Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Raw Story)   Teenager in Aurora, Colorado trots around town carrying a shotgun, says he's free to do what he wants and to hell with everyone still concerned about the theater shooting; he has the Second Amendment on his side   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

15205 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2014 at 6:11 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1161 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Newest

 
m00
2014-08-05 01:12:26 AM  

JuggleGeek: waving a gun around


[citation needed]

The article uses the words "carrying" "toting" and "walking with." So where do you get "waving"?
 
2014-08-05 01:22:12 AM  

m00: jchuffyman: I mean, I am not going to go that far, but I still am unclear as to what should qualify as actually reasonably suspicious with a gun. Is staying in one place or staring at someone for too long reasonably suspicious?Is looking visibly angry or nervous? Looking angry and rapidly going to a specific place? Do you specifically have to threaten someone? Or do you have to wait until they start aiming it at stuff? With a gun, it seems like there isn't much time between the pointing it down at the ground to pointing it at stuff. Keep in mind, I have said many, many times in here that he has the right, and the cops probably weren't in the clear as well.

Probably the exact same stuff as acting reasonably suspicious without a gun. Of all the shooters we read about in the news, how many just take a stroll down the street open carrying like it isn't a big deal? I can't think of a single one. If you are going to be worried, you should probably be more worried about the people who aren't visibly carrying, and who are keeping their cool.

I'll give you an example of reasonable suspicion. So there is a low income apartment complex near my house right on the main street. I was walking by and saw a pristine sliver Porsche roll up driven by this clean cut dude in a suit. And he was just idling. And then this guy runs out of the apartment with baggy jeans and a red baseball cap and he leans into the window, they have a conversation, and something was exchanged. I was thinking "okay that's a drug deal." Just that moment a cop car passes by (there are a LOT of patrols the neighborhood), makes a quick U-turn, and hits the lights.

I'm not a fan of drug laws, but if they're on the books... yeah that's suspicious, because it's reasonable to see that situation and think exactly what I was thinking. I felt bad for the guy, but I'll give the cops that was reasonable suspicion.

Contrast with dude walking around with a gun minding his own business. It's not reasonable to think he's ...

m00: jchuffyman: I mean, I am not going to go that far, but I still am unclear as to what should qualify as actually reasonably suspicious with a gun. Is staying in one place or staring at someone for too long reasonably suspicious?Is looking visibly angry or nervous? Looking angry and rapidly going to a specific place? Do you specifically have to threaten someone? Or do you have to wait until they start aiming it at stuff? With a gun, it seems like there isn't much time between the pointing it down at the ground to pointing it at stuff. Keep in mind, I have said many, many times in here that he has the right, and the cops probably weren't in the clear as well.

Probably the exact same stuff as acting reasonably suspicious without a gun. Of all the shooters we read about in the news, how many just take a stroll down the street open carrying like it isn't a big deal? I can't think of a single one. If you are going to be worried, you should probably be more worried about the people who aren't visibly carrying, and who are keeping their cool.

I'll give you an example of reasonable suspicion. So there is a low income apartment complex near my house right on the main street. I was walking by and saw a pristine sliver Porsche roll up driven by this clean cut dude in a suit. And he was just idling. And then this guy runs out of the apartment with baggy jeans and a red baseball cap and he leans into the window, they have a conversation, and something was exchanged. I was thinking "okay that's a drug deal." Just that moment a cop car passes by (there are a LOT of patrols the neighborhood), makes a quick U-turn, and hits the lights.

I'm not a fan of drug laws, but if they're on the books... yeah that's suspicious, because it's reasonable to see that situation and think exactly what I was thinking. I felt bad for the guy, but I'll give the cops that was reasonable suspicion.

Contrast with dude walking around with a gun minding his own business. It's not reasonable to think he's ...



Do you think it is possible that that may be because lots of people (right or wrong) take out of place gun possession as odd and suspicious in and of itself? So, if you really wanted to do something, you would hide it for as long as possible to avoid that. So, I wonder if the long gun open carry people get their wish and that act becomes a normal thing to do if that would change. I'm not saying that is reason enough to ban open carry or anything like that, and it may be unfair to the people that are doing nothing wrong, but a gun with no clear reason for having one seems rather weird to a lot of people.
 
2014-08-05 01:35:39 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: It's pretty damned easy to kill someone with insulin.

We should stake out the drugstores for diabetics.


Hey, if it's so easy to kill people with all these other everyday things, then why do we care whether they take our guns? 

Couldn't you just use some insulin or your car or a spoon?

Apparently a firearm is so uniquely critical to personal defense that we must vigilantly guard our 2nd amendment rights to own these specific items---there is no substitute, nothing else can come close to protecting you like a firearm.  But the moment someone points out that it is dangerous and can kill people, that same firearm suddenly becomes an unremarkable random object in a household full of dangerous things like bleach, stairs and paperweights.
 
2014-08-05 02:09:24 AM  

Xcott: Lenny_da_Hog: It's pretty damned easy to kill someone with insulin.

We should stake out the drugstores for diabetics.

Hey, if it's so easy to kill people with all these other everyday things, then why do we care whether they take our guns? 

Couldn't you just use some insulin or your car or a spoon?

Apparently a firearm is so uniquely critical to personal defense that we must vigilantly guard our 2nd amendment rights to own these specific items---there is no substitute, nothing else can come close to protecting you like a firearm.  But the moment someone points out that it is dangerous and can kill people, that same firearm suddenly becomes an unremarkable random object in a household full of dangerous things like bleach, stairs and paperweights.


Then repeal the second amendment. If you do that, you can make all the laws you want.

Until then, reasonable suspicion is required for detainment, the same as it would be for someone with a quantity of insulin or anything else you think is dangerous. If something is legal, it doesn't matter how paranoid you are, it's legal -- and reasonable suspicion means you have to have some idea that they're getting ready to (or have already) commit a crime.

Hiding behind a dumpster with a shotgun -- reasonable suspicion. Pointing a shotgun at a car window -- reasonable suspicion. Threatening, screaming angrily with a shotgun -- reasonable suspicion. Aiming at cars or people as they drive by -- reasonable suspicion. Stalking someone, running away from police, trying to ditch the weapon -- reasonable suspicion. Carrying right after a crime with a shotgun was reported -- reasonable suspicion.

Simply holding a shotgun -- not reasonable suspicion.

The same goes for screwdrivers. Carrying one right after someone reports a break-in with a screwdriver is. Holding it up like you're trying to jimmy a door or window is.

Simply walking down the street with a screwdriver -- not reasonable suspicion.
 
2014-08-05 02:25:08 AM  
So nice to live in a nation where you don't have to put up with yokels wielding firearms while standing around their flag.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether I'm talking about some Middle Eastern hellhole or 'MURICA.

Ah, what the hell, both of course.

Savages, the lot of you.
 
2014-08-05 02:32:54 AM  

FightDirector: Avery614: I thought in some states, it was completely legal to shoot someone you felt was threatening your life and safety

That's actually true in most states.  Many people consider that unacceptable.  It's also worth nothing that the alternative is "you can't shoot until they've started shooting at you".  That should also be unacceptable, for obvious reasons.

dookdookdook: So, educate me a little here: Is there some innate reason why guns need to be such touchy, unstable things that will blow your hand off if you look at them wrong, or is it just that it would be freedom-destroying tyranny to try to encourage a little bit of a redesign? We build cars that run perfectly fine for years without needing an untrained mechanic tinkering around with them constantly and accidentally blowing up the gas tank; why should guns need so much more attention?

I'll take the question as legitimate, rather than responding to the (troll) tone.

Modern firearms are actually made to be fairly difficult to set off.  That is, they're next to impossible to set off if you do anything but pull the trigger.  Drop them, hammer them, put it on a chain and drag it behind a truck, hand it to the Mythbusters...whatever.  Unless you actually pull the trigger, the odds of a properly-maintained firearm manufactured in the last 30 years "just going off", is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero.

The flip side to that is, when you need to pull the trigger, gun manufacturers and gun owners want there to be as little *stuff* interfering with that process as possible.  Each *thing* between your decision to pull the trigger and the time the gun goes "bang" is a potential failure step, and if you're in a position where you actually do need to pull the trigger, a failure is a life-threatening thing.

So, essentially, gun manufacturers assume that the person holding the weapon is rational and competent enough to not put their booger hook on the bang switch without good cause.  If you put it there, a ...


FARK RIGHT OFF.  When a 6 year old can operate the farking thing, it's not really all that complicated.  Let me quote from the Wiki:

The incident began when 6-year-old Dedrick Owens found a Davis Industries P-32 .32-caliber handgun in his uncle's home,[2][3] and brought the firearm, along with a knife, to Buell Elementary School. Further in the day, during a change of classes, Owens fatally shot 6-year-old Kayla Rolland in the presence of a teacher and 22 students while they were moving up a floor on the stairs, saying to her: "I don't like you", before pulling the trigger. The bullets entered her right arm and traveled through a vital artery. At 10:29 a.m. EST, Rolland was pronounced dead at Hurley Medical Center while in cardiac arrest.

BTW.....FARK RIGHT OFF.
 
2014-08-05 02:47:57 AM  

Rixel: FARK RIGHT OFF.  When a 6 year old can operate the farking thing, it's not really all that complicated.  Let me quote from the Wiki:

The incident began when 6-year-old Dedrick Owens found a Davis Industries P-32 .32-caliber handgun in his uncle's home,[2][3] and brought the firearm, along with a knife, to Buell Elementary School. Further in the day, during a change of classes, Owens fatally shot 6-year-old Kayla Rolland in the presence of a teacher and 22 students while they were moving up a floor on the stairs, saying to her: "I don't like you", before pulling the trigger. The bullets entered her right arm and traveled through a vital artery. At 10:29 a.m. EST, Rolland was pronounced dead at Hurley Medical Center while in cardiac arrest.

BTW.....FARK RIGHT OFF.


You're not very good at the whole "reading" thing, I can tell. Try again:

Modern firearms are actually made to be fairly difficult to set off.   That is, they're next to impossible to set off if you do anything but pull the trigger. Drop them, hammer them, put it on a chain and drag it behind a truck, hand it to the Mythbusters...whatever.  Unless you actually pull the trigger, the odds of a properly-maintained firearm manufactured in the last 30 years "just going off", is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero.

The flip side to that is, when you need to pull the trigger, gun manufacturers and gun owners want there to be as little *stuff* interfering with that process as possible.  Each *thing* between your decision to pull the trigger and the time the gun goes "bang" is a potential failure step, and if you're in a position where you actually do need to pull the trigger, a failure is a life-threatening thing.
 
2014-08-05 02:54:49 AM  
 FightDirector:

Modern firearms are actually made to be fairly difficult to set off.  That is, they're next to impossible to set off if you do anything but pull the trigger.  Drop them, hammer them, put it on a chain and drag it behind a truck, hand it to the Mythbusters...whatever.  Unless you actually pull the trigger, the odds of a properly-maintained firearm manufactured in the last 30 years "just going off", is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero.



Rixel: FARK RIGHT OFF.  When a 6 year old can operate the farking thing, it's not really all that complicated.  Let me quote from the Wiki:

The incident began when 6-year-old Dedrick Owens found a Davis Industries P-32 .32-caliber handgun in his uncle's home,[2][3] and brought the firearm, along with a knife, to Buell Elementary School. Further in the day, during a change of classes, Owens fatally shot 6-year-old Kayla Rolland in the presence of a teacher and 22 students while they were moving up a floor on the stairs, saying to her: "I don't like you", before pulling the trigger. The bullets entered her right arm and traveled through a vital artery. At 10:29 a.m. EST, Rolland was pronounced dead at Hurley Medical Center while in cardiac arrest.

BTW.....FARK RIGHT OFF.


So basically he said, "Modern firearms are very difficult to set off without actually pulling the trigger," and your uh... refutation? I guess we'll call it?... is an anecdote wherein it is explicitly stated that the trigger was pulled.

Not the most effective argument ever delivered. He was quite clearly not speaking to the complexity of their operation, but rather the degree to which they can be relied upon, mechanically speaking, to not fire in the absence of the one action that is intended to make them fire.

But hey, other than all of the pesky facts and context, you certainly told  that guy!
 
2014-08-05 04:45:00 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: You know what else is suspicious?

Illegal investigations into things that 100% legal.


You know what isn't legal?  Being under 18 and carrying a gun around.
You can't possibly argue that he is unquestionably 18 or over by visual inspection.
That means there is HIGHLY reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, which makes the investigation neither suspicious or illegal.
 
2014-08-05 04:53:26 AM  
I hope we, as a society, are NEVER comfortable with people carrying weapons around everywhere.

I certainly don't trust my life to the idea that all the morons walking down the street aren't going to make a mistake.  You don't even have to be stupid or inexperienced to make a mistake, you just have to be human -- and mistakes with guns are often lethal to either the user or someone else.  Beyond that, it simply increases the potential deadliness of the fits of emotion that people have.  Having lethal weaponry within easy reach all the time is simply a very, very, very bad idea.
 
2014-08-05 08:04:17 AM  

sdd2000: FightDirector: serpent_sky: I also can't see how open carry laws (regarding walking down city streets just holding a shotgun or what-have-you) don't somewhat contradict laws against inciting a panic or the used to cover anything we don't like "makingterroristic threats". It could just be the raised in NY, living in CT me, but I'd be pretty panicked if I headed out to the stores later and a guy was walking down Post Road with a shotgun, and I imagine most people would.

On a tangental note, does a a right that people are too afraid to exercise actually mean anything?

If you have the right to open carry, but are put off of doing it because you're afraid of public outcry and/or the potential criminal penalties you mention, does that right really mean anything in a practical sense?

Among other things, open-carry laws help protect folks who are lawfully carrying concealed, but have their shirt ride up accidentally (bend over or reach for something high).  In many states, that accident - of which you may not be aware - can instantly move you from "concealed carry" to "open carry" status.  I would very, VERY much like to have a law banning open carry as per "intent to attention whore", while leaving people like hunters (who do, in fact "open carry" their weapons), but I'm pretty sure that it's an impossible law to write and an even more impossible law to enforce.

/this is why we cannot have nice things

One needs to look to history as to what started the limits on open carry in this country before they start making suggestions.


img.fark.net

Wow, so you're telling me that all it would take for an NRA-lobbied-gun-law-reform to actually become a reality, is for me to form a politically active 2nd amendment defense task force called "Gays 4 Guns", and run an annual "Pistol Pride" march? And the bill will be signed by Arnie?!?

Fabulous!!
 
2014-08-05 08:30:54 AM  

uttertosh: img.fark.net


So I'm missing the part about NRA support there.

Sure, it was signed into law by Reagan, but that doesn't automatically mean the NRA fell in line and worshiped him.
Reagan was also a proponent of the Brady Act, which the NRA is pretty vehemently opposed to.

Fact check: the NRA weren't even in the 2nd amendment crusading business in 1967
 
2014-08-05 08:35:51 AM  

CMYK and PMS: CheapEngineer: Lenny_da_Hog: BeesNuts: Lenny_da_Hog: BeesNuts: Lenny_da_Hog: *reasonable* suspicion.

I'm pretty sure you think Reasonable Suspicion means Probable Cause.  You definitely overestimate the barrier.

The courts set the barrier. You have to be able to articulate the objective reasons for the stop.

It doesn't mean that cops don't lie, of course. In the 80s, the "reasonable suspicion" I was given for a Harris County Sheriff's deputy stopping me in my car on private property at gunpoint, removing me from the car, beating my head against his car and hitting me in the back of the head with a pistol, then searching my car without permission (and finding nothing) was that it looks suspicious for whites and blacks to hang out together.

Of course, we didn't have cameras everywhere then.

So.  Did you win that court case?

There was no court case. We didn't have cameras everywhere then. It was my and my friends' word against the deputies.

However, when I reported it to the Sheriff's office, they told the deputy. He came into my place of employment (I worked in a convenience store while in college) the next night, started knocking merchandise off the shelves, and told me that in Texas, he can do anything he wants.

Yet another reason I'll detour thru Mexico if necessary to avoid passing thru Texas.

Looks at a US map................how do you do that?


You do realize there's a liberal positive movie called Machete making fun of conservatives which includes part of the border that isn't in texas don't you?
 
2014-08-05 08:41:06 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: CMYK and PMS: Lenny_da_Hog: Pitabred: alphalemming: On the left and the right there are folks pushing the envelope by doing legal things that irritate others. Like the women strolling topless down the street in NYC because they can, this guy is simply exercising a right that most people don't. Similarly, it is society that is turning an otherwise non-issue into more than a momentary curiosity. Interestingly, for many of the same reasons, those being society's own hangups over funbags and firearms being in plain sight in public.

Lighten up people. A free society allows people to do things that you feel are ill-advised.

If Pudgy Mcshotgun open carries, it's not your problem unless he assaults you. If Ms pancake tits open carries her assault boobies, they are not your problem until she wraps them around your son's face.

Except Pudgy has then killed me. Ms Pancake tits has simply educated my son on what not to look for in boobs, and he continues living. There's a pretty big difference.

It's pretty damned easy to kill someone with insulin.

We should stake out the drugstores for diabetics.

Len, Len Len. Now what did we discuss? You are starting to just type random words that have no meaning. Did you drink your Capri Sun? Did you take a time out? C'mon Len you are better then this.

Oh, sorry. I forgot it's different because guns are scary plot devices on TV.

Although I have seen insulin used as a murder weapon in books and movies.


Put enough of an overdose of any type of medicine in someone and they'll either die or come close.

There's even an overdose level for ibuprofen that a college student in 1996 tried to use to kill himself.  The problem was it takes too long to kill, he got talked down in time, and the doctors stomach pumped him in time.
 
2014-08-05 08:52:35 AM  

m00: jchuffyman: Once again, he was arrested for consistently refusing to show his ID.

From Colorado state law:

CRS 16-3-103
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.


Cops can only legally demand ID if the cop has reasonable suspicion. Other than carrying a gun in public, what was this kid doing that crossed the reasonable suspicion line? Because if the cop doesn't have that, it's not illegal to refuse ID (with the exception of motor vehicles and airlines).


reasonable by court standards and reasonable by his/her standards on the fly while walking or driving by someone are two different things.  Sure the officer may at a later time at the station be reprimanded. But the officer is still legally allowed to have a reasonable suspicion by his/her standards on the spot they're standing on or driving through.
 
2014-08-05 08:59:41 AM  

jchuffyman: Baz744: khyberkitsune: Baz744: It protects it only within a well regulated militia.

I think there are several Supreme Court cases you need to check out before repeating that line ever again.

It's been held that arms ownership is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

It certainly is an individual right. It is an individual right to keep and bear arms in connection with service in a well regulated militia.

So, if this was revisited in the Supreme Court, how would you want it to be reinterpreted? Must all gun owners be required to undergo National Guard training? And if so, how often must they report for duty? I mean, that is what you seem to want, so what is your grand plan for when the Supreme Court sees the error of their ways?


If it was determined that owning a gun was not a Constitutional right, that does not mean automatically all guns are banned.  If you're going to look at it from that perspective you will never be able to have a rational conversation about the subject.  Maybe they would be required to be in a registered, regulated militia for their right to gun ownership to be Constitutionally guaranteed, but that wouldn't mean we couldn't allow registered, licensed firearms to be owned by citizens who were in good standing using a model like the way automobiles are handled.  Suggesting that there would only be a single black and white option for gun ownership is absurd, and acting as if any solution that did not address every single possible edge case as invalid is equally absurd.
 
2014-08-05 08:59:50 AM  

Gawdzila: Lenny_da_Hog: You know what else is suspicious?

Illegal investigations into things that 100% legal.

You know what isn't legal?  Being under 18 and carrying a gun around.
You can't possibly argue that he is unquestionably 18 or over by visual inspection.
That means there is HIGHLY reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, which makes the investigation neither suspicious or illegal.


Considering that a number of farkers have already hashed out that there is no age restriction for the open carry of long guns in Colorado, do you have a penal code citation that no one else has found?
 
2014-08-05 09:01:49 AM  

cwolf20: m00: jchuffyman: Once again, he was arrested for consistently refusing to show his ID.

From Colorado state law:

CRS 16-3-103
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.


Cops can only legally demand ID if the cop has reasonable suspicion. Other than carrying a gun in public, what was this kid doing that crossed the reasonable suspicion line? Because if the cop doesn't have that, it's not illegal to refuse ID (with the exception of motor vehicles and airlines).

reasonable by court standards and reasonable by his/her standards on the fly while walking or driving by someone are two different things.  Sure the officer may at a later time at the station be reprimanded. But the officer is still legally allowed to have a reasonable suspicion by his/her standards on the spot they're standing on or driving through.


Except when the courts have specifically said that an otherwise legal activity cannot be used as reasonable suspicion on its own, including carry a firearm openly where such action is legal. See US v Deberry.
 
2014-08-05 09:32:56 AM  

I alone am best: mksmith: In a poetically just society: Some middle-aged guy with a CC permit and accompanied by his small children decides Junior here is a clear and present danger, draws down on him, and strips him of his shotgun -- to "protect himself and those around him." Would Junior call the cops and file a complaint?

Apparently people in a poetically just society are knee jerk retards who elevate legal activities to justification for murder. I am glad that we live in a normal society where a kid engaged in a legal activity you don't like is grounds for you to daydream about stupid scenarios where said kid gets injured or dies.


The fact that a teenager strutting around in public with a deadly weapon is legal, and that people like yourself approve of the situation, demonstrates wonderfully just how insane our society has become. Instead of Aurora with a shotgun, suppose this kid was wandering around the Boston Marathon with a bomb? You okay with that, too? Just protecting himself against non-White people and NRA-hating liberals, right? The crew of Founders who formulated the Second Amendment would be facepalming themselves.
 
2014-08-05 09:59:50 AM  

zamboni: You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

 
Republicans are all in favor of people being required to show papers in order to vote, and also in favor of cops harassing up people who congregate in public places for causes they don't like, so I'm sure they would be OK with this.
 
2014-08-05 10:07:37 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: GameSprocket: Lenny_da_Hog: Ow! That was my feelings!: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 272x186]
That boy is one successful attention whore.

So are people with tattoos. We should arrest them.

Someone should dress up like Bin Laden and visit ground zero with some toy airplanes. Then, just stand their playing with that airplanes pretending like they are colliding with the surrounding buildings. Hey, nothing illegal about playing with toys.

/can != should

Can/should aside, you have a constitutional right to be a jerk without being harassed by the justice system just because people don't like you.

Trampling on a flag is completely legal. People hate that. It doesn't mean you get to put me in jail for doing it, and it's not reasonable to suspect me of a crime for doing it.

People hate me taking photographs in public. I've had the police called on me for doing so. They didn't mind before people in power told them that people with cameras were dangerous. It's not reasonable to demand my identification and run background checks on me for taking pictures of bees outside City Hall, just because someone is "freaking out" about it -- that's *their* unreasonable fear, not reasonable suspicion.


Going back to your original point about tattoo wearers being attention freaks (so should we arrest them too)...? When hundreds of people in the nation start dying, every year, because they accidentally saw Chad's tribal tattoos... maybe then we can all start talking about analogies that don't seem a little forced (considering the context of what's being discussed here).
 
2014-08-05 10:14:57 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Fart_Machine: Lenny_da_Hog: A conversation is not detainment and investigation.

If they're inquiring as to what he's doing, yes it is.

No it isn't.

You can always ask if you're free to go. If they say "no," THEN it's detainment and requires reasonable suspicion. They can strike up a conversation about anything they want. As long as you're not being compelled to participate, it's just a conversation.


You are still incredibly misinformed on the mechanics of a police encounter.  This is amazing considering you were a cop or whatever.

If they say "yes" then it's detention (not detainment or whatever the fark you were trying to say).  If they say "no" then it's what they call an "arrest".  At that point they have to read you your Miranda Rights before they continue to ask you questions.

This is not complicated shiat Lenny.  I think I know why you're not a cop anymore.
 
2014-08-05 10:17:46 AM  

serial_crusher: uttertosh: img.fark.net

So I'm missing the part about NRA support there.

Sure, it was signed into law by Reagan, but that doesn't automatically mean the NRA fell in line and worshiped him.
Reagan was also a proponent of the Brady Act, which the NRA is pretty vehemently opposed to.

Fact check: the NRA weren't even in the 2nd amendment crusading business in 1967


Not according to this. " Reagan claimed that the Mulford Act, as it became known, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen." The NRA actually helped craft similar legislation in states across the country.  "
 
2014-08-05 10:18:26 AM  

mksmith: I alone am best: mksmith: In a poetically just society: Some middle-aged guy with a CC permit and accompanied by his small children decides Junior here is a clear and present danger, draws down on him, and strips him of his shotgun -- to "protect himself and those around him." Would Junior call the cops and file a complaint?

Apparently people in a poetically just society are knee jerk retards who elevate legal activities to justification for murder. I am glad that we live in a normal society where a kid engaged in a legal activity you don't like is grounds for you to daydream about stupid scenarios where said kid gets injured or dies.

The fact that a teenager strutting around in public with a deadly weapon is legal, and that people like yourself approve of the situation, demonstrates wonderfully just how insane our society has become. Instead of Aurora with a shotgun, suppose this kid was wandering around the Boston Marathon with a bomb? You okay with that, too? Just protecting himself against non-White people and NRA-hating liberals, right? The crew of Founders who formulated the Second Amendment would be facepalming themselves.


I don't see anything wrong with it being legal to open carry a weapon since I'd have a really hard time concealing my shotgun while duck hunting.

I also don't have any issues with the police asking whats up if they see some asshole strutting around an urban area with a shotgun. Then again in my country you need to have a permit to own a firearm and they can legitimately ask to see that permit. I've shown my permit twice in my whole life. Once to a DNR officer who stopped by while we were hunting and once at a random drunk driving road block when the police noticed a case of shells, a bag that was full of other ammo, and three gun cases in my truck. Both occasions went like this.

"Hey do you guys have licenses?"
"Yeah here."
"OK, well have a good day."

"Can I see your PAL?"
"yeah sure."
"OK, have a nice night."
 
2014-08-05 10:18:40 AM  

kim jong-un: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.


Slugs are also some of the worst offenders of over-penetration. It would be wildly irresponsible to use them unless you live in bumfark nowhere.
 
2014-08-05 10:23:35 AM  

Rixel: FightDirector: Avery614: I thought in some states, it was completely legal to shoot someone you felt was threatening your life and safety

That's actually true in most states.  Many people consider that unacceptable.  It's also worth nothing that the alternative is "you can't shoot until they've started shooting at you".  That should also be unacceptable, for obvious reasons.

dookdookdook: So, educate me a little here: Is there some innate reason why guns need to be such touchy, unstable things that will blow your hand off if you look at them wrong, or is it just that it would be freedom-destroying tyranny to try to encourage a little bit of a redesign? We build cars that run perfectly fine for years without needing an untrained mechanic tinkering around with them constantly and accidentally blowing up the gas tank; why should guns need so much more attention?

I'll take the question as legitimate, rather than responding to the (troll) tone.

Modern firearms are actually made to be fairly difficult to set off.  That is, they're next to impossible to set off if you do anything but pull the trigger.  Drop them, hammer them, put it on a chain and drag it behind a truck, hand it to the Mythbusters...whatever.  Unless you actually pull the trigger, the odds of a properly-maintained firearm manufactured in the last 30 years "just going off", is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero.

The flip side to that is, when you need to pull the trigger, gun manufacturers and gun owners want there to be as little *stuff* interfering with that process as possible.  Each *thing* between your decision to pull the trigger and the time the gun goes "bang" is a potential failure step, and if you're in a position where you actually do need to pull the trigger, a failure is a life-threatening thing.

So, essentially, gun manufacturers assume that the person holding the weapon is rational and competent enough to not put their booger hook on the bang switch without good cause.  If you ...


That was clearly an accident that could have been prevented by educating the children involved in kindergarten about proper use and maintenance of firearms.  Kayla would have then known whether the bullet that killed her came from a magazine or a clip.  Makes all the difference in the world.
 
2014-08-05 10:24:20 AM  

serial_crusher: uttertosh: img.fark.net

So I'm missing the part about NRA support there.

Sure, it was signed into law by Reagan, but that doesn't automatically mean the NRA fell in line and worshiped him.
Reagan was also a proponent of the Brady Act, which the NRA is pretty vehemently opposed to.

Fact check: the NRA weren't even in the 2nd amendment crusading business in 1967


They certainly were by 1971.
".... And by the 1970s one of the most active lobbies in new attempts to control them was... the NRA. In 1971, their director said, "We are for it 100 percent. We would like to get rid of these guns."  (Saturday Night Special's)
 
2014-08-05 10:33:08 AM  

JPINFV: cwolf20: m00: jchuffyman: Once again, he was arrested for consistently refusing to show his ID.

From Colorado state law:

CRS 16-3-103
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.


Cops can only legally demand ID if the cop has reasonable suspicion. Other than carrying a gun in public, what was this kid doing that crossed the reasonable suspicion line? Because if the cop doesn't have that, it's not illegal to refuse ID (with the exception of motor vehicles and airlines).

reasonable by court standards and reasonable by his/her standards on the fly while walking or driving by someone are two different things.  Sure the officer may at a later time at the station be reprimanded. But the officer is still legally allowed to have a reasonable suspicion by his/her standards on the spot they're standing on or driving through.

Except when the courts have specifically said that an otherwise legal activity cannot be used as reasonable suspicion on its own, including carry a firearm openly where such action is legal. See US v Deberry.


I'm talking technicalities, and you're arguing what the officer will deal with later when he/she does something stupid.
 
2014-08-05 10:48:43 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Xcott: Apparently a firearm is so uniquely critical to personal defense that we must vigilantly guard our 2nd amendment rights to own these specific items---there is no substitute, nothing else can come close to protecting you like a firearm.  But the moment someone points out that it is dangerous and can kill people, that same firearm suddenly becomes an unremarkable random object in a household full of dangerous things like bleach, stairs and paperweights.

Then repeal the second amendment. If you do that, you can make all the laws you want.


Really?  Let's go ahead and repeal the 2nd amendment because you don't want to let go of a dumb argument?

No, let's not repeal the 2nd amendment.  Let's ditch the dumb argument, and face actual facts.  The fact is, firearms are much, much better at killing people, and much more dangerous, than random objects like screwdrivers or cars.  That's why people want the right to bear arms---because a screwdriver won't do.  And everyone knows this, so it comes across as patently insincere and dishonest when people bust out the canard that "oh you can kill people just as easily with insulin or a fork."

Everyone knows that guns are lethal---they are made to be lethal, that's the whole point of wanting them for defense and having a 2nd amendment.  Everyone knows that a knife or a baseball bat is not an acceptable substitute for a firearm---and certainly neither is a rock or a sharp stick or some bleach.  So when you argue that some other random object can kill people just as easily, you're actually contradicting all other arguments for the necessity of firearms, and undermining the whole cause of gun rights.   It doesn't just make someone look dumb at statistics:  it comes across as cynical and dissembling.
 
2014-08-05 11:17:57 AM  

sdd2000: serial_crusher: uttertosh: img.fark.net

So I'm missing the part about NRA support there.

Sure, it was signed into law by Reagan, but that doesn't automatically mean the NRA fell in line and worshiped him.
Reagan was also a proponent of the Brady Act, which the NRA is pretty vehemently opposed to.

Fact check: the NRA weren't even in the 2nd amendment crusading business in 1967

They certainly were by 1971.
".... And by the 1970s one of the most active lobbies in new attempts to control them was... the NRA. In 1971, their director said, "We are for it 100 percent. We would like to get rid of these guns."  (Saturday Night Special's)


And then they went a complete leadership turnover in 1977. Comparing the organization pre and post yield astoundingly different views and really is an apples-to-oranges comparison, imo.
 
2014-08-05 11:33:32 AM  

CheapEngineer: R.A.Danny: LouDobbsAwaaaay: R.A.Danny: LouDobbsAwaaaay: According to Lohner, who says he's been stopped multiple times and never had to show ID, he's on a mission to make people more comfortable about guns.

Then I suggest he put the barrel between his baby-fat red lips and yank on the trigger.  It would make me much more comfortable about his gun.

You are a violent person and should seek professional help.

How am I a violent person?  The only person I want this douche to hurt is himself.  White knight for him all you want, I don't give a shiat.

You're wishing a violent end on someone. You're sick.

He's not the one swaggering thru town with a gun, now is he?


The guy swaggering with the gun wasn't filled with hatred and violence.
 
2014-08-05 11:48:54 AM  

BeesNuts: Lenny_da_Hog: Fart_Machine: Lenny_da_Hog: A conversation is not detainment and investigation.

If they're inquiring as to what he's doing, yes it is.

No it isn't.

You can always ask if you're free to go. If they say "no," THEN it's detainment and requires reasonable suspicion. They can strike up a conversation about anything they want. As long as you're not being compelled to participate, it's just a conversation.

You are still incredibly misinformed on the mechanics of a police encounter.  This is amazing considering you were a cop or whatever.

If they say "yes" then it's detention (not detainment or whatever the fark you were trying to say).  If they say "no" then it's what they call an "arrest".  At that point they have to read you your Miranda Rights before they continue to ask you questions.

This is not complicated shiat Lenny.  I think I know why you're not a cop anymore.


I never claimed to be a cop. Don't make shiat up.

And you're incorrect. They can detain you with reasonable suspicion without arresting you. By definition, if you're free to go, you aren't being detained. If you are being detained, they can pat you down for weapons, demand ID, but not do a full search.

Arrest requires probable cause.
 
2014-08-05 11:58:02 AM  

Xcott: Lenny_da_Hog: Xcott: Apparently a firearm is so uniquely critical to personal defense that we must vigilantly guard our 2nd amendment rights to own these specific items---there is no substitute, nothing else can come close to protecting you like a firearm.  But the moment someone points out that it is dangerous and can kill people, that same firearm suddenly becomes an unremarkable random object in a household full of dangerous things like bleach, stairs and paperweights.

Then repeal the second amendment. If you do that, you can make all the laws you want.

Really?  Let's go ahead and repeal the 2nd amendment because you don't want to let go of a dumb argument?

No, let's not repeal the 2nd amendment.  Let's ditch the dumb argument, and face actual facts.  The fact is, firearms are much, much better at killing people, and much more dangerous, than random objects like screwdrivers or cars.  That's why people want the right to bear arms---because a screwdriver won't do.  And everyone knows this, so it comes across as patently insincere and dishonest when people bust out the canard that "oh you can kill people just as easily with insulin or a fork."

Everyone knows that guns are lethal---they are made to be lethal, that's the whole point of wanting them for defense and having a 2nd amendment.  Everyone knows that a knife or a baseball bat is not an acceptable substitute for a firearm---and certainly neither is a rock or a sharp stick or some bleach.  So when you argue that some other random object can kill people just as easily, you're actually contradicting all other arguments for the necessity of firearms, and undermining the whole cause of gun rights.   It doesn't just make someone look dumb at statistics:  it comes across as cynical and dissembling.


Then you have to pass actual laws. Hating guns doesn't make them illegal, no matter how lethal they are. Stopping anyone you want for not breaking the law isn't an option. Make an actual law, then enforce it.

The point is, you can't just stop someone for having something that can kill people because you don't like it. It has to be illegal for them to have it, or else they have to be doing something with it to make you think they're about to commit a crime, or have committed a crime.

You can't hold someone for simply walking down the street with a can of gasoline because gasoline is used in arson. It's a legal activity. You have to have some reason to suspect they're criminals before you detain them.
 
2014-08-05 12:05:28 PM  

Jackpot777: Going back to your original point about tattoo wearers being attention freaks (so should we arrest them too)...? When hundreds of people in the nation start dying, every year, because they accidentally saw Chad's tribal tattoos... maybe then we can all start talking about analogies that don't seem a little forced (considering the context of what's being discussed here).


It's not forced. It's just flying over your head.

The context is that there's no law against possessing a shotgun in public, the police had no reason to suspect there was any crime in play, and they used the legal system against him just because they didn't like what he was doing, no matter how legal it was.

People ITT seem to think that's okay for guns because they hate guns. They don't seem to understand that there's no separate bar for guns. Something is either legal or it isn't. You have reasonable suspicion or you don't. You have probable cause, or you don't. The police don't get to make it up as they go along.

They have to be able to articulate why they felt you were involved in criminal activity, what you were doing besides existing that made them say, "We need to hold that guy and demand his ID and do a background check." There were no shotgun crimes in the area, the guy wasn't acting suspiciously -- he simply had something that he's allowed to have.
 
2014-08-05 12:16:53 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Then you have to pass actual laws.


Pass laws to do what?  I'm not talking about banning open carry, I'm just debunking this horrible argument that "XYZ can kill people too, so let's stake out drug stores and ban cars etc."

There are a lot of compelling arguments to keep open carry legal, but this is not one of them.  It actually harms the cause of gun rights because it makes advocates look like dissembling morons who should not be taken seriously.

We don't need to pass any law to change this, unless you mean something like adding a logic course to state college core competency requirements.
 
2014-08-05 12:19:24 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: The context is that there's no law against possessing a shotgun in public, the police had no reason to suspect there was any crime in play, and they used the legal system against him just because they didn't like what he was doing, no matter how legal it was.


How did they use the legal system if there was no law?  These guys stopped the kid to check his age, because there is a law regarding minors bearing arms.  It's no less legitimate than carding a kid buying cigarettes.
 
2014-08-05 12:25:30 PM  

Xcott: Lenny_da_Hog: The context is that there's no law against possessing a shotgun in public, the police had no reason to suspect there was any crime in play, and they used the legal system against him just because they didn't like what he was doing, no matter how legal it was.

How did they use the legal system if there was no law?  These guys stopped the kid to check his age, because there is a law regarding minors bearing arms.  It's no less legitimate than carding a kid buying cigarettes.


There is NOT an age restriction. No law. That's the whole point.
 
2014-08-05 12:30:11 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: BeesNuts: Lenny_da_Hog: Fart_Machine: Lenny_da_Hog: A conversation is not detainment and investigation.

If they're inquiring as to what he's doing, yes it is.

No it isn't.

You can always ask if you're free to go. If they say "no," THEN it's detainment and requires reasonable suspicion. They can strike up a conversation about anything they want. As long as you're not being compelled to participate, it's just a conversation.

You are still incredibly misinformed on the mechanics of a police encounter.  This is amazing considering you were a cop or whatever.

If they say "yes" then it's detention (not detainment or whatever the fark you were trying to say).  If they say "no" then it's what they call an "arrest".  At that point they have to read you your Miranda Rights before they continue to ask you questions.

This is not complicated shiat Lenny.  I think I know why you're not a cop anymore.

I never claimed to be a cop. Don't make shiat up.

And you're incorrect. They can detain you with reasonable suspicion without arresting you. By definition, if you're free to go, you aren't being detained. If you are being detained, they can pat you down for weapons, demand ID, but not do a full search.

Arrest requires probable cause.


Sorry, I'm getting people confused I guess. thousand plus comments...

Check again.  You're incorrect here:
You can always ask if you're free to go. If they say "no," THEN it's detainment and requires reasonable suspicion.

I could have been clearer without the snark.  You can ask if you're free to go, if they say no, then that means you're being *arrested*.  Basically, asking that question gets you out of the limbo that is detention.  For better or worse.  You either find out the encounter was and is consensual in which case you can leave, or you find out you're actually being arrested and are not allowed to leave.

Interestingly, while in the limbo that is detention, which requires reasonable suspicion, the police are authorized to demand *only* one thing and that's your full name.  Many states (don't know about Colorado) have a stop and identify policy in which police are even allowed to demand physical ID.  The rest, and I'm not aware of an exception, merely require that the person provide a full name.

I'm not a fan of this policy.  But this isn't some sudden constitutional struggle combining four or five violations of this kid's rights.  Which is how this *entire* shiatshow of a thread started.
 
2014-08-05 12:37:42 PM  

FightDirector: jshine: serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...

If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.

Competent firearm instructors will tell you the 4 rules of gun safety, and then point out something very important:

Sometimes, you have to break one of the rules of gun safety (usually the "consider it always loaded", but sometimes the "never put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot" - thank you Glock takedown procedure).  However, when you do so, you have to triple-check each of the other three safety rules.

To reference the "Glock" comment above - the procedure to field-strip a Glock pistol requires that you pull the trigger to release the slide&barrel assembly from the frame.  Therefore, you need to triple-check that the firearm is pointed in a safe direction, that you're aware of what is behind what it's pointed at, and that the firearm has been unloaded.  Triple-check each of those, and *then* it's safe to put your finger on that trigger.


This was one of the biggest reasons why I didn't get a Glock as my handgun.  IMO, any takedown procedure that requires pulling the trigger leaves you open to accidents that could wind up killing you or people around you no matter how careful you are.
 
2014-08-05 12:41:05 PM  

Xcott: Lenny_da_Hog: The context is that there's no law against possessing a shotgun in public, the police had no reason to suspect there was any crime in play, and they used the legal system against him just because they didn't like what he was doing, no matter how legal it was.

How did they use the legal system if there was no law?  These guys stopped the kid to check his age, because there is a law regarding minors bearing arms.  It's no less legitimate than carding a kid buying cigarettes.


That would be a really good point if that law actually existed. It does not, a fact which has even been acknowledged by Aurora's city attorney. That's the goddamn point. The whole situation is predicated on the police "suspecting" the kid was violating a law that does not exist.
 
2014-08-05 12:49:37 PM  

BeesNuts: I could have been clearer without the snark.  You can ask if you're free to go, if they say no, then that means you're being *arrested*.  Basically, asking that question gets you out of the limbo that is detention.  For better or worse.  You either find out the encounter was and is consensual in which case you can leave, or you find out you're actually being arrested and are not allowed to leave.

Interestingly, while in the limbo that is detention, which requires reasonable suspicion, the police are authorized to demand *only* one thing and that's your full name.  Many states (don't know about Colorado) have a stop and identify policy in which police are even allowed to demand physical ID.  The rest, and I'm not aware of an exception, merely require that the person provide a full name.

I'm not a fan of this policy.  But this isn't some sudden constitutional struggle combining four or five violations of this kid's rights.  Which is how this *entire* shiatshow of a thread started.


No -- If you're free to go, you're engaged in consensual conversation. They can talk to you about anything they want, and you don't have to engage them if you don't want to.  They can't demand ID or search you without your consent.Asking if you're free to go makes it clear whether you're being detained or still having a consensual conversation..

If you're being detained, they're holding you at the site while they gather information. You're not allowed to leave. They can pat you down for weapons (but not do a full search) and demand ID/personal information.  They don't have to have probable cause to detain you, only reasonable suspicion -- they can be running background checks, talking to other witnesses, gathering evidence, etc., while you're forced to wait for a short time.

If they gather enough evidence to constitute probable cause, *then* they can arrest you. That's when they can search your person, your pockets, they have to read Miranda, and they can hold you in jail for a longer period to prepare and file charges.
 
2014-08-05 12:57:39 PM  

dookdookdook: heavymetal: it will not go off unless you pull the trigger but is always ready to go if an emergency need arises.

Just curious, has the need ever actually arisen?

Like, have you ever been walking down the aisle at walmart with your shootin' iron on your hip and suddenly a race riot broke out in Housewares or a gay rapist jumped at you from behind the paper towels and you found you suddenly needed to distribute a few Freedom Holes at a split second's notice?


No, but I would never be carrying a gun open carry on my hip in Walmart or any public place.  Also, I do not really worry about "race riots" or "gay rapists" being I am a liberal and usually get along quite well with both demographics.  I am more worried about the guy with a Gadsden Flag who wants to fight a freedom revolution and wants to distribute "freedom holes" to freedom hating socialists.

On a serious note though, what use is carrying a gun for personal defense if you can't use it when you need it, and have to go through a ritual of unlatching safeties and then load on in the chamber?  It's kind of like what is the practicality of carrying around a gun that in order to use on a moment's notice it has to be in a condition to where it can easily go off unintentionally?  I also don't plan on getting into any prolonged gunfights, so the larger bullet capacity and faster reload times of semi-automatics are irrelevant to my needs.
 
2014-08-05 01:11:19 PM  

heavymetal: dookdookdook: heavymetal: it will not go off unless you pull the trigger but is always ready to go if an emergency need arises.

Just curious, has the need ever actually arisen?

Like, have you ever been walking down the aisle at walmart with your shootin' iron on your hip and suddenly a race riot broke out in Housewares or a gay rapist jumped at you from behind the paper towels and you found you suddenly needed to distribute a few Freedom Holes at a split second's notice?

No, but I would never be carrying a gun open carry on my hip in Walmart or any public place.  Also, I do not really worry about "race riots" or "gay rapists" being I am a liberal and usually get along quite well with both demographics.  I am more worried about the guy with a Gadsden Flag who wants to fight a freedom revolution and wants to distribute "freedom holes" to freedom hating socialists.

On a serious note though, what use is carrying a gun for personal defense if you can't use it when you need it, and have to go through a ritual of unlatching safeties and then load on in the chamber?  It's kind of like what is the practicality of carrying around a gun that in order to use on a moment's notice it has to be in a condition to where it can easily go off unintentionally?  I also don't plan on getting into any prolonged gunfights, so the larger bullet capacity and faster reload times of semi-automatics are irrelevant to my needs.


I heard this weekend that one of things taught in gun safety class (My mother took one before carrying the .22 revolver that hits like a 38.) is that a semi-automatic is for those who have a death wish.  Among other things.

If a spring gets weak, then when the clip is pulled out a bullet may remain in the chamber. Lord help you if you try to clean it without checking after removing the clip.

She also said a few other things were mentioned that would result in a round somehow remaining behind.

The guy recommended revolvers instead. Because of the simple fact that you could see if a round was in or not simply by looking in the cylinder and seeing if there's light coming from the opposite side. If there is, it's empty. If there isn't any light, it's still got a round in the chambers you can't see light in.

semi- is faster, revolver is safer.


Side note. There are companies that make show pistols for mock gun battles at western ghost town attractions etc.  The show pistols can be switched over to live ammo with a switch. But have to be cocked intentionally each time in order for a new round to be ready.  Slower fire rate than a revolver. I know this because my father owns one of those.

With me, I don't own a gun. Mostly because I've also heard it said that "If you're going to take the gun out, this means you will shoot to kill. Or, the gun will be taken from you and you will die."

I'm not willing to risk needing to kill, and not sure if I could if it came down to it. I personally will be safer being unarmed when my life is threatened than I will if the gun is taken from me and I'm shot with it.
 
2014-08-05 01:45:35 PM  

cwolf20: heavymetal: dookdookdook: heavymetal: it will not go off unless you pull the trigger but is always ready to go if an emergency need arises.

Just curious, has the need ever actually arisen?

Like, have you ever been walking down the aisle at walmart with your shootin' iron on your hip and suddenly a race riot broke out in Housewares or a gay rapist jumped at you from behind the paper towels and you found you suddenly needed to distribute a few Freedom Holes at a split second's notice?

No, but I would never be carrying a gun open carry on my hip in Walmart or any public place.  Also, I do not really worry about "race riots" or "gay rapists" being I am a liberal and usually get along quite well with both demographics.  I am more worried about the guy with a Gadsden Flag who wants to fight a freedom revolution and wants to distribute "freedom holes" to freedom hating socialists.

On a serious note though, what use is carrying a gun for personal defense if you can't use it when you need it, and have to go through a ritual of unlatching safeties and then load on in the chamber?  It's kind of like what is the practicality of carrying around a gun that in order to use on a moment's notice it has to be in a condition to where it can easily go off unintentionally?  I also don't plan on getting into any prolonged gunfights, so the larger bullet capacity and faster reload times of semi-automatics are irrelevant to my needs.

I heard this weekend that one of things taught in gun safety class (My mother took one before carrying the .22 revolver that hits like a 38.) is that a semi-automatic is for those who have a death wish.  Among other things.

If a spring gets weak, then when the clip is pulled out a bullet may remain in the chamber. Lord help you if you try to clean it without checking after removing the clip.

She also said a few other things were mentioned that would result in a round somehow remaining behind.

The guy recommended revolvers instead. Because of the simple ...


If you're trying to clean a gun without make sure the chamber is visible or breech is visible, well you've made your own bed to lie in. It shouldn't matter if you have the greatest, most well-maintained gun and magazine in the world or you opted for the $5 gun show special. Making sure there isn't a round in the gun is like steps 2-10 of cleaning the gun.
 
2014-08-05 01:55:32 PM  

cwolf20: If a spring gets weak, then when the clip is pulled out a bullet may remain in the chamber. Lord help you if you try to clean it without checking after removing the clip.


so, you have no idea how semi-automatic weapons work.
when a round is chambered, it is not contacting the magazine in any way.
in order for a round to be left in the chamber when the magazine is removed, it had to be cycled into the chamber prior to removing the magazine. no "weak spring" can possibly cause this to happen.

helpful animation here: http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2590659/1911-firing-o.gif
 
2014-08-05 01:56:36 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Xcott: Lenny_da_Hog: The context is that there's no law against possessing a shotgun in public, the police had no reason to suspect there was any crime in play, and they used the legal system against him just because they didn't like what he was doing, no matter how legal it was.

How did they use the legal system if there was no law?  These guys stopped the kid to check his age, because there is a law regarding minors bearing arms.  It's no less legitimate than carding a kid buying cigarettes.

There is NOT an age restriction. No law. That's the whole point.


I stand corrected.

It appears from your link, however, that the police weren't even aware of this; so while they were incorrect, they did think they had a reason for stopping him.  It wasn't like they said, "we cops are obviously liberals who hate guns, and must detain this law-abiding freedom fighter for no reason except that we hate what he's doing."

I also like the quote from the linked article that Lohner "said Thursday he regularly carries the gun for protection."   I'm going to assume that he's carrying the gun to make an Open Carry demonstration and that he's not actually afraid that he needs a firearm at all times to protect himself from something---if he really was that irrationally terrified of the outside, it probably wouldn't be wise for him to carry even a can of mace, and police would probably be justified in approaching someone that messed up.
 
2014-08-05 02:08:04 PM  

The_Original_Roxtar: cwolf20: If a spring gets weak, then when the clip is pulled out a bullet may remain in the chamber. Lord help you if you try to clean it without checking after removing the clip.

so, you have no idea how semi-automatic weapons work.
when a round is chambered, it is not contacting the magazine in any way.
in order for a round to be left in the chamber when the magazine is removed, it had to be cycled into the chamber prior to removing the magazine. no "weak spring" can possibly cause this to happen.

helpful animation here: http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2590659/1911-firing-o.gif


Or the guy teaching the class who my mother listened to, and told me did not.
 
2014-08-05 02:11:36 PM  

cwolf20: The_Original_Roxtar: cwolf20: If a spring gets weak, then when the clip is pulled out a bullet may remain in the chamber. Lord help you if you try to clean it without checking after removing the clip.

so, you have no idea how semi-automatic weapons work.
when a round is chambered, it is not contacting the magazine in any way.
in order for a round to be left in the chamber when the magazine is removed, it had to be cycled into the chamber prior to removing the magazine. no "weak spring" can possibly cause this to happen.

helpful animation here: http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2590659/1911-firing-o.gif

Or the guy teaching the class who my mother listened to, and told me did not.


Does that even matter? If he didn't know how they worked, he shouldn't have been teaching the class. And if he didn't know how they worked, whatever was passed on to the class and you is inaccurate, so you don't know either.
 
2014-08-05 02:19:27 PM  

redmid17: cwolf20: The_Original_Roxtar: cwolf20: If a spring gets weak, then when the clip is pulled out a bullet may remain in the chamber. Lord help you if you try to clean it without checking after removing the clip.

so, you have no idea how semi-automatic weapons work.
when a round is chambered, it is not contacting the magazine in any way.
in order for a round to be left in the chamber when the magazine is removed, it had to be cycled into the chamber prior to removing the magazine. no "weak spring" can possibly cause this to happen.

helpful animation here: http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/2590659/1911-firing-o.gif

Or the guy teaching the class who my mother listened to, and told me did not.

Does that even matter? If he didn't know how they worked, he shouldn't have been teaching the class. And if he didn't know how they worked, whatever was passed on to the class and you is inaccurate, so you don't know either.


In my case, it didn't matter before I entered the topic.  I'll quite possibly never own one for reasons I've already stated so it will never be taken from me and used to kill me.
 
2014-08-05 02:24:44 PM  

heavymetal: I also don't plan on getting into any prolonged gunfights, so the larger bullet capacity and faster reload times of semi-automatics are irrelevant to my needs.


Here's my 'carry gun'
www.gunlistings.org
Quote marks because I don't have a current permit.

I used to have one of these in .40
cdn2.armslist.com
until I traded for the revolver, my rationale being, if I need more than 5 shots from a .38, I need to not be wherever I'm at
 
Displayed 50 of 1161 comments


Oldest | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Newest


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report