage: "A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." - Forgot the author

So you're saying no books for people that don't vote?
/you fail

Well had the founders written that, yes it would have been the law, and yes I would advocate an amendment to change it. Just like when the founders specifically wrote that militias were the reasons for guns and here I am advocating for changing that.

Lucky for us, we've changed the voting rules. Here's hoping we change the gun rules.

deadlyplatypus: FULL STOP

Commas are not full stops. They directly announce that one thing is related to the other.

If we apply your broken grammar rules to the First Amendment, we'd look at all those dependent clauses as "full stops" too, and then some nutjob would think that meant we could make laws against religion.

The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller.

And you know how that makes sense? Because the claims that "weapons are a natural right" has no bounds. Can I have a .50 cal machine gun on my roof? A bank of SAMs in my backyard? Can I walk through Times Square with a bazooka on my back? Of course not, and you know you wouldn't want that. So you know that there need to be controls on what firearms the population has.

/I'm not a liberal gun nut.
//I used to be a ranked competitive trap (skeet) shooter
///took my wife to a range this summer to teach her how to use handguns...just in case
////understands there's no reason for the average civilian to own anything outside of shotguns and rifles for hunting


You support Miller, but then ask if you should be able to have a machine gun?
 
2014-02-14 12:50:16 PM  

Scrotastic Method: The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller


Regardless of your opinion.   Heller is now the law of the land thank god.  It's effects can now be seen everywhere.  And guess what?  No blood in the streets.

Maybe your fellow citizens are more reasonable and responsible than you people give us credit for.
 
2014-02-14 12:54:47 PM  

AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller

Regardless of your opinion.   Heller is now the law of the land thank god.  It's effects can now be seen everywhere.  And guess what?  No blood in the streets.

Maybe your fellow citizens are more reasonable and responsible than you people give us credit for.


Dude have you seen the stats -- any stats, from many source, ever published anywhere -- on gun death in America vs. the rest of the world?
 
2014-02-14 12:55:08 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: "Guess we won't be seeing any conservatives complaining about activist judges in this thread"



Since this ruling didn't involve judges trying to annul part of the Constitution from the bench, in principle we shouldn't be seeing anybody complaining about activist judges in this thread.
 
2014-02-14 01:02:09 PM  
Scrotastic Method

The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"...

Not really sure you want to go there. If you support the interpretation in that case, you're supporting the ideas that:

- a weapon in common military service (today, an assault rifle) is appropriate for the militia;

- "The signification attributed to the term 'militia' appears from the deabtes in the Convention, the history and legislation of colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators; these show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." (emphasis mine)

- "And further, that ordinarily when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

So, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.

I don't think this is really what you want, judging from your previous comments regarding firearms in the United States.
 
2014-02-14 01:05:47 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If carrying firearms were banned across the board there would be far fewer criminals walking around with guns...


bwahahahaha! Sweet kid. [pats head]
 
2014-02-14 01:05:58 PM  

Scrotastic Method: AngryDragon: Scrotastic Method: The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" -- and activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller

Regardless of your opinion.   Heller is now the law of the land thank god.  It's effects can now be seen everywhere.  And guess what?  No blood in the streets.

Maybe your fellow citizens are more reasonable and responsible than you people give us credit for.

Dude have you seen the stats -- any stats, from many source, ever published anywhere -- on gun death in America vs. the rest of the world?


Yet it's down 50% in the US over the last 20 years.  And still falling.

50%
 
2014-02-14 01:11:31 PM  

Thingster: You see someone hit by a car, then a guy jumps out and starts stabbing him, you shoot.

That's a good shoot in all 50 states.


As I read the California law, you can only use deadly force to protect immediate family members and your employers/servants.
 
2014-02-14 01:11:43 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Scrotastic Method

The Supreme Court got it right in Miller -- that the amendment discussed firearms that had "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"...

Not really sure you want to go there. If you support the interpretation in that case, you're supporting the ideas that:

- a weapon in common military service (today, an assault rifle) is appropriate for the militia;

- "The signification attributed to the term 'militia' appears from the deabtes in the Convention, the history and legislation of colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators; these show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." (emphasis mine)

- "And further, that ordinarily when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

So, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.

I don't think this is really what you want, judging from your previous comments regarding firearms in the United States.


There's also the point that I will present here:
Okay for the people that say the right to bear arms is tied to militia service (which it isn't), you were to bring your own gun. There is a religious exemption to prevent you from being forced into militia service, but that exemption does not take away your right to own one. Therefore, it can be said you absolutely have the right to own a gun without being in the militia.
 
2014-02-14 01:17:55 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: OK, I used job and duty interchangeably. If you prefer job, I have no issue going with that. If you're in trouble, the police are expected to come and help, that's what they're there for.


I can expect to see monkeys flying from my butt, that does not automagically mean they will.

Warren v. District of Columbia:
 By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.
 
2014-02-14 01:22:01 PM  
Farkage

Okay for the people that say the right to bear arms is tied to militia service (which it isn't), you were to bring your own gun. There is a religious exemption to prevent you from being forced into militia service, but that exemption does not take away your right to own one. Therefore, it can be said you absolutely have the right to own a gun without being in the militia.

Of course. The means to defend oneself is a natural right, older than the country or its government. If a government were to suppress that right, though, it would hardly be possible to call up a militia with their own arms. That's where the second amendment of the Bill of Rights comes in.
 
2014-02-14 01:30:26 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: So, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.

I don't think this is really what you want, judging from your previous comments regarding firearms in the United States.


I'm saying that sure, guns were needed for citizen militias. And since we have no need for those anymore, what with the world's largest armed forces at our disposal, the 2nd ought to be considered irrelevant.
 
2014-02-14 01:40:16 PM  
Scrotastic Method

I'm saying that sure, guns were needed for citizen militias. And since we have no need for those anymore, what with the world's largest armed forces at our disposal, the 2nd ought to be considered irrelevant.

Before addressing that, are you now saying you no longer agree with the Miller case? At its decision, we'd had a standing army for quite some time, and the militia (every able man) had been revisited mere decades ago, yet the court opined that citizens were the militia, and the militia should be armed as regular soldiers in case of muster.

That aside, we return to personal opinion. You seem to be happy with an army to invade and occupy other countries. I, much like many of the founders of the United States, do not see that as a positive. To my mind, we waste billions of dollars that could be used for healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc., to maintain an oppressive force that only serves as a placeholder to enrich private entities and sow misery around the world. But again, we're back to the realm of opinion.
 
2014-02-14 01:46:28 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Facetious_Speciest: So, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.

I don't think this is really what you want, judging from your previous comments regarding firearms in the United States.

I'm saying that sure, guns were needed for citizen militias. And since we have no need for those anymore, what with the world's largest armed forces at our disposal, the 2nd ought to be considered irrelevant.


If that is the case, repeal the Amendment. If we, as a society, begin ignoring the parts of the constitution we decide we no longer like, our country falls apart rather rapidly.
 
2014-02-14 01:48:11 PM  

Thingster: You do know it's ok to shoot as a bystander?

You see someone hit by a car, then a guy jumps out and starts stabbing him, you shoot.

That's a good shoot in all 50 states.


But unless you've got a CCW permit, you'll be getting a call from the DA and subsequent charges for your service to the community.

which is super-duper farked up.
 
2014-02-14 01:54:41 PM  

Finger51: Thingster: You do know it's ok to shoot as a bystander?

You see someone hit by a car, then a guy jumps out and starts stabbing him, you shoot.

That's a good shoot in all 50 states.

But unless you've got a CCW permit, you'll be getting a call from the DA and subsequent charges for your service to the community.

which is super-duper farked up.


Depends, but yeah, more likely than not you're getting a call from the DA.

Fortunately there are some places that give a defense of self exception to unlawful possession laws, though not defense of third party.
 
2014-02-14 02:14:38 PM  

Farkage: If that is the case, repeal the Amendment. If we, as a society, begin ignoring the parts of the constitution we decide we no longer like, our country falls apart rather rapidly.


Yes, agreed, that's what I want, the 2nd should be (edited/repealed/replaced/etc.). But like I said on page I don't know, 2 or something, that'll never happen with a bought-out legislature. The nation has been screaming for serious gun legislation for the past few years, and nothing happens, because backwards asshats like Ted Cruz and Louie Gomert are still allowed to sit at the grown-ups table.
 
2014-02-14 02:23:45 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: That aside, we return to personal opinion. You seem to be happy with an army to invade and occupy other countries. I, much like many of the founders of the United States, do not see that as a positive.


Where did I say I was happy about our military? I merely said it existed, and therefore, a citizen militia is useless -- both to defend the country and, sorry Tea Partiers, to rebel against it.

To my mind, we waste billions of dollars that could be used for healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc., to maintain an oppressive force that only serves as a placeholder to enrich private entities and sow misery around the world. But again, we're back to the realm of opinion.

I completely agree with you. I'm the first man in my family, as far back as I've traced it, that hasn't been military. My grandfather was career, my father was in and out in 4 years (I was conceived when he had leave to go bang my mom) and he's been a civilian employee of his branch since the year I was born, etc. I grew up 10 miles from a military college, 25 miles from the NSA, and 40 miles from the Pentagon. I've been surrounded by the military and from everything I've seen...I have no love for it whatsoever. Far as I can tell we've only entered two conflicts worth entering, yet we've been at war for 200 years and like you said, we set billions on fire every year out of the same kind of paranoia, xenophonia, and fear that makes a suburban dad want to keep a .380 in the nightstand and a shotgun behind the door.

But that doesn't change that the military is there, replacing any need for a citizen militia, and able to stomp out any armed uprising in seconds...so the military being there ought to render the 2nd moot.
 
2014-02-14 02:27:19 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Farkage: If that is the case, repeal the Amendment. If we, as a society, begin ignoring the parts of the constitution we decide we no longer like, our country falls apart rather rapidly.

Yes, agreed, that's what I want, the 2nd should be (edited/repealed/replaced/etc.). But like I said on page I don't know, 2 or something, that'll never happen with a bought-out legislature. The nation has been screaming for serious gun legislation for the past few years, and nothing happens, because backwards asshats like Ted Cruz and Louie Gomert are still allowed to sit at the grown-ups table.


Well, not really. There are way more moderate people in this country that fully support the 2nd. If it were based on a nationwide vote (no politicians involved) it would never ever pass. And I'm good with that actually.
And the "serious gun legislation" that the people "have been screaming about" is stuff that anyone familiar with the topic knows is just feel good crap. Want to solve gun violence? End the war on drugs. This isn't a gun issue.
 
2014-02-14 02:39:23 PM  
Scrotastic Method

The nation has been screaming for serious gun legislation for the past few years...

This is largely untrue, with the exception of universal background checks.

Where did I say I was happy about our military? I merely said it existed, and therefore, a citizen militia is useless -- both to defend the country and, sorry Tea Partiers, to rebel against it.

It seemed as though you prefer a standing army for invading other countries rather than a citizen militia to deter invasion. Sorry.

But that doesn't change that the military is there, replacing any need for a citizen militia, and able to stomp out any armed uprising in seconds...so the military being there ought to render the 2nd moot.

Our opinions differ. Leaving aside the effectiveness of insurgency against the American military, principles matter. If we just decide to throw out the idea of an armed citizenry because we have an oppressive military and a largely (when it comes to personal protection) ineffective police force, we might as well call it a day, IMO.

I come from an immigrant family, many of whom (including myself) having served in the American military. We did not come here from places where government forces wanted a monopoly on violence so as to live in another place where government forces have a monopoly on violence. If nothing else, the American principle that the citizenry should be armed is still attractive, IMO.
 
2014-02-14 02:41:48 PM  

Farkage: Want to solve gun violence? End the war on drugs. This isn't a gun issue.


Do you live anywhere near a big city? Or anywhere near a truly rural place? I've spent a long time in both, and the "I want a gun because I can" crowd comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors, from bangers in Oakland and the Southside all the way to good 'ol boys waiting for the South to rise again, and there's a whole lot of gun violence in there that nothing to do with drugs. We have so much gun violence in this country because we have so much gun access -- otherwise, wouldn't we see population-proportionate gun death numbers in other developed nations where drug laws are similar?

Remember the headline from like three weeks ago: old cranky white guy shot and killed two black guys from his living room window, because they were on their own property, looking in their own shed? That's the kind of "responsible gun owner" that we can legislate away. Because what need does that guy really have for guns. And most people aren't strong enough to own a gun and never want to use it.
 
2014-02-14 02:48:02 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Farkage: Want to solve gun violence? End the war on drugs. This isn't a gun issue.

Do you live anywhere near a big city? Or anywhere near a truly rural place? I've spent a long time in both, and the "I want a gun because I can" crowd comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors, from bangers in Oakland and the Southside all the way to good 'ol boys waiting for the South to rise again, and there's a whole lot of gun violence in there that nothing to do with drugs. We have so much gun violence in this country because we have so much gun access -- otherwise, wouldn't we see population-proportionate gun death numbers in other developed nations where drug laws are similar?

Remember the headline from like three weeks ago: old cranky white guy shot and killed two black guys from his living room window, because they were on their own property, looking in their own shed? That's the kind of "responsible gun owner" that we can legislate away. Because what need does that guy really have for guns. And most people aren't strong enough to own a gun and never want to use it.


Your last line-

But most people ARE strong enough to own one and never use it in anger, to harm, threaten, or anything else.

Wanting to shoot someone is just like wanting to run over the douche bag bicyclist. It has crossed everyone's mind, but almost no one does it.
 
2014-02-14 03:00:10 PM  

Thingster: Wanting to shoot someone is just like wanting to run over the douche bag bicyclist. It has crossed everyone's mind, but almost no one does it.


Except in America, where access to guns means it happens disproportionately more than it should.

Facetious_Speciest: Leaving aside the effectiveness of insurgency against the American military


Meaning, you think a hundred neo-Nazis in Idaho have the potential to defeat the entire US Armed Forces through guerrilla tactics?
 
2014-02-14 03:10:17 PM  
Scrotastic Method

Meaning, you think a hundred neo-Nazis in Idaho have the potential to defeat the entire US Armed Forces through guerrilla tactics?

No, I simply doubt the capacity of the American military to pacify American rebels in any real number. They would do fine enough against isolated households, perhaps even a city or three, but widespread insurgency across the country could not be suppressed. If it reached the level of sustained internal conflict, they would fare about as well as they have in Afghanistan*, save that we've ten times the population and fifteen times the area. In addition, the actual dynamics of such a conflict would not favor the government, as it's far harder to distinguish between "us" and "them" when the people are your own.

The usual rebuttal is "hurr durr, the government would level cities," but in all honesty, would you remain on the side of an isolated American government that was nuking American cities simply to retain power?

* meaning it would be long and bloody, but eventually largely fruitless for the American government
 
2014-02-14 03:38:21 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Except in America, where access to guns means it happens disproportionately more than it should.


This is your opinion, not fact.
Just wanted to point that out.
 
2014-02-14 03:56:27 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Thingster: Wanting to shoot someone is just like wanting to run over the douche bag bicyclist. It has crossed everyone's mind, but almost no one does it.

Except in America, where access to guns means it happens disproportionately more than it should.

Facetious_Speciest: Leaving aside the effectiveness of insurgency against the American military

Meaning, you think a hundred neo-Nazis in Idaho have the potential to defeat the entire US Armed Forces through guerrilla tactics?


There are 80-90 million law abiding gun owners in this country. By your logic, most of us should have been shot by now.
 
2014-02-14 04:06:42 PM  

ChaosStar: demaL-demaL-yeH: WhiskeyBoy: What are you contesting here?  He was unarmed.
If you meant to quote where I said "My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car." I understand, and retract my statement in light of new information you have provided.
Of course, I did also say "If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him."

*DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING*
Now look upthread and see where some mentally-disadvantaged farkers claimed that firearms would make a difference in the UK, citing this very horrific murder as support.

See, this is where people like you can't seem to wrap your head around the bigger picture.
Guy gets run over
Bad guys in the car get out to knife run over guy
A half dozen bystanders draw their CCW's and the bad guys are either prodigiously perforated or they run away at the show of force
Run over guy survives, depending on injuries sustained by meeting a bumper

It's not about just one person, it's about the entire collective. So yes, more guns could have very well helped him.


They were stopped by a frikkin Scout Den Mother using her words.
They became attacky/stabby again when armed people showed up.
 
2014-02-14 04:17:58 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: ChaosStar: demaL-demaL-yeH: WhiskeyBoy: What are you contesting here?  He was unarmed.
If you meant to quote where I said "My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car." I understand, and retract my statement in light of new information you have provided.
Of course, I did also say "If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him."

*DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING*
Now look upthread and see where some mentally-disadvantaged farkers claimed that firearms would make a difference in the UK, citing this very horrific murder as support.

See, this is where people like you can't seem to wrap your head around the bigger picture.
Guy gets run over
Bad guys in the car get out to knife run over guy
A half dozen bystanders draw their CCW's and the bad guys are either prodigiously perforated or they run away at the show of force
Run over guy survives, depending on injuries sustained by meeting a bumper

It's not about just one person, it's about the entire collective. So yes, more guns could have very well helped him.

They were stopped by a frikkin Scout Den Mother using her words.
They became attacky/stabby again when armed people showed up.


Had there been CCP holders near by, they probably wouldn't have been stabby in the first place, they would have been holey.

Your way, a soldier ends up dead due to being stabbed.
My way, two psychotics end up leaking all over the street.

Yeah... I like my way better.
 
2014-02-14 04:39:37 PM  

AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: AngryDragon: Dear gun grabbers,

When the Ninth Circuit overturns a gun control law in California, you have officially lost.  Give it up already.

Signed,

Responsible gun owners

The ruling was 2-1 along ideological lines.  Luck of the draw the case ended up with two judges with conservative leanings (one Reagan appointee and one Bush appointee) and one with liberal leanings (a Clinton appointee).

So you're saying we need another recount?


1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2014-02-14 04:46:04 PM  

ChaosStar: Scrotastic Method: Except in America, where access to guns means it happens disproportionately more than it should.

This is your opinion, not fact.
Just wanted to point that out.


Link: "A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied."

Link: "According to data  by the United Nations, the United States has four times as many gun-related homicides per capita as do Turkey and Switzerland, which are tied for third. The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other countries on this chart."

It's absolute fact that America has a disproportionately high -- insane, screaming, Everest-high -- amount of firearm deaths when compared to every other developed nation on Earth. Is your disagreement, then, with my use of the phrase, "than it should"? Do you think we have an appropriate amount of gun death? Is your argument that we have the right amount of gun death and everyone else has not enough?
 
2014-02-14 04:47:53 PM  

Scrotastic Method: activist conservative judges bungled it hugely in Heller.


This.

Facetious_Speciest: So, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.


To drill, where he was trained and disciplined in accordance with the regulations specified by Congress? No problem. Walking around armed in public for no good reason? Yeah, no.

Facetious_Speciest: o, in supporting Miller...what was said, rather than what you seem to imagine...you're saying that, in agreement with the intent of the founders, you support the average free citizen having (today) an assault rifle of their own procurement.


Depends. Is it one of those plastic tinkertoys that's illegal for deer hunting in 38 states, or is it a proper battle rifle designed to kill the enemy? Because if it's the former, no.

Scrotastic Method: Dude have you seen the stats -- any stats, from many source, ever published anywhere -- on gun death in America vs. the rest of the world?


That.

Look, I don't have a problem with armed citizens, provided we're not talking about armed felons and the mentally ill.

I do have serious heartburn over the incredibly high number of untrained ninnies with piss-poor to nonexistent risk-assessment skills to go with their piss-poor to nonexistent judgment and their piss-poor to nonexistent marksmanship topped off with grandiose delusions of competence walking around armed in public.
 
2014-02-14 04:52:36 PM  

ChaosStar: demaL-demaL-yeH: ChaosStar: demaL-demaL-yeH: WhiskeyBoy: What are you contesting here?  He was unarmed.
If you meant to quote where I said "My understanding is that Rigby was not unconscious after being hit by the car." I understand, and retract my statement in light of new information you have provided.
Of course, I did also say "If he was too incapacitated after the collision, then arguing any of this is pointless, because even armed it wouldn't have helped him."

*DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING-DING*
Now look upthread and see where some mentally-disadvantaged farkers claimed that firearms would make a difference in the UK, citing this very horrific murder as support.

See, this is where people like you can't seem to wrap your head around the bigger picture.
Guy gets run over
Bad guys in the car get out to knife run over guy
A half dozen bystanders draw their CCW's and the bad guys are either prodigiously perforated or they run away at the show of force
Run over guy survives, depending on injuries sustained by meeting a bumper

It's not about just one person, it's about the entire collective. So yes, more guns could have very well helped him.

They were stopped by a frikkin Scout Den Mother using her words.
They became attacky/stabby again when armed people showed up.

Had there been CCP holders near by, they probably wouldn't have been stabby in the first place, they would have been holey.

Your way, a soldier ends up dead due to being stabbed.
My way, two psychotics end up leaking all over the street.

Yeah... I like my way better.


Your first instinct when a pedestrian is hit by a car is to slap leather and shoot up a car? Good to know.
*clicks profile*
Haven't been in SC since I left Ft. Jackson. Never intended to go back, but thanks for giving me an additional reason to stay away.
Protip: Arizona is a horrible place to visit.
 
2014-02-14 04:52:59 PM  
Does having a gun in every situation mean that the gun is the answer? No. Just like having a hammer in the toolbox does not mean that every situations demands being hit with a hammer.

A gun is a tool for very specific situations, beyond the realms of hunting and sport shooting. The key is to understand that it is a tool best employed very sparingly and only after all other means are exhausted.  This doesn't mean people shouldn't have guns and have the right to defend themselves with deadly force if necessary. This means that, for the love of god, NOT EVERY CASE OF CRIME REQUIRES A GUN.

No, A CCW permit holder isn't going to stop every goddamn crime because if the odds are not in his favor, it's foolish to believe he'll have any impact, and therefore it's better NOT to employ the gun.

Some people seem to take this ideal to extremes. I think that the vast majority of gun owners accept the fact that just having a gun isn't some magical device that makes you a superhero, and understand that in a dynamic situation, things change.

THen you have dumbasses on BOTH sides of the fence who try to convince others that either we should gun down every criminal who ever crimed, or that no one should have guns because...well, whatever their reasoning is.

Look, you're both wrong, mostly because the question isn't a one of whether or not guns should be there. We have a right to own guns, and a right to defend ourselves. The question is one of when it's appropriate to use those firearms, and the means that its appropriate by which we carry them, because, yes, self defense and the right to keep and bear arms is a basic, inalienable right no matter what anyone says, it doesn't mean that we have to be children about it.

I often agree with demaL and Tutetibiimperes or whatever butchered latin his name is. On guns, I don't. But the main reason I don't agree is because they view the general public as being too immature to responsibly have guns. I think most adults are responsible enough. However, there are people that are assholes, no matter what.

Bottom line: STOP ARGUING ABOUT THE STUPID BULLshiat. Let's take it back a notch and start demanding that we promote personal awareness, safety, training and some goddamn common sense, and let's stop trying to legislate everything because someone somewhere might get hurt. It's the way of the world. Live with it.
 
2014-02-14 04:56:30 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH

To drill, where he was trained and disciplined in accordance with the regulations specified by Congress? No problem. Walking around armed in public for no good reason? Yeah, no.

So we're in agreement. Most Americans should possess assault rifles, but walking around with them for no particular reason is a bit silly.
 
2014-02-14 04:56:39 PM  

Scrotastic Method: It's absolute fact that America has a disproportionately high -- insane, screaming, Everest-high -- amount of firearm deaths when compared to every other developed nation on Earth. Is your disagreement, then, with my use of the phrase, "than it should"? Do you think we have an appropriate amount of gun death? Is your argument that we have the right amount of gun death and everyone else has not enough?


COnsidering that their stats include suicides, I disagree with their stats.

That being said, I think the problem is less in having guns, and more in society itself. If you ever go over and visit Switzerland (I have), the people there aren't complete asshats and self-interested, narcissistic douchebags unwilling to exercise any forethought or self restraint.

Sadly, the US seems to excel in the "hey, it's not my problem" department.

Plus, we have that whole war on drugs going on which incites a lot of gang violence leading to a major percentage of our gun-related deaths. So we have that going for us, which is nice.
 
2014-02-14 04:57:38 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

To drill, where he was trained and disciplined in accordance with the regulations specified by Congress? No problem. Walking around armed in public for no good reason? Yeah, no.

So we're in agreement. Most Americans should possess assault rifles, but walking around with them for no particular reason is a bit silly.


Agreed.
 
2014-02-14 04:59:51 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Thingster: Wanting to shoot someone is just like wanting to run over the douche bag bicyclist. It has crossed everyone's mind, but almost no one does it.

Except in America, where access to guns means it happens disproportionately more than it should.

Facetious_Speciest: Leaving aside the effectiveness of insurgency against the American military

Meaning, you think a hundred neo-Nazis in Idaho have the potential to defeat the entire US Armed Forces through guerrilla tactics?


In the scheme of things, it almost never happens.

If every single unlawful shooting in the us were perpetrated by a unique individual, thousandths(0.00x%) of a percent of gun owners shoot someone.
 
2014-02-14 05:13:33 PM  

Scrotastic Method: It's absolute fact that America has a disproportionately high -- insane, screaming, Everest-high -- amount of firearm deaths when compared to every other developed nation on Earth.


How?
You said yourself that the US has more guns than all those other nations, so how is it "disproportionate" that we have as many guns deaths as we do?
By your logic, Africa has a disproportionate number of lion attacks when compared to all other continents when it's simply because that's where lions live in the wild.
It would be disproportionate if we had the least amount of guns but the most gun deaths.

So no, it's your opinion that it's disproportionate, not fact.
 
2014-02-14 05:15:30 PM  

Thingster: In the scheme of things, it almost never happens.

If every single unlawful shooting in the us were perpetrated by a unique individual, thousandths(0.00x%) of a percent of gun owners shoot someone.


But every single time "almost never" turns into "actually did," which happens more here than anywhere else in the world, that means a human being is dead. I don't want to brush that off as some sort of statistical outlier.

Just the amount of innocent people killed by accident, mistake, etc. in Oakland every goddamn year is enough for me.
 
2014-02-14 05:16:28 PM  

Kit Fister: Bottom line: STOP ARGUING ABOUT THE STUPID BULLshiat. Let's take it back a notch and start demanding that we promote personal awareness, safety, training and some goddamn common sense, and let's stop trying to legislate everything because someone somewhere might get hurt. It's the way of the world. Live with it.


^^This...right here^^
 
2014-02-14 05:16:48 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Your first instinct when a pedestrian is hit by a car is to slap leather and shoot up a car? Good to know.
*clicks profile*
Haven't been in SC since I left Ft. Jackson. Never intended to go back, but thanks for giving me an additional reason to stay away.
Protip: Arizona is a horrible place to visit.


You just keep earning that troll tag I gave you.
Honestly, if it was you that was hit by the car I'd probably tell the drive to back up and make sure they finished the job, but I know you already know exactly what I meant and you're just being willfully ignorant.
That's why you went to the personal attack, cause you've got nothing concrete to argue from.
 
2014-02-14 05:19:15 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Thingster: In the scheme of things, it almost never happens.

If every single unlawful shooting in the us were perpetrated by a unique individual, thousandths(0.00x%) of a percent of gun owners shoot someone.

But every single time "almost never" turns into "actually did," which happens more here than anywhere else in the world, that means a human being is dead. I don't want to brush that off as some sort of statistical outlier.

Just the amount of innocent people killed by accident, mistake, etc. in Oakland every goddamn year is enough for me.


Statistically you're more likely to get killed or injured by a pool.  People really need perspective on this topic (and I'm not being snarky)
 
2014-02-14 05:28:10 PM  

Kahabut: [ww4.hdnux.com image 628x418]

This was a passing grade in CCW class?



In his defense, it was with a sawed-off shotgun.

At 50 yards.

With a blindfold on.

In the dark.

Drunk.

F*ck yeah.
 
2014-02-14 05:29:22 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Thingster: In the scheme of things, it almost never happens.

If every single unlawful shooting in the us were perpetrated by a unique individual, thousandths(0.00x%) of a percent of gun owners shoot someone.

But every single time "almost never" turns into "actually did," which happens more here than anywhere else in the world, that means a human being is dead. I don't want to brush that off as some sort of statistical outlier.

Just the amount of innocent people killed by accident, mistake, etc. in Oakland every goddamn year is enough for me.


You have no concept of risk and likelihood and a bit of tunnel vision here.

The lions in Africa comparison above spot on.

I don't know what else to say besides you've already come to your conclusion and your working on rationalizing how you got there.

Rationally, there are a lot of things to get rid of before guns if we're really looking at how dangerous the item is.
 
2014-02-14 05:33:03 PM  

Thingster: Scrotastic Method: Thingster: In the scheme of things, it almost never happens.

If every single unlawful shooting in the us were perpetrated by a unique individual, thousandths(0.00x%) of a percent of gun owners shoot someone.

But every single time "almost never" turns into "actually did," which happens more here than anywhere else in the world, that means a human being is dead. I don't want to brush that off as some sort of statistical outlier.

Just the amount of innocent people killed by accident, mistake, etc. in Oakland every goddamn year is enough for me.

You have no concept of risk and likelihood and a bit of tunnel vision here.

The lions in Africa comparison above spot on.

I don't know what else to say besides you've already come to your conclusion and your working on rationalizing how you got there.

Rationally, there are a lot of things to get rid of before guns if we're really looking at how dangerous the item is.


People that are for banning guns to "save lives" don't understand what a Pareto chart is.
 
2014-02-14 05:36:10 PM  

Thingster: The lions in Africa comparison above spot on.


Except lions live in Africa. If humans never evolved, lions would live in Africa. They have every right to do so. Firearms are not a native species. Firearms are not something that we necessarily share the world with, they are tools we invented to kill each other.

Farkage: Statistically you're more likely to get killed or injured by a pool.


Also a really stupid goddamn comparison. Because pools are hella fun, and they're good for exercise, and barbecuing next to one is awesome, etc. Guns only make things dead. You can't do a 1:1 statistical comparison on that. That's why the gun nut "derp more people die in cars derp" reply is also nonsense.

And there are laws about putting fences around your pool, and about licensing and insuring drivers for that matter -- just like we need laws about not carrying firearms around.
 
2014-02-14 05:40:35 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Thingster: The lions in Africa comparison above spot on.

Except lions live in Africa. If humans never evolved, lions would live in Africa. They have every right to do so. Firearms are not a native species. Firearms are not something that we necessarily share the world with, they are tools we invented to kill each other.

Farkage: Statistically you're more likely to get killed or injured by a pool.

Also a really stupid goddamn comparison. Because pools are hella fun, and they're good for exercise, and barbecuing next to one is awesome, etc. Guns only make things dead. You can't do a 1:1 statistical comparison on that. That's why the gun nut "derp more people die in cars derp" reply is also nonsense.

And there are laws about putting fences around your pool, and about licensing and insuring drivers for that matter -- just like we need laws about not carrying firearms around.


Holy shiat you're myopic.
 
2014-02-14 05:47:28 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Because pools are hella fun


Oh, I'm sorry.  You see, I didn't realize that the fact you are multiple times more likely to be injured or killed by a pool makes it okay as long as you, personally, have labeled them as "Hella fun".  Hmm...okay, so the fact my friends and I think going target and skeet shooting is "Hella fun" means we can keep our guns then!  Problem solved. Thanks.

And yes, I absolutely can do a statistical comparison on it, unless you're trying to tell me it's a COMPLETELY different kind of dead.
 
2014-02-14 05:52:39 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Guns only make things dead


Millions upon millions of clay pigeons and paper targets say you're completely and utterly wrong and very very silly.
 
2014-02-14 06:06:26 PM  

ChaosStar: Scrotastic Method: Guns only make things dead

Millions upon millions of clay pigeons and paper targets say you're completely and utterly wrong and very very silly.


Which is funny, because if you read back in the thread, you'll see that I mentioned how I used to be a competitive clay shooter. And that I took my wife to the range this summer to shread a few dozen paper targets so she'd have handgun familiarity and education in case it was ever needed. And that I'm not talking about shotguns, or basic hunting rifles, but tools of death that nobody needs.

Farkage: Oh, I'm sorry.  You see, I didn't realize that the fact you are multiple times more likely to be injured or killed by a pool makes it okay as long as you, personally, have labeled them as "Hella fun".  Hmm...okay, so the fact my friends and I think going target and skeet shooting is "Hella fun" means we can keep our guns then!  Problem solved. Thanks.


Cherry pick 5 words out of a reasoned response and attack them as if it was the entire message -- I see you're on the Republican National Committee.
 
2014-02-14 06:08:29 PM  
Scrotastic Method

Because pools are hella fun, and they're good for exercise...

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
 
2014-02-14 06:12:55 PM  

ChaosStar: Scrotastic Method: Guns only make things dead

Millions upon millions of clay pigeons and paper targets say you're completely and utterly wrong and very very silly.


Well, they *would* say that but they're dead, too.
 
2014-02-14 06:13:21 PM  

Thingster: You have no concept of risk and likelihood


No, dude, it's because I DO have these concepts that I care. Why do conservatives never vote to take care of the poor, or to spend on education, or to shore up gun control? Because things are fine for them, so fark everyone else. They lack the empathy and understanding that bad things can also happen to them. I know that my risk of being on either of end of gun violence is incredibly small. But nonetheless gun violence happens every single day in this country. The nation averages 270 deaths and injuries a day from gun violence. That means a 100% likelihood of 270 people a day being farking shot. That's enough for me.

That's the difference between you and me, I guess. It's why, as a straight dude, I support gay marriage, and as a white dude, I support civil rights, and fight against right-wing "voter fraud" garbage, and why, even as a relatively well off dude, I still support massive regulation of the banks and efforts to tax the rich. Because I don't need to be afraid of something happening to me to want it to not happen to other people.
 
2014-02-14 06:19:26 PM  

Scrotastic Method: And that I'm not talking about shotguns, or basic hunting rifles, but tools of death that nobody needs.


Oh, well silly me then lets just look back at where I misunderstood you.

Scrotastic Method: Guns only make things dead.


Huh.. well, clearly I missed the memo where shotguns and "basic" hunting rifles (I don't really know what those are anyway) were no longer guns.
So you're cool with me walking around with two 18" barrel 870's in crossed scabbards on my back right?
 
2014-02-14 06:23:20 PM  

ChaosStar: So you're cool with me walking around with two 18" barrel 870's in crossed scabbards on my back right?


The fact that you think you even want to gives me hope that you'd fail the mental health portion of the licensing process.
 
2014-02-14 06:23:56 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Why do conservatives never vote to take care of the poor


Because we understand the majority of the money doesn't get used to actually take care of the poor.

Scrotastic Method: or to spend on education


Probably because we think they should be able to get by on the $11,000 per student we're spending right now.

Scrotastic Method: to shore up gun control


Because gun control is useless and does nothing to protect the law abiding not to mention infringes on a right.

Is there anything else I can try and answer for you? I'm glad to help.
 
2014-02-14 06:26:24 PM  

Scrotastic Method: And that I'm not talking about shotguns, or basic hunting rifles, but tools of death that nobody needs.


Since when are inherent rights about need?
 
2014-02-14 06:26:59 PM  

Scrotastic Method: ChaosStar: So you're cool with me walking around with two 18" barrel 870's in crossed scabbards on my back right?

The fact that you think you even want to gives me hope that you'd fail the mental health portion of the licensing process.


Actually, I'm a LEO, so I don't have to have a license.
 
2014-02-14 06:31:16 PM  

ChaosStar: Scrotastic Method: ChaosStar: So you're cool with me walking around with two 18" barrel 870's in crossed scabbards on my back right?

The fact that you think you even want to gives me hope that you'd fail the mental health portion of the licensing process.

Actually, I'm a LEO, so I don't have to have a license.


You allege you're in law enforcement yet you'd be cool if everyone walking around had two shotguns with them at all times? Even though you brought up a shiatty shotgun like the 870 -- you're either a bad cop, a blind fool, or a lying Farker.
 
2014-02-14 06:33:33 PM  

ChaosStar: Is there anything else I can try and answer for you? I'm glad to help.


No, because you've proven my point. Your feelings on those issues show that you don't care about the people, but your idea of what the financial impacts are, and I'm willing to bet it's because you consider yourself safe from all of that. So you simply don't care.
 
2014-02-14 06:56:22 PM  

Scrotastic Method: ChaosStar: Scrotastic Method: ChaosStar: So you're cool with me walking around with two 18" barrel 870's in crossed scabbards on my back right?

The fact that you think you even want to gives me hope that you'd fail the mental health portion of the licensing process.

Actually, I'm a LEO, so I don't have to have a license.

You allege you're in law enforcement yet you'd be cool if everyone walking around had two shotguns with them at all times? Even though you brought up a shiatty shotgun like the 870 -- you're either a bad cop, a blind fool, or a lying Farker.


I don't allege, I flat out said I was a LEO.
South Carolina State Constable, level 3 advanced. Feel free to look it up. My father is a level 2.
Yes, I'd be cool with it, because unlike you I don't soil my drawers every time I see a firearm.

Nice to see you've got nothing left but personal attacks, guess you're bag of excuses and misdirections has finally emptied huh?
 
2014-02-14 07:02:45 PM  

Scrotastic Method: ChaosStar: Is there anything else I can try and answer for you? I'm glad to help.

No, because you've proven my point. Your feelings on those issues show that you don't care about the people, but your idea of what the financial impacts are, and I'm willing to bet it's because you consider yourself safe from all of that. So you simply don't care.


Your bleeding heart is showing.
You're wrong though, I do care. I want people to be able to stand on their own instead of being dependent on the government to send them money every month.
What you don't seem to grasp is throwing more money at the problems will not fix anything. That we spent ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS per student in the country flat out proves that.
 
2014-02-14 07:05:13 PM  

Scrotastic Method: ChaosStar: Scrotastic Method: Guns only make things dead

Millions upon millions of clay pigeons and paper targets say you're completely and utterly wrong and very very silly.

Which is funny, because if you read back in the thread, you'll see that I mentioned how I used to be a competitive clay shooter. And that I took my wife to the range this summer to shread a few dozen paper targets so she'd have handgun familiarity and education in case it was ever needed. And that I'm not talking about shotguns, or basic hunting rifles, but tools of death that nobody needs.

Farkage: Oh, I'm sorry.  You see, I didn't realize that the fact you are multiple times more likely to be injured or killed by a pool makes it okay as long as you, personally, have labeled them as "Hella fun".  Hmm...okay, so the fact my friends and I think going target and skeet shooting is "Hella fun" means we can keep our guns then!  Problem solved. Thanks.

Cherry pick 5 words out of a reasoned response and attack them as if it was the entire message -- I see you're on the Republican National Committee.


My most sincere apologies!  Let me try again...

Scrotastic Method: Thingster: The lions in Africa comparison above spot on.

Except lions live in Africa. If humans never evolved, lions would live in Africa. They have every right to do so. Firearms are not a native species. Firearms are not something that we necessarily share the world with, they are tools we invented to kill each other.

Farkage: Statistically you're more likely to get killed or injured by a pool.

Also a really stupid goddamn comparison. Because pools are hella fun, and they're good for exercise, and barbecuing next to one is awesome, etc. Guns only make things dead. You can't do a 1:1 statistical comparison on that. That's why the gun nut "derp more people die in cars derp" reply is also nonsense.

And there are laws about putting fences around your pool, and about licensing and insuring drivers for that matter -- just like we need laws about not carrying firearms around.


Oh, I'm sorry.  You see, I didn't realize that the fact you are multiple times more likely to be injured or killed by a pool makes it okay as long as you, personally, have labeled them as "Hella fun".  Hmm...okay, so the fact my friends and I think going target and skeet shooting is "Hella fun" means we can keep our guns then!  Problem solved. Thanks.

And yes, I absolutely can do a statistical comparison on it, unless you're trying to tell me it's a COMPLETELY different kind of dead.

Better?  And now that we've covered that, a 10 year old is allowed to buy a car, by him or herself by the way!  Even on a super scary internet sale!  Scared yet?  And they can *gasp* drive it on private property and in quite a few states on public land without a license, registration or insurance!  The horror, right??  You need a license to be on a road with it.  On top of that, driving is a privelage, not an enumerated right, so that works against your analogy as well.
And by the way, I'm a Democrat.  I just happen to not wet my pants at the sight of an inanimate object and I support the ENTIRE Constitution.
 
2014-02-14 07:09:39 PM  

Farkage: And now that we've covered that, a 10 year old is allowed to buy a car, by him or herself by the way! Even on a super scary internet sale! Scared yet? And they can *gasp* drive it on private property and in quite a few states on public land without a license, registration or insurance!


Aww damn, I missed that part. I was waiting for him to bring up drivers so I could smack him in the face with this.
/ihasasad
 
2014-02-14 07:10:45 PM  

Scrotastic Method: ChaosStar: Scrotastic Method: ChaosStar: So you're cool with me walking around with two 18" barrel 870's in crossed scabbards on my back right?

The fact that you think you even want to gives me hope that you'd fail the mental health portion of the licensing process.

Actually, I'm a LEO, so I don't have to have a license.

You allege you're in law enforcement yet you'd be cool if everyone walking around had two shotguns with them at all times? Even though you brought up a shiatty shotgun like the 870 -- you're either a bad cop, a blind fool, or a lying Farker.


You should REALLY learn what you're talking about when it comes to LEOs and firearms dude...  I'll just leave this here for your reading pleasure...
 
2014-02-14 07:11:50 PM  

ChaosStar: Farkage: And now that we've covered that, a 10 year old is allowed to buy a car, by him or herself by the way! Even on a super scary internet sale! Scared yet? And they can *gasp* drive it on private property and in quite a few states on public land without a license, registration or insurance!

Aww damn, I missed that part. I was waiting for him to bring up drivers so I could smack him in the face with this.
/ihasasad


Lol, sorry man.  Is there a way to go back and delete a post??
 
2014-02-14 07:26:14 PM  

ChaosStar: Kahabut: Neither is anyone in the vicinity.

Only two rounds missed the target, and one of those went over the targets head.
It's a little hyperbolic to say no one in the vicinity is walking away, don't you think?


4 missed, and who knows how many didn't even hit the paper.  The grouping is horrible and again, stationary target.  So no.
 
2014-02-14 07:28:04 PM  

Kahabut: ChaosStar: Kahabut: Neither is anyone in the vicinity.

Only two rounds missed the target, and one of those went over the targets head.
It's a little hyperbolic to say no one in the vicinity is walking away, don't you think?

4 missed, and who knows how many didn't even hit the paper.  The grouping is horrible and again, stationary target.  So no.


No sir, only two missed.
Unless you live in a world of floating, bowling pin shaped peoples.
The lower two just caught the bad guy in a place no man really wants to think about catching a bullet.
 
2014-02-14 07:32:47 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Kahabut

Look, it's simple. I don't care if you carry a gun. I care that when you pull it out, you know how to use it properly. The real world isn't as forgiving as a target range, you go wide on your shots like that picture and you're going to kill some innocent third party. That target wasn't moving, so this guy shoots so bad AT A STATIONARY target that he can't even hit the silhouette every time? And you gave him a permit to carry? fark that.

In the theory, of course, we're all of the same mind. But as it happens, in the real world, we not only let people walk around with such skills or their lack, we give them special dispensation of authority. That in mind, I don't find it unimaginable that such a person should have the right to defend himself, what with those we expect to do more showing the same lack of acuity.

/see: Empire State Building shootings, 2012


OK yea, the real world isn't a shooting range.  And police aren't necessarily talented with a firearm.  But this is just plain wrong.  If you can't operate to a minimum of efficiency, you shouldn't be granted a permit that implies you can.  No one is stopping him from carrying, and thereby defending himself by denying him a permit that, at the very least, implies he knows how to operate a gun.

You don't need a permit to carry a gun, you need a permit to conceal one.  If you believe your life is in danger, open carry is probably (in most cases) better for you anyway.  On one side, open carry announces your intent to defend yourself.  On the other, it makes accessing your weapon considerably faster under all but the most extreme cases.  In both ways, it's a better solution.

What open carry doesn't do is provide an endorsement that says you know how to operate  gun.  If that target is the best he can manage, he should not have been given a permit.
 
2014-02-14 07:34:28 PM  

ChaosStar: Kahabut: ChaosStar: Kahabut: Neither is anyone in the vicinity.

Only two rounds missed the target, and one of those went over the targets head.
It's a little hyperbolic to say no one in the vicinity is walking away, don't you think?

4 missed, and who knows how many didn't even hit the paper.  The grouping is horrible and again, stationary target.  So no.

No sir, only two missed.
Unless you live in a world of floating, bowling pin shaped peoples.
The lower two just caught the bad guy in a place no man really wants to think about catching a bullet.


It's not a man, it's a target, you aim for the outlined bits.  By any standard that isn't "internet potato" he missed at least 4 times.
 
2014-02-14 07:38:37 PM  

Farkage: You should REALLY learn what you're talking about when it comes to LEOs and firearms dude... I'll just leave this here for your reading pleasure...


Y'all talk the talk but don't walk the walk.  It's the Sheriffs and Chiefs who are keeping concealed carry away from civilians in California, and your unions are spending millions of your dollars lobbying to restrict civilian firearm ownership.
 
2014-02-14 07:43:41 PM  

ChaosStar: demaL-demaL-yeH: Your first instinct when a pedestrian is hit by a car is to slap leather and shoot up a car? Good to know.
*clicks profile*
Haven't been in SC since I left Ft. Jackson. Never intended to go back, but thanks for giving me an additional reason to stay away.
Protip: Arizona is a horrible place to visit.

You just keep earning that troll tag I gave you.
Honestly, if it was you that was hit by the car I'd probably tell the drive to back up and make sure they finished the job, but I know you already know exactly what I meant and you're just being willfully ignorant.
That's why you went to the personal attack, cause you've got nothing concrete to argue from.


Somebody who called me a farking AIT washout know-it-all  is accusing me of making a personal attack. That's rich.

Let's review:

ChaosStar: Honestly, if it was you that was hit by the car I'd probably tell the drive to back up and make sure they finished the job,


You're skating on very, very thin ice, constable, and I am requesting a very nicely worded apology.
1. 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)
2. S.C. Code 16-17-430(2)


ChaosStar: See, this is where people like you can't seem to wrap your head around the bigger picture.
Guy gets run over
Bad guys in the car get out to knife run over guy
A half dozen bystanders draw their CCW's and the bad guys are either prodigiously perforated or they run away at the show of force


Just checking here:
A half dozen people opening fire on a crowded street is what you want, constable?
You'd be happy to drive up on either that or the aftermath?
If you honestly answered "yes" to either, it would seem to me that you're either waaaay overdue for a piss test, or have suffered two egregiously horrible lapses in judgement in a very short period of time, and would refer you to the appropriate health professionals. (See? That's how you make it personal without crossing any lines.)
 
2014-02-14 07:46:17 PM  

Kahabut: ChaosStar: Kahabut: ChaosStar: Kahabut: Neither is anyone in the vicinity.

Only two rounds missed the target, and one of those went over the targets head.
It's a little hyperbolic to say no one in the vicinity is walking away, don't you think?

4 missed, and who knows how many didn't even hit the paper.  The grouping is horrible and again, stationary target.  So no.

No sir, only two missed.
Unless you live in a world of floating, bowling pin shaped peoples.
The lower two just caught the bad guy in a place no man really wants to think about catching a bullet.

It's not a man, it's a target, you aim for the outlined bits.  By any standard that isn't "internet potato" he missed at least 4 times.


So let me get this straight: It's a target, yet by your words all the people in the vicinity are dead. You're allowed to juxtapose the scenarios but I'm not? Is that what I'm understanding?
Face it man, you went hyperbolic and sounded stupid. It happens to us all.
 
2014-02-14 07:51:10 PM  

fnordfocus: Farkage: You should REALLY learn what you're talking about when it comes to LEOs and firearms dude... I'll just leave this here for your reading pleasure...

Y'all talk the talk but don't walk the walk.  It's the Sheriffs and Chiefs who are keeping concealed carry away from civilians in California, and your unions are spending millions of your dollars lobbying to restrict civilian firearm ownership.


I'm not a cop.  I just posted the survey.

fnordfocus: and your unions are spending millions of your dollars lobbying to restrict civilian firearm ownership.


Citation please.
 
2014-02-14 07:54:44 PM  

Kahabut: You don't need a permit to carry a gun, you need a permit to conceal one.


LOL, try that in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennesea, Texas, Utah, California, New Jersey or New York.  Let us know how that works out for you.

You really need to check your facts before vomiting all over the thread.
 
2014-02-14 08:04:36 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Somebody who called me a farking AIT washout know-it-all is accusing me of making a personal attack. That's rich.


The truth isn't a personal attack. Especially not one from who knows how many weeks ago in a completely different thread?
You don't have many friends do you? You just sit online and stew in your own misery and self pity while keeping a notepad full of the names of your enemies, don't you?

demaL-demaL-yeH: Just checking here:
A half dozen people opening fire on a crowded street is what you want, constable?
You'd be happy to drive up on either that or the aftermath?
If you honestly answered "yes" to either, it would seem to me that you're either waaaay overdue for a piss test, or have suffered two egregiously horrible lapses in judgement in a very short period of time, and would refer you to the appropriate health professionals. (See? That's how you make it personal without crossing any lines.)


You're such an adorable little troll.
Please quote where I said half a dozen people would open fire? Or do you believe guns can't be put back into a holster until they've taken a life?
Like I said, you've got no position to argue from so you just pop a pimple or two then make something up.
/There's a bridge missing you, troll.
 
2014-02-14 08:08:07 PM  

Callous: Kahabut: You don't need a permit to carry a gun, you need a permit to conceal one.

LOL, try that in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennesea, Texas, Utah, California, New Jersey or New York.  Let us know how that works out for you.

You really need to check your facts before vomiting all over the thread.


Georgia has a form of open carry, just requires you be in a vehicle to do it without a permit.
South Carolina says you can conceal carry in your vehicle if you're going to someplace where you can conceal carry without a permit (a private residence say), going to an event involving firearms, or going hunting.
Can't speak for the other states.

So you're both right, and both wrong.
 
2014-02-14 08:11:18 PM  

ChaosStar: demaL-demaL-yeH: Somebody who called me a farking AIT washout know-it-all is accusing me of making a personal attack. That's rich.

The truth isn't a personal attack. Especially not one from who knows how many weeks ago in a completely different thread?
You don't have many friends do you? You just sit online and stew in your own misery and self pity while keeping a notepad full of the names of your enemies, don't you?

demaL-demaL-yeH: Just checking here:
A half dozen people opening fire on a crowded street is what you want, constable?
You'd be happy to drive up on either that or the aftermath?
If you honestly answered "yes" to either, it would seem to me that you're either waaaay overdue for a piss test, or have suffered two egregiously horrible lapses in judgement in a very short period of time, and would refer you to the appropriate health professionals. (See? That's how you make it personal without crossing any lines.)

You're such an adorable little troll.
Please quote where I said half a dozen people would open fire? Or do you believe guns can't be put back into a holster until they've taken a life?
Like I said, you've got no position to argue from so you just pop a pimple or two then make something up.
/There's a bridge missing you, troll.


Noted.
Badge number?
 
2014-02-14 08:17:15 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: ChaosStar: demaL-demaL-yeH: Somebody who called me a farking AIT washout know-it-all is accusing me of making a personal attack. That's rich.

The truth isn't a personal attack. Especially not one from who knows how many weeks ago in a completely different thread?
You don't have many friends do you? You just sit online and stew in your own misery and self pity while keeping a notepad full of the names of your enemies, don't you?

demaL-demaL-yeH: Just checking here:
A half dozen people opening fire on a crowded street is what you want, constable?
You'd be happy to drive up on either that or the aftermath?
If you honestly answered "yes" to either, it would seem to me that you're either waaaay overdue for a piss test, or have suffered two egregiously horrible lapses in judgement in a very short period of time, and would refer you to the appropriate health professionals. (See? That's how you make it personal without crossing any lines.)

You're such an adorable little troll.
Please quote where I said half a dozen people would open fire? Or do you believe guns can't be put back into a holster until they've taken a life?
Like I said, you've got no position to argue from so you just pop a pimple or two then make something up.
/There's a bridge missing you, troll.

Noted.
Badge number?


Gosh, I hope you're doing this on a work computer.
 
2014-02-14 08:19:01 PM  
Kahabut

OK yea, the real world isn't a shooting range. And police aren't necessarily talented with a firearm.

Agreed...

You don't need a permit to carry a gun, you need a permit to conceal one.

In many locations, this is simply incorrect. You cannot carry a firearm in many places without permit, regardless of concealed or no.
 
2014-02-14 08:40:26 PM  

Callous: Kahabut: You don't need a permit to carry a gun, you need a permit to conceal one.

LOL, try that in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennesea, Texas, Utah, California, New Jersey or New York.  Let us know how that works out for you.

You really need to check your facts before vomiting all over the thread.


Allow me to rephrase.   I don't need a permit to carry one.
 
2014-02-14 08:43:23 PM  

ChaosStar: Kahabut: ChaosStar: Kahabut: ChaosStar: Kahabut: Neither is anyone in the vicinity.

Only two rounds missed the target, and one of those went over the targets head.
It's a little hyperbolic to say no one in the vicinity is walking away, don't you think?

4 missed, and who knows how many didn't even hit the paper.  The grouping is horrible and again, stationary target.  So no.

No sir, only two missed.
Unless you live in a world of floating, bowling pin shaped peoples.
The lower two just caught the bad guy in a place no man really wants to think about catching a bullet.

It's not a man, it's a target, you aim for the outlined bits.  By any standard that isn't "internet potato" he missed at least 4 times.

So let me get this straight: It's a target, yet by your words all the people in the vicinity are dead. You're allowed to juxtapose the scenarios but I'm not? Is that what I'm understanding?
Face it man, you went hyperbolic and sounded stupid. It happens to us all.


You aren't even making sense any more troll.
I extrapolated the usage of the gun based on the target shooting.  When target shooting you aim for the target.  He missed the farking target.  So, by a simple feat of mental power, I am able to extrapolate those misses into possible hits on non-target subjects.

If you want to nit pick that technically some of those misses would have actually hit the target, had it been human instead of paper.  Fine.  Doesn't change a damn thing, he's still a terrible farking shot.

Face it man, you're just wrong.
 
2014-02-14 09:55:23 PM  
Farkage:fnordfocus: and your unions are spending millions of your dollars lobbying to restrict civilian firearm ownership.

Citation please.


For starters, PORAC and the California Police Chiefs Association put a lot of resources into California's recent open carry ban.  Since most Chiefs and Sheriffs refuse to issue CCW permits, this took away the only legal way for civilians to  carry in public.
 
2014-02-14 10:28:05 PM  

fnordfocus: Farkage:fnordfocus: and your unions are spending millions of your dollars lobbying to restrict civilian firearm ownership.

Citation please.

For starters, PORAC and the California Police Chiefs Association put a lot of resources into California's recent open carry ban.  Since most Chiefs and Sheriffs refuse to issue CCW permits, this took away the only legal way for civilians to  carry in public.


I was referring to the millions that police unions are spending on lobbying.
 
2014-02-14 10:38:59 PM  

Kahabut: Callous: Kahabut: You don't need a permit to carry a gun, you need a permit to conceal one.

LOL, try that in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennesea, Texas, Utah, California, New Jersey or New York.  Let us know how that works out for you.

You really need to check your facts before vomiting all over the thread.

Allow me to rephrase.   I don't need a permit to carry one.


LEO?
 
2014-02-14 11:13:30 PM  

Farkage: I was referring to the millions that police unions are spending on lobbying.


PORAC spent millions on getting open carry banned in California.  Most of that would have come from member unions.
 
2014-02-14 11:21:19 PM  

fnordfocus: Farkage: I was referring to the millions that police unions are spending on lobbying.

PORAC spent millions on getting open carry banned in California.  Most of that would have come from member unions.


Okay, I had never heard of PORAC before and I'm admittedly not up on California politics. Either way, PORAC isn't a police union. That would have surprised me. Keep in mind though, on the other side of the fence, there are sherrifs in CO that refuse to enforce the new gun control laws. The Police One survey is accurate.
 
2014-02-14 11:29:38 PM  

fnordfocus: Farkage: I was referring to the millions that police unions are spending on lobbying.

PORAC spent millions on getting open carry banned in California.  Most of that would have come from member unions.


Are the Chiefs and Sherrifs elected in California? I know the state is pretty heavily Democratic, which could explain the anti-gun push by them.
 
2014-02-14 11:41:51 PM  

Farkage: fnordfocus: Farkage: I was referring to the millions that police unions are spending on lobbying.

PORAC spent millions on getting open carry banned in California.  Most of that would have come from member unions.

Are the Chiefs and Sherrifs elected in California? I know the state is pretty heavily Democratic, which could explain the anti-gun push by them.


Just to clarify for you, the coast is heavily democrat.  The inland is heavily republican.  It's about even with the democrats usually having an edge in statewide elections.

/and before anyone jumps on me, there are pockets of opposite party affiliation.
 
2014-02-14 11:53:01 PM  

OgreMagi: Farkage: fnordfocus: Farkage: I was referring to the millions that police unions are spending on lobbying.

PORAC spent millions on getting open carry banned in California.  Most of that would have come from member unions.

Are the Chiefs and Sherrifs elected in California? I know the state is pretty heavily Democratic, which could explain the anti-gun push by them.

Just to clarify for you, the coast is heavily democrat.  The inland is heavily republican.  It's about even with the democrats usually having an edge in statewide elections.

/and before anyone jumps on me, there are pockets of opposite party affiliation.


Oh, okay. Thanks for the insight. I guess that isn't too much of a surprise since California is huge. NY has the same kind of breakup where the southeast is pretty democratic and it swings the other way as you go northwest.
 
2014-02-15 12:16:50 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Noted.
Badge number?


You're adorable, you really are.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Gosh, I hope you're doing this on a work computer.


You really don't know what a state constable is do you? Why don't you go read a little, then come back and say you're sorry ok pumpkin?
 
2014-02-15 12:21:35 AM  

Farkage: Oh, okay. Thanks for the insight. I guess that isn't too much of a surprise since California is huge. NY has the same kind of breakup where the southeast is pretty democratic and it swings the other way as you go northwest.


Many of the Sheriffs who refuse to issue permits are in fact Republicans: Sheriff Ahern of Alameda County, Sheriff Gore of San Diego County, and probably Sheriff Livingston of Contra Costa County.
 
2014-02-15 01:19:29 AM  

Callous: Kahabut: Callous: Kahabut: You don't need a permit to carry a gun, you need a permit to conceal one.

LOL, try that in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennesea, Texas, Utah, California, New Jersey or New York.  Let us know how that works out for you.

You really need to check your facts before vomiting all over the thread.

Allow me to rephrase.   I don't need a permit to carry one.

LEO?


Don't call me name, I didn't do anything to you.
 
2014-02-15 02:48:44 AM  

Kahabut: Callous: Kahabut: Callous: Kahabut: You don't need a permit to carry a gun, you need a permit to conceal one.

LOL, try that in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennesea, Texas, Utah, California, New Jersey or New York.  Let us know how that works out for you.

You really need to check your facts before vomiting all over the thread.

Allow me to rephrase.   I don't need a permit to carry one.

LEO?

Don't call me name, I didn't do anything to you.


You're saying that to simply pick a gun up and carry it with you, you require no license.  That's true.  We all, with working hands and arms, have the ability to do so.

You are not talking about the legality of such act.

Is that correct?
 
2014-02-15 04:00:27 AM  

Scrotastic Method: Pray 4 Mojo: I think it's important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not "give" the people the right to bear arms... the right simply exists... the 2nd Amendment just prevents the right from being infringed.

Nonsense. As living creature we have the natural right to self-defense. Not a natural freedom to firearms.


Doubt you will ever see this... but a man can hope eh?

You are completely ignorant.

What you say is "Nonsense" is not an arguable point. It is a fact.

I wasn't making a philosophical statement about bearing arms being an inalienable right... I was explaining what the 2nd Amendment says.

'... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ' vs '... the People shall have the right to bear arms'.

The right is pre-existing.

You really, really need to spend some time studying the language before you go spouting off in public about things you clearly do not understand.
 
2014-02-15 04:41:06 AM  

WhoGAS: Kahabut: Callous: Kahabut: Callous: Kahabut: You don't need a permit to carry a gun, you need a permit to conceal one.

LOL, try that in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennesea, Texas, Utah, California, New Jersey or New York.  Let us know how that works out for you.

You really need to check your facts before vomiting all over the thread.

Allow me to rephrase.   I don't need a permit to carry one.

LEO?

Don't call me name, I didn't do anything to you.

You're saying that to simply pick a gun up and carry it with you, you require no license.  That's true.  We all, with working hands and arms, have the ability to do so.

You are not talking about the legality of such act.

Is that correct?


I don't know where you live, but I live where it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm.
 
2014-02-15 04:54:11 AM  

Kahabut: I don't know where you live, but I live where it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm.


So...that's a "I'm going to be a dick and not answer this guy's honest question who is actually trying to see my side of the story before forming an opinion?"

Gotcha.  No worries.  I know some folk enjoy being purposefully obtuse when others are earnestly trying to understand the full meaning of the conversation.

I'll humbly bow out and no longer read your writings.
 
2014-02-15 05:15:36 AM  

WhoGAS: Kahabut: I don't know where you live, but I live where it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm.

So...that's a "I'm going to be a dick and not answer this guy's honest question who is actually trying to see my side of the story before forming an opinion?"

Gotcha.  No worries.  I know some folk enjoy being purposefully obtuse when others are earnestly trying to understand the full meaning of the conversation.

I'll humbly bow out and no longer read your writings.


You asked a question, I answered it.

I don't know, nor care what your problem is, but if you wanted a different answer, you should asked a different question.
 
Displayed 404 of 404 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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