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.

(Atlanta Journal Constitution)   Step 1) Pass law allowing people to carry guns anywhere Step 2) ??? Step 3) Have a handgun misfire on a busy street, killing one   ( ajc.com) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

11668 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Aug 2014 at 5:35 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



370 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-17 06:46:48 PM  
Isolated incident #104858.
 
2014-08-17 06:48:00 PM  
I don't think it misfired. I think the owner of the handgun fired it, one must assume accidentally since he shot his own hand.

If we can find a way to outlaw stupid I'd be all for it.
 
2014-08-17 06:57:34 PM  
*Big sigh*  (Insert my continuing rant as an NRA firearms instructor that 8 hours of minimum class room training, and 4 hours range time before you can carry a firearm either open OR concealed- and you have to renew every 4 to 6 years with your drivers license)

Went to see "Expendables III" last week and I was so pissed off at Stallone for putting his finger on the trigger when he was not aiming at a bad guy.img.fark.net
 
2014-08-17 07:00:10 PM  
At least he's being charged with manslaughter.
 
2014-08-17 08:40:58 PM  
Sounds to me like there was no misfire, two people were hit with the same bullet and one died. The gun seemed to be operating perfectly.
 
2014-08-17 09:08:50 PM  
But everyone is polite
 
2014-08-17 10:12:39 PM  
Any recommendations on a good gun safe?

I have 4 rifles, 4 hand guns.  Would like room for ammunition and other accessories.

All the fire arms are locked in their individual cases.  Figure it's time for the one big enclosure.
 
2014-08-17 11:33:08 PM  
I'm pretty sure "busy streets" were among the places people were already allowed to carry prior to that law being passed. Thanks for playing though.
 
2014-08-18 12:23:21 AM  
So in other words, somebody got shot and it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed?? "but,but, guns!"


"Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"
 
2014-08-18 12:32:55 AM  
It's okay, that person's right to live is not n the Constitution.  Because if there's anything that can stop an accidental discharge from killing someone is another accidental discharge.  Guns everywhere without requiring training or certification makes our society safer as all gun owners always behave responsibly and act rationally.
 
2014-08-18 12:33:01 AM  

enry: Isolated incident #104858.


keeping count? LOL

at least the locals shot him down, saving the community from having to have a trial
right?
 
2014-08-18 12:36:54 AM  

Olo Manolo: So in other words, somebody got shot and it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed?? "but,but, guns!"
"Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"


Man is already illegal in most of the civilized world.
Well the Islamic part of it
 
2014-08-18 01:33:14 AM  
i5.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-18 02:00:00 AM  

Olo Manolo: So in other words, somebody got shot and it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed?? "but,but, guns!"


"Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"


I blame Big Pork
 
2014-08-18 04:27:33 AM  

namatad: enry: Isolated incident #104858.

keeping count? LOL



img.fark.net
 
2014-08-18 05:38:23 AM  
All BS... Never happened..

"We're sorry, our site is currently experiencing technical issues."

Nothing to see here.. move on.
 
2014-08-18 05:45:49 AM  

Trailltrader: *Big sigh*  (Insert my continuing rant as an NRA firearms instructor that 8 hours of minimum class room training, and 4 hours range time before you can carry a firearm either open OR concealed- and you have to renew every 4 to 6 years with your drivers license)

Went to see "Expendables III" last week and I was so pissed off at Stallone for putting his finger on the trigger when he was not aiming at a bad guy.[img.fark.net image 850x645]


yeah, this. you farking ignorant morans. disarm.
 
2014-08-18 05:46:59 AM  

some_beer_drinker: disarm.


No.
 
2014-08-18 05:47:18 AM  

some_beer_drinker: Trailltrader: *Big sigh*  (Insert my continuing rant as an NRA firearms instructor that 8 hours of minimum class room training, and 4 hours range time before you can carry a firearm either open OR concealed- and you have to renew every 4 to 6 years with your drivers license)

Went to see "Expendables III" last week and I was so pissed off at Stallone for putting his finger on the trigger when he was not aiming at a bad guy.[img.fark.net image 850x645]

yeah, this. you farking ignorant morans. disarm.


i dont see it doing you a lot of good...i mean look at Ferguson. go on, use the arms for resisting tyranny. that's what i thought. idiots.
 
2014-08-18 05:56:54 AM  
Well, they should have armed themselves if they were going to walk down the street with their friend.
 
2014-08-18 05:58:14 AM  
The chance of a modern firearm having a mechanical malfunction that causes a misfire is only slightly greater than the chances of your car starting itself and driving into a crowded playground.

The correct term for this situation is "negligent discharge" and it happens when you put your booger hook on the bang switch.
 
2014-08-18 06:00:03 AM  

Trailltrader: *Big sigh*  (Insert my continuing rant as an NRA firearms instructor that 8 hours of minimum class room training, and 4 hours range time before you can carry a firearm either open OR concealed- and you have to renew every 4 to 6 years with your drivers license)


I don't think any amount of classroom training is going to prevent people from thinking that carrying with a round in the chamber and the safety off is a good idea.

Much in the same way no amount of training will encourage people to not speed or use their blinkers. You just can't prevent stupid.
 
2014-08-18 06:04:07 AM  

SquiggsIN: some_beer_drinker: yeah, this. you farking ignorant morans. disarm.

I too, am disinclined to acquiesce to your request.


actually, that's so polite i might mistake you for a canadian. carry on, sir.
 
2014-08-18 06:10:47 AM  
Misfire?

"All I did was pull the trigger and then the gun misfired"

/subby is dumb
 
2014-08-18 06:16:46 AM  

GodComplex: carrying with a round in the chamber


Why would you carry a gun without a round in the chamber?
 
2014-08-18 06:18:13 AM  

GodComplex: I don't think any amount of classroom training is going to prevent people from thinking that carrying with a round in the chamber and the safety off is a good idea.


I've always wondered about this. If you carry a semi-auto wouldn't you want a round in the chamber? If you're carrying because you think, however remotely, that *oh fark* moment may happen do you really want to have to rack the slide?
 
2014-08-18 06:18:42 AM  

GodComplex: Trailltrader: *Big sigh*  (Insert my continuing rant as an NRA firearms instructor that 8 hours of minimum class room training, and 4 hours range time before you can carry a firearm either open OR concealed- and you have to renew every 4 to 6 years with your drivers license)

I don't think any amount of classroom training is going to prevent people from thinking that carrying with a round in the chamber and the safety off is a good idea.

Much in the same way no amount of training will encourage people to not speed or use their blinkers. You just can't prevent stupid.


Do you think a Glock should be carried with one n the pipe?
 
2014-08-18 06:19:07 AM  

kellyclan: The chance of a modern firearm having a mechanical malfunction that causes a misfire is only slightly greater than the chances of your car starting itself and driving into a crowded playground.

The correct term for this situation is "negligent discharge" and it happens when you put your booger hook on the bang switch.


Thank you.


Clearly, he was farking with his gun carelessly.
 
2014-08-18 06:19:17 AM  
Keeping a round in the chamber is dumb. You can justify it all you want, but 99.999%, you'll have time to work the action. And I have read about many accidental firings, including a state police officer up here in Maine. It's really not worth the time savings to keep one in the chamber.
 
2014-08-18 06:21:12 AM  

doglover: GodComplex: carrying with a round in the chamber

Why would you carry a gun without a round in the chamber?


I just got a lesson in brevity.
 
2014-08-18 06:23:29 AM  

Olo Manolo: So in other words, somebody got shot and it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed?? "but,but, guns!"


"Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"


If you are allowed to drive a car anywhere and people get run over in a church, isn't it a good idea to make sure cars stay on the road and drivers have adequate training and cars are made safer?
 
2014-08-18 06:24:53 AM  
i20.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-18 06:25:53 AM  

muck1969: It's okay, that person's right to live is not n the Constitution.  Because if there's anything that can stop an accidental discharge from killing someone is another accidental discharge.  Guns everywhere without requiring training or certification makes our society safer as all gun owners always behave responsibly and act rationally.


Excuse me, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of property." It's the very first word in the Constitution of Rights.

Of course, the government ignores our right to pursue property, too, with all the taxes they make us illegally pay and sending in armed tax men to try to take away grazing land from an upstanding rancher who just found it laying around not being used. Heck, that seems like the very definition of pursuing property, but you don't see the "President" doing anything to respect that God-given right.
 
2014-08-18 06:25:55 AM  

Publikwerks: 99.999%, you'll have time to work the action.


Have you ever used a semi-automatic handgun?
 
2014-08-18 06:27:44 AM  

GodComplex: Trailltrader: *Big sigh*  (Insert my continuing rant as an NRA firearms instructor that 8 hours of minimum class room training, and 4 hours range time before you can carry a firearm either open OR concealed- and you have to renew every 4 to 6 years with your drivers license)

I don't think any amount of classroom training is going to prevent people from thinking that carrying with a round in the chamber and the safety off is a good idea.

Much in the same way no amount of training will encourage people to not speed or use their blinkers. You just can't prevent stupid.


Dude, you are going to get jumped on for this one. Just wait until "The Fark, Carry a Round In the Chamber" supporters read this. They may not really be called that, but goddamn they will viciously attack anybody who says that you shouldn't carry a round in the chamber almost as viciously as they will attack a person who supports some form of gun control.
 
2014-08-18 06:28:18 AM  

doglover: Publikwerks: 99.999%, you'll have time to work the action.

Have you ever used a semi-automatic handgun?


Nope. Semi shotgun and rifle, but never fired a semi handgun.
 
2014-08-18 06:29:21 AM  

enry: If you are allowed to drive a car anywhere and people get run over in a church, isn't it a good idea to make sure cars stay on the road and drivers have adequate training and cars are made safer?


If people getting run over in church is the standard we're going by, it's time to start regulating how trees fall.
 
2014-08-18 06:33:04 AM  

serial_crusher: I'm pretty sure "busy streets" were among the places people were already allowed to carry prior to that law being passed. Thanks for playing though.


Yeah the new law has jack shiat to do with this happening and more to do with an idiot who didn't properly handle his gun.

There was already a conceal/carry law in Georgia so he would have done this even under the old law, mentioning it just helps push that paper's agenda.
 
2014-08-18 06:33:25 AM  

enry: Olo Manolo: So in other words, somebody got shot and it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed?? "but,but, guns!"


"Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"

If you are allowed to drive a car anywhere and people get run over in a church, isn't it a good idea to make sure cars stay on the road and drivers have adequate training and cars are made safer?


Not a single thing you said has anything whatsoever to do with my statement.. I'm going to have to assume you intended to quote somebody else?? But just in case....

The GA carry law changed absolutely nothing about the situation. The man could have legally carried there before the law, and he could still legally carry there after the law.
 
2014-08-18 06:35:08 AM  

mdeesnuts: enry: If you are allowed to drive a car anywhere and people get run over in a church, isn't it a good idea to make sure cars stay on the road and drivers have adequate training and cars are made safer?

If people getting run over in church is the standard we're going by, it's time to start regulating how trees fall.


People are generally required to keep their trees pruned. They may fall during a storm but having them checked and removed before they fall can be beneficial.

Huh, a bit of forethought and preparation can prevent mistakes. Wonder if that can be applied elsewhere. Nah.
 
2014-08-18 06:35:21 AM  

enry: Olo Manolo: So in other words, somebody got shot and it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed?? "but,but, guns!"


"Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"

If you are allowed to drive a car anywhere and people get run over in a church, isn't it a good idea to make sure cars stay on the road and drivers have adequate training and cars are made safer?


Still has nothing to do with this law, under the old law he would have been carrying as well.
 
2014-08-18 06:36:16 AM  

Olo Manolo: The GA carry law changed absolutely nothing about the situation. The man could have legally carried there before the law, and he could still legally carry there after the law.


That's not true - if the man had been visiting a bar(and since the police told the employees not to talk to the press, that seems likely) where he wouldn't have been able to carry before, had this been before the law change, he might have been unarmed and unable to therefor accidentally shoot the tourist.
 
2014-08-18 06:36:32 AM  

mcmnky: Any recommendations on a good gun safe?

I have 4 rifles, 4 hand guns.  Would like room for ammunition and other accessories.

All the fire arms are locked in their individual cases.  Figure it's time for the one big enclosure.


not sure if serious but if so this is a really nice one. Parents have one similar  to it

http://www.walmart.com/ip/20753928?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227 01 5218849&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=40968696872&wl4=&wl5=pla&wl6=78911495432& veh=sem

Stack-On Electronic Gun Lock, 16-Gun, Matte Black:
Epoxy-painted steel Stack-On gun safe holds up to 16 rifles or shotguns of lengths up to 54"
Electronic lock includes operational lights for open, low battery warning and incorrect entry
Time-out period after three incorrect attempts (trouble key included)
Batteries included and easily accessible from front of safe
Drill-resistant, hardened-steel plate behind lock for greater security
Two-way locking with new 1" steel live-action 5-locking-point bolts
Stack-On electronic gun lock features adjustable shelves, removable shelf and 2-tray organizer
16-gun safe provides a fully carpeted interior
California-approved firearms safety device - meets requirements of California Penal Code Section 12088 and regulations issued thereunder
Weight: 168 lbs
Dimensions: 20.9"L x 20.1"W x 55.0"H
Model# SS-16-MB-E
 
2014-08-18 06:38:09 AM  

enry: mdeesnuts: enry: If you are allowed to drive a car anywhere and people get run over in a church, isn't it a good idea to make sure cars stay on the road and drivers have adequate training and cars are made safer?

If people getting run over in church is the standard we're going by, it's time to start regulating how trees fall.

People are generally required to keep their trees pruned. They may fall during a storm but having them checked and removed before they fall can be beneficial.

Huh, a bit of forethought and preparation can prevent mistakes. Wonder if that can be applied elsewhere. Nah.


I'll defer to Ron White on this one, "You can't fix stupid"
 
2014-08-18 06:38:21 AM  
An idiot shot someone. Surely the cure for this problem is more idiots with firearms.
 
2014-08-18 06:38:59 AM  
Round in the chamber? Motherfarker, if you're not walking around with your weapon drawn and pointed at everything that moves, screaming at it, then you are UNPREPARED and deserve to lose everything you value and love. THEY'RE GOING TO GET YOU: BE EVER VIGILANT.
 
2014-08-18 06:39:01 AM  

doglover: Publikwerks: 99.999%, you'll have time to work the action.

Have you ever used a semi-automatic handgun?


"No but I saw a TV show where they did, so you can totally trust me"
 
2014-08-18 06:39:33 AM  
Farkers bringing up an anti-gun thread 3 or 4 times a days is like freepers starting abortion threads on Right Wing America.  They're always the same, the same comments over and over, no constructive discussion ever, all by the usual suspects.

It's the law of the land.  Move on.
 
2014-08-18 06:39:40 AM  

Publikwerks: doglover: Publikwerks: 99.999%, you'll have time to work the action.

Have you ever used a semi-automatic handgun?

Nope. Semi shotgun and rifle, but never fired a semi handgun.


Then you should know you don't have to work the action every ten seconds like in the movies.

Round in the chamber, finger off the trigger. It's called "Condition 1" by people who like to name things and it's the only way you should be carrying a loaded handgun.

Your weapons, and I include any weapons here, not just guns, should always be as close to ready to use as possible or you might as well not be carrying it. The samurai didn't invent a whole school of lightning fast sword techniques that start with the student seated uncomfortably and the blade in the scabbard because situations that call for violence are convenient and allow you time to prepare. If you ever need a weapon, a single second is no longer a small unit of time. Every fraction of a second you can save with preparation, you should do.

If you have a gun with no round in the chamber, your best be will be to throw it at their face, and hope they flinch.
 
2014-08-18 06:41:10 AM  

enry: People are generally required to keep their trees pruned. They may fall during a storm but having them checked and removed before they fall can be beneficial.


You in a circus? I haven't seen that kind of contortion since Ringling Bros. was in town.
 
2014-08-18 06:41:19 AM  

Olo Manolo: enry: Olo Manolo: So in other words, somebody got shot and it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed?? "but,but, guns!"


"Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"

If you are allowed to drive a car anywhere and people get run over in a church, isn't it a good idea to make sure cars stay on the road and drivers have adequate training and cars are made safer?

Not a single thing you said has anything whatsoever to do with my statement.. I'm going to have to assume you intended to quote somebody else?? But just in case....

The GA carry law changed absolutely nothing about the situation. The man could have legally carried there before the law, and he could still legally carry there after the law.


You don't think gun owners should get adequate training? Got it.
 
2014-08-18 06:43:12 AM  

steamingpile: enry: mdeesnuts: enry: If you are allowed to drive a car anywhere and people get run over in a church, isn't it a good idea to make sure cars stay on the road and drivers have adequate training and cars are made safer?

If people getting run over in church is the standard we're going by, it's time to start regulating how trees fall.

People are generally required to keep their trees pruned. They may fall during a storm but having them checked and removed before they fall can be beneficial.

Huh, a bit of forethought and preparation can prevent mistakes. Wonder if that can be applied elsewhere. Nah.

I'll defer to Ron White on this one, "You can't fix stupid"


But you can give them a boomstick and let them walk around in public.
 
2014-08-18 06:44:20 AM  
Man gets drunk, runs over child, kills child.  Where is the call to ban alcohol?
 
2014-08-18 06:44:50 AM  

Publikwerks: Olo Manolo: The GA carry law changed absolutely nothing about the situation. The man could have legally carried there before the law, and he could still legally carry there after the law.

That's not true - if the man had been visiting a bar(and since the police told the employees not to talk to the press, that seems likely) where he wouldn't have been able to carry before, had this been before the law change, he might have been unarmed and unable to therefor accidentally shoot the tourist.


If it hadn't been for the post-World War 2 baby boom, this guy might not have even been born.  So really it'shiatler's fault.
 
2014-08-18 06:46:14 AM  
Everyone must wear bullet proof clothing.
www.bulletproofindia.com
 
2014-08-18 06:47:07 AM  

enry: But you can give them a boomstick


Actually, you can't. They have to buy that themselves.
 
2014-08-18 06:48:07 AM  

muck1969: It's okay, that person's right to live is not n the Constitution.  Because if there's anything that can stop an accidental discharge from killing someone is another accidental discharge.  Guns everywhere without requiring training or certification makes our society safer as all gun owners always behave responsibly and act rationally.


Actually, there is a right to life in the US Constitution:

Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

But like all rights protected in the Bill of Rights, it protects them against government encroachment, not against the depredations of private actors.
 
2014-08-18 06:48:09 AM  

serial_crusher: So really it'shiatler's fault.


You know who else's fault it was?  Filter.  Adolph Filter.
 
2014-08-18 06:48:47 AM  
If it is not caused by a mechanical error it's not an accident. It's negligent homicide.
 
2014-08-18 06:50:20 AM  

dittybopper: not against the depredations of private actors.


Tonight, you.

iwatchstuff.com
 
2014-08-18 06:51:01 AM  
The Safe Carry Protection Act is passed and a woman's death ensues.

To quote the wife of Lampien, "It's an unfortunate situation."

Unfortunate.
 
2014-08-18 06:54:43 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: The Safe Carry Protection Act is passed and a woman's death ensues.

To quote the wife of Lampien, "It's an unfortunate situation."

Unfortunate.


Shooter was a retired judge?
 
2014-08-18 06:55:34 AM  

Publikwerks: Keeping a round in the chamber is dumb. You can justify it all you want, but 99.999%, you'll have time to work the action. And I have read about many accidental firings, including a state police officer up here in Maine. It's really not worth the time savings to keep one in the chamber.




Scenario: you are carrying a gun for self defense. You carry it without loading a round.
One day you need to defend yourself so you pull the gun and try to rack the slide.
Let's roll the dice and see what could happen.

The gun loads a round and works flawlessly.
The gun fails to feed properly and a round is stuck in the breach.
You short rack the slide, causing a failure to feed.
The follower and/or magazine are worn, causing failure to feed.
The magazine is improperly seated, causing failure to feed.
You'd hand is slick or you are injured, preventing you from racking the slide.
Your assailant reaches you before you've completed loading, maybe drawn to you by the noise.


One chance everything works, a half dozen ways it could go wrong (and a fair argument for why revolvers still sell so well).
The problem isn't having a round in the chamber. It's in keeping your finger off the switch.
You have to guard that trigger and use the manual safeties where applicable. You have to follow the four rules religiously.

/People need to familiarize themselves with their weapons and practice safety.
/They need to take training seriously, and treating the subject as taboo isn't helping that part.
 
2014-08-18 06:55:52 AM  

doglover: dittybopper: not against the depredations of private actors.

Tonight, you.


img.fark.net

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
 
2014-08-18 07:00:32 AM  

Trailltrader: *Big sigh*  (Insert my continuing rant as an NRA firearms instructor that 8 hours of minimum class room training, and 4 hours range time before you can carry a firearm either open OR concealed- and you have to renew every 4 to 6 years with your drivers license)

Went to see "Expendables III" last week and I was so pissed off at Stallone for putting his finger on the trigger when he was not aiming at a bad guy.[img.fark.net image 850x645]


Since the link won't work for me, let's discuss the movie...how was it?  I like action flicks as a rule, but I thought the first two were just actively bad.

Not entertainingly bad, just bad-bad; they just went over like a bowl of cold grease.  I'd heard the third one was better, but at this point I'm not inclined to give them my money...
 
2014-08-18 07:00:45 AM  

mdeesnuts: GodComplex: I don't think any amount of classroom training is going to prevent people from thinking that carrying with a round in the chamber and the safety off is a good idea.

I've always wondered about this. If you carry a semi-auto wouldn't you want a round in the chamber? If you're carrying because you think, however remotely, that *oh fark* moment may happen do you really want to have to rack the slide?


I wouldn't. Too easy to shoot yourself in the hand and kill some poor fark that's minding their own business.

You need some serious training before you can draw from a holster and shoot.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to carry a pistol without some kind of certification. It's a lot different than keeping one in the house just in case.
 
2014-08-18 07:03:00 AM  
Also nobody else finds it ironic a woman from Texas had to come to Georgia for this to happen?
 
2014-08-18 07:11:42 AM  

Delta1212: muck1969: It's okay, that person's right to live is not n the Constitution.  Because if there's anything that can stop an accidental discharge from killing someone is another accidental discharge.  Guns everywhere without requiring training or certification makes our society safer as all gun owners always behave responsibly and act rationally.

Excuse me, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of property." It's the very first word in the Constitution of Rights.

Of course, the government ignores our right to pursue property, too, with all the taxes they make us illegally pay and sending in armed tax men to try to take away grazing land from an upstanding rancher who just found it laying around not being used. Heck, that seems like the very definition of pursuing property, but you don't see the "President" doing anything to respect that God-given right.


Feel free to move to Somalia then. No taxes, and you can do whatever you want with your guns.
 
2014-08-18 07:16:21 AM  

dittybopper: doglover: dittybopper: not against the depredations of private actors.

Tonight, you.

[img.fark.net image 640x366]

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...


--Luke Dumbledore Gandalf

FTFY
 
2014-08-18 07:18:08 AM  

EbolaNYC: Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to carry a pistol without some kind of certification.


Careful what you wish for. There is a rich history of racists shiatbags who agree with you.
 
2014-08-18 07:18:33 AM  

mcmnky: Any recommendations on a good gun safe?

I have 4 rifles, 4 hand guns.  Would like room for ammunition and other accessories.

All the fire arms are locked in their individual cases.  Figure it's time for the one big enclosure.


If you plan to keep your ammunition in the same safe get one with a vent.  A strict 'gun safe' may not be ventilated properly.  I'm not supposed to keep my ammunition in the same place as my guns so I didn't bother.
 
2014-08-18 07:24:45 AM  
I've been to Helen a number of times. Rough town. Don't know how I survived without a gun.
 
2014-08-18 07:28:09 AM  

clovercat: I've been to Helen a number of times. Rough town. Don't know how I survived without a gun.


I detect massive sarcasm
 
2014-08-18 07:31:31 AM  

Egoy3k: mcmnky: Any recommendations on a good gun safe?

I have 4 rifles, 4 hand guns.  Would like room for ammunition and other accessories.

All the fire arms are locked in their individual cases.  Figure it's time for the one big enclosure.

If you plan to keep your ammunition in the same safe get one with a vent.  A strict 'gun safe' may not be ventilated properly.  I'm not supposed to keep my ammunition in the same place as my guns so I didn't bother.


I'm assuming you are worried about rust?

get a  desicant pack. Put the safe in a place that is some what conditioned. Rapid changes in tem cause condensation ( hot to cool in a moist enviorment), between the sealed door and a desicant pack you will be fine if you clean and oil after a range trip.

where do you live you can't you "keep" ammo with firearms?
 
2014-08-18 07:32:47 AM  
If only the EMTs were armed. Nothing stops an accidental shooting than first responders with a gun.
 
2014-08-18 07:35:09 AM  

enry: steamingpile: enry: mdeesnuts: enry: If you are allowed to drive a car anywhere and people get run over in a church, isn't it a good idea to make sure cars stay on the road and drivers have adequate training and cars are made safer?

If people getting run over in church is the standard we're going by, it's time to start regulating how trees fall.

People are generally required to keep their trees pruned. They may fall during a storm but having them checked and removed before they fall can be beneficial.

Huh, a bit of forethought and preparation can prevent mistakes. Wonder if that can be applied elsewhere. Nah.

I'll defer to Ron White on this one, "You can't fix stupid"

But you can give them a boomstick and let them walk around in public.


Except for the background check and waiting period, and then there's the whole money for goods issue.
 
2014-08-18 07:35:33 AM  

Olo Manolo: "Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"


Well, it's already a known killer, at least once...

4.bp.blogspot.com

namatad: Man is already illegal in most of the civilized world.
Well the Islamic part of it


They've outlawed men? Surely you mean women?!
 
2014-08-18 07:36:18 AM  
It wasn't a 'misfire' then subby.  A misfire is when a gun doesn't go off when it is loaded and you want it to go off.  The gun did exactly what the carrier instructed it to do, whether intended or not.

/silly subby
//you'll misfire your eye out.
 
2014-08-18 07:46:28 AM  
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
 
2014-08-18 07:46:28 AM  

AngryDragon: rzrwiresunrise: The Safe Carry Protection Act is passed and a woman's death ensues.

To quote the wife of Lampien, "It's an unfortunate situation."

Unfortunate.

Shooter was a retired judge?


That's the part you're worried about? You must be a member of GeorgiaPacking.org.
 
2014-08-18 07:53:20 AM  

Deep Contact: Everyone must wear bullet proof clothing.
[www.bulletproofindia.com image 300x291]


It's the woman's fault for not wearing her Class III body armor when visiting Helen, GA.  She should have known that Real Patriots would be around, all being responsible gun owners and doing what they do best!
 
2014-08-18 07:53:46 AM  
I can't believe people are still biatching about the Bill of Rights. Let it go.
 
2014-08-18 07:54:48 AM  
Law-abiding gun owner.

Well, until he wasn't.

Like all of them.
 
2014-08-18 07:57:08 AM  
Something something safe and responsible something
 
2014-08-18 07:58:52 AM  

Olo Manolo: So in other words, somebody got shot and it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed?? "but,but, guns!"


"Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"


To be honest we dont know it had nothing to do with the law. If you read the article the man was a drunk, and bars are a place that they are allowed to carry guns now. So if he was coming from a bar then it does have something to do with the law.
 
2014-08-18 07:58:58 AM  
Guns are bad m'kay


images.sodahead.com
 
2014-08-18 08:00:08 AM  
Too bad it didn't kill the idiot playing with it. Unless you need it, leave that shiat in your holster. If it had discharged while holstered, it would have gone into his ass or his leg, or the ground. Take his license away, and jail his ass for being stupid.
 
2014-08-18 08:00:43 AM  
Cars have also been known to kill people on busy streets, or is it the driver? No this is Fark, so it must be the car.
 
2014-08-18 08:01:42 AM  
An employee who answered the telephone Sunday at the Old Heidelberg said the police had instructed the restaurant's staff not to speak to reporters.

WTF, so the cops dictate who can talk to now?
 
2014-08-18 08:03:10 AM  

Mock26: Man gets drunk, runs over child, kills child.  Where is the call to ban alcohol?

/

/There is too much profit for booze makers, sellers, and tax money coming in. That's why.
 
2014-08-18 08:03:52 AM  
www.oncoursesystems.com
 
2014-08-18 08:05:10 AM  
 Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
 
MFK
2014-08-18 08:05:40 AM  

doglover: GodComplex: carrying with a round in the chamber

Why would you carry a gun without a round in the chamber?


Yeah, who wants to wait two seconds and perform an extra step when your chance to finally kill someone comes up, amirite?
 
2014-08-18 08:06:20 AM  
Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.
 
2014-08-18 08:07:06 AM  

BlindRaise: Cars...


Are a useless analogy since they require an actual level of responsibility and accountability to drive around in public, unlike guns which, in most states, can be carried around by any old random idiot with nothing more than a nice note from the local Sheriff's office.

But don't let the fact you went completely off the rails stop your derp train from rolling.
 
2014-08-18 08:08:19 AM  

SquiggsIN: "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."  firearms aren't going away even if you pass a hundred laws banning them.


Mostly because of the people making them.
 
2014-08-18 08:09:21 AM  

ramblemn: Egoy3k: mcmnky: Any recommendations on a good gun safe?

I have 4 rifles, 4 hand guns.  Would like room for ammunition and other accessories.

All the fire arms are locked in their individual cases.  Figure it's time for the one big enclosure.

If you plan to keep your ammunition in the same safe get one with a vent.  A strict 'gun safe' may not be ventilated properly.  I'm not supposed to keep my ammunition in the same place as my guns so I didn't bother.

I'm assuming you are worried about rust?

get a  desicant pack. Put the safe in a place that is some what conditioned. Rapid changes in tem cause condensation ( hot to cool in a moist enviorment), between the sealed door and a desicant pack you will be fine if you clean and oil after a range trip.

where do you live you can't you "keep" ammo with firearms?


I live in Canada.  We are supposed to store our ammunition in a different location from our firearms.

I am concerned about moisture yes. I buy my ammunition in bulk when it's a good price and some of it sits around for a long time.  I also live in a humid environment which doesn't help. A decent vent and my household AC keeps everything nice and dry.  Desiccant packs would help too.
 
2014-08-18 08:09:53 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Too bad it didn't kill the idiot playing with it. Unless you need it, leave that shiat in your holster. If it had discharged while holstered, it would have gone into his ass or his leg, or the ground. Take his license away, and jail his ass for being stupid.


No, no, no. The law is what is at fault here, not the idiot. It's Georgia's crazy guns-everywhere law that resulted in this tragedy. If Georgia had sensible gun laws like Chicago or Washington DC, this would never happen.
 
2014-08-18 08:11:24 AM  

thaylin: An employee who answered the telephone Sunday at the Old Heidelberg said the police had instructed the restaurant's staff not to speak to reporters.

WTF, so the cops dictate who can talk to now?


This is why we have the 2nd. It is to make sure we get to keep the 1st.
 
2014-08-18 08:12:41 AM  
Accidental shooting is the price some have to pay every now and then.
 
2014-08-18 08:13:08 AM  

skozlaw: BlindRaise: Cars...

Are a useless analogy since they require an actual level of responsibility and accountability to drive around in public, unlike guns which, in most states, can be carried around by any old random idiot with nothing more than a nice note from the local Sheriff's office.

But don't let the fact you went completely off the rails stop your derp train from rolling.


Funny how constitutional rights work, huh?
 
MFK
2014-08-18 08:13:47 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: Accidental shooting is the price some have to pay every now and then.


Over and over and over again, apparently.
 
2014-08-18 08:15:40 AM  

MFK: Peter von Nostrand: Accidental shooting is the price some have to pay every now and then.

Over and over and over again, apparently.


 Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem
 
2014-08-18 08:19:56 AM  

Joe Blowme: Funny how constitutional rights work, huh?


Yes, I'm sure the right for a drunk to shoot an innocent bystander coming out of a bar was exactly what the framers envisioned.

A brilliant argument.
 
2014-08-18 08:23:39 AM  
But how many people did the other 50 million legal gun owners in the country shoot yesterday?
 
2014-08-18 08:24:02 AM  

skozlaw: BlindRaise: Cars...

Are a useless analogy since they require an actual level of responsibility and accountability to drive around in public, unlike guns which, in most states, can be carried around by any old random idiot with nothing more than a nice note from the local Sheriff's office.

But don't let the fact you went completely off the rails stop your derp train from rolling.


Yeah, I was just bursting at the seams with "accountability and responsibility" when I passed my 15 minute driver test that a retarded ape could of passed... lol... do you actually believe your own horseshiat? Do you think it's easier to get a concealed carry permit than a DL? I'd say the analogy is a pretty good one, sorry you don't like it.
 
2014-08-18 08:24:50 AM  
I'm a firm believer that in today's society, where gang shootings, armed robberies, muggings, etc..happen, a armed society is a polite society. Sure, you get the occasional moron like in this story, but darwin seems to weed those out. If in a town, or city, it is common for people to wear a weapon for self defense, it is far less likely that some asshole will try to rob, mug, or commit a robbery of a store, bank, etc...when there is a great chance that most if not all of the people there are armed and able to defend themselves. Criminals want cash, not gunfire. So they go for the "soft" targets that they know are easy cash.Hell, look at any town in a state where people commonly carry. You don't see allot of bank robberies, muggings, or general felonies that you see in cities where nobody is allowed to defend themselves. Generally thugs will not try to rob someone / someplace where they know people are able to defend their property / lives.
 
2014-08-18 08:25:18 AM  

enry: Isolated incident #104858.


There is good news. The police (you know, the unaccountable, irresponsible, trigger-happy, jack-booted minions who the Gun Control nuts want firearm possession limited to,) are doing their level best to overtake and surpass this statistic. Doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart!?!
 
2014-08-18 08:25:48 AM  

skozlaw: BlindRaise: Cars...

Are a useless analogy since they require an actual level of responsibility and accountability to drive around in public, unlike guns which, in most states, can be carried around by any old random idiot with nothing more than a nice note from the local Sheriff's office.

But don't let the fact you went completely off the rails stop your derp train from rolling.


All a driver's license is is a nice note from a DMV employee saying you can drive around.

The test for concealed carry was WAY harder.
 
2014-08-18 08:26:08 AM  

BlindRaise: ...I passed my 15 minute driver test that a retarded ape could of passed...


That's rather aspirational of you.
 
2014-08-18 08:26:19 AM  
Pretty sure alcohol was involved. The only people that go to Helen are tourist families and people looking to drink all day.
 
2014-08-18 08:27:53 AM  

Egoy3k: mcmnky: Any recommendations on a good gun safe?

I have 4 rifles, 4 hand guns.  Would like room for ammunition and other accessories.

All the fire arms are locked in their individual cases.  Figure it's time for the one big enclosure.

If you plan to keep your ammunition in the same safe get one with a vent.  A strict 'gun safe' may not be ventilated properly.  I'm not supposed to keep my ammunition in the same place as my guns so I didn't bother.


Can I get one that is resistant to a nuclear blast? I'm not sure that my fridge is up to the job.
 
2014-08-18 08:27:55 AM  

badhatharry: thaylin: An employee who answered the telephone Sunday at the Old Heidelberg said the police had instructed the restaurant's staff not to speak to reporters.

WTF, so the cops dictate who can talk to now?

This is why we have the 2nd. It is to make sure we get to keep the 1st.


Really? It does not seem to be working.. And I hope you hold on to your guns when the government uses drones to drop bombs on you.
 
2014-08-18 08:29:06 AM  

born_yesterday: Joe Blowme: Funny how constitutional rights work, huh?

Yes, I'm sure the right for a drunk to shoot an innocent bystander coming out of a bar was exactly what the framers envisioned.

A brilliant argument.


Well I can't speak for other States but in FL it is illegal (even with a concealed carry permit) to carry your firearm into a bar. One of the many things you learn in the REQUIRED course to obtain a concealed carry permit are legal regulations.But hey, you tried.
 
2014-08-18 08:29:52 AM  

MFK: doglover: GodComplex: carrying with a round in the chamber

Why would you carry a gun without a round in the chamber?

Yeah, who wants to wait two seconds and perform an extra step when your chance to finally kill someone comes up, amirite?


If you don't have two seconds to spare, isn't a club the correct tool to deploy rather than a bang stick?
 
2014-08-18 08:30:02 AM  
Meanwhile, in 2012, 33,561 people died in automobile accidents (more than 91 people per day, or more than one person every 16 minutes), but no one on fark complains that private transportation should be outlawed.
 
2014-08-18 08:30:26 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Mock26: Man gets drunk, runs over child, kills child.  Where is the call to ban alcohol?/

/There is too much profit for booze makers, sellers, and tax money coming in. That's why.


Last I checked there is a ban on drunk driving. -1 for a stupid analogy.
 
2014-08-18 08:32:30 AM  

cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.


Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.
 
2014-08-18 08:32:32 AM  

doglover: Publikwerks: doglover: Publikwerks: 99.999%, you'll have time to work the action.

Have you ever used a semi-automatic handgun?

Nope. Semi shotgun and rifle, but never fired a semi handgun.

Then you should know you don't have to work the action every ten seconds like in the movies.

Round in the chamber, finger off the trigger. It's called "Condition 1" by people who like to name things and it's the only way you should be carrying a loaded handgun.

Your weapons, and I include any weapons here, not just guns, should always be as close to ready to use as possible or you might as well not be carrying it. The samurai didn't invent a whole school of lightning fast sword techniques that start with the student seated uncomfortably and the blade in the scabbard because situations that call for violence are convenient and allow you time to prepare. If you ever need a weapon, a single second is no longer a small unit of time. Every fraction of a second you can save with preparation, you should do.

If you have a gun with no round in the chamber, your best be will be to throw it at their face, and hope they flinch.


I think we have had this argument before. It's a difference in philosophy. What it comes down to is that people are careless. They make mistakes.

I work with databases, and when write procedures, I like to bring in multiple redundancies so that if the process farks up, it catches itself before it takes a huge dump all over the system. I favor the same type of precautions with firearms.

Like I bet this gentlemen was aware of muzzle discipline, and never actively pointed his gun at a person. However, he didn't take into account that his handgun is pointing at people while he was sitting.

So he failed on muzzle discipline. He (probably) failed with his trigger discipline(not sure the term for keeping you finger off the trigger other than common sense). There was multiple failures in his actions, and probably in alot of gun owners actions, so I think the extar step of keeping a round out of the chamber is warranted.


And the Samurai trained for years and years before they were samurai. They practiced with shinai and bokken for years before they went out into the world. So how about this - if you have years of training, go right ahead and leave one in the chamber. I bet this guy didn't have years of training. shiat, I think hours of training is too much to hope for.
 
2014-08-18 08:34:08 AM  

Itstoearly: Meanwhile, in 2012, 33,561 people died in automobile accidents (more than 91 people per day, or more than one person every 16 minutes), but no one on fark complains that private transportation should be outlawed.


This is what I'm talking about! It's time we sat down and had a common sense discussion about car control in this Country.
 
2014-08-18 08:36:30 AM  

Trailltrader: *Big sigh*  (Insert my continuing rant as an NRA firearms instructor that 8 hours of minimum class room training, and 4 hours range time before you can carry a firearm either open OR concealed- and you have to renew every 4 to 6 years with your drivers license)

Went to see "Expendables III" last week and I was so pissed off at Stallone for putting his finger on the trigger when he was not aiming at a bad guy.[img.fark.net image 850x645]


Well, it's easy for Stallone to take a liberal, anti-gun position. He used to perform in porn films under the appellation "the Italian stallion". He doesn't need a gun.
That's like Billy Joel writing the song "I love You Just the Way You Are" - to Christie Brinkley.
 
2014-08-18 08:36:55 AM  
I have no idea why you would need a piece in Helen.  People in Helen do though, mainly to keep the UN out.
 
2014-08-18 08:36:56 AM  

BlindRaise: Itstoearly: Meanwhile, in 2012, 33,561 people died in automobile accidents (more than 91 people per day, or more than one person every 16 minutes), but no one on fark complains that private transportation should be outlawed.

This is what I'm talking about! It's time we sat down and had a common sense discussion about car control in this Country.


I think most liberals would support applying the controls we already put on car transfer/ownership to guns and be done with it..
 
2014-08-18 08:37:02 AM  

doglover: Publikwerks: doglover: Publikwerks: 99.999%, you'll have time to work the action.

Have you ever used a semi-automatic handgun?

Nope. Semi shotgun and rifle, but never fired a semi handgun.

Then you should know you don't have to work the action every ten seconds like in the movies.

Round in the chamber, finger off the trigger. It's called "Condition 1" by people who like to name things and it's the only way you should be carrying a loaded handgun.

Your weapons, and I include any weapons here, not just guns, should always be as close to ready to use as possible or you might as well not be carrying it. The samurai didn't invent a whole school of lightning fast sword techniques that start with the student seated uncomfortably and the blade in the scabbard because situations that call for violence are convenient and allow you time to prepare. If you ever need a weapon, a single second is no longer a small unit of time. Every fraction of a second you can save with preparation, you should do.

If you have a gun with no round in the chamber, your best be will be to throw it at their face, and hope they flinch.


You strike me as one of those people who sits around fantasizing about situations in which you get to shoot someone and "be the hero".
 
2014-08-18 08:37:06 AM  

heili skrimsli: cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.

Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.


It's standard with most of the war veteran gun owners I know, and those they taught it to.
 
2014-08-18 08:38:41 AM  

thaylin: badhatharry: thaylin: An employee who answered the telephone Sunday at the Old Heidelberg said the police had instructed the restaurant's staff not to speak to reporters.

WTF, so the cops dictate who can talk to now?

This is why we have the 2nd. It is to make sure we get to keep the 1st.

Really? It does not seem to be working.. And I hope you hold on to your guns when the government uses drones to drop bombs on you.


The threat of an armed uprising is still a pretty good deterrent to government tyranny. I would hope that the sheep will rise up before they start droning people.
 
2014-08-18 08:38:56 AM  

BlindRaise: Itstoearly: Meanwhile, in 2012, 33,561 people died in automobile accidents (more than 91 people per day, or more than one person every 16 minutes), but no one on fark complains that private transportation should be outlawed.

This is what I'm talking about! It's time we sat down and had a common sense discussion about car control in this Country.


Nah, f**k. We should just let people walk into car agencies and drive 'em away. Screw the "registration", and "drivers licenses". Making them get licenses infringes on their right to be secure in their persons and property.
 
2014-08-18 08:39:54 AM  

Publikwerks: That's not true - if the man had been visiting a bar(and since the police told the employees not to talk to the press, that seems likely) where he wouldn't have been able to carry before, had this been before the law change, he might have been unarmed and unable to therefor accidentally shoot the tourist.


1.  It isn't stated whether the guy had concealed carry permit in the first place.
2.  The law didn't make it OK to consume alcohol in a bar while in possession of a gun. If he was drinking, then he's clearly not following the law.
3.  If he wasn't drinking, then his negligence could have happened anywhere, and so the change in law still doesn't apply.
 
2014-08-18 08:42:31 AM  
Who's more persecuted in this country?

Christians or our well-regulated militia?

Both seem under constant assault from the gravest of imaginary threats.
 
2014-08-18 08:44:38 AM  

jso2897: BlindRaise: Itstoearly: Meanwhile, in 2012, 33,561 people died in automobile accidents (more than 91 people per day, or more than one person every 16 minutes), but no one on fark complains that private transportation should be outlawed.

This is what I'm talking about! It's time we sat down and had a common sense discussion about car control in this Country.

Nah, f**k. We should just let people walk into car agencies and drive 'em away. Screw the "registration", and "drivers licenses". Making them get licenses infringes on their right to be secure in their persons and property.


Imagine you lived in the early days of America. Some town bureaucrat decides that everyone needs to register all their horses and wagons. The people would have told him to go fark himself.

But when cars came along they were new and dangerous. So everyone agreed that the government needed to regulate them. Idiots.
 
2014-08-18 08:44:51 AM  

Explodo: doglover: Publikwerks: doglover: Publikwerks: 99.999%, you'll have time to work the action.

Have you ever used a semi-automatic handgun?

Nope. Semi shotgun and rifle, but never fired a semi handgun.

Then you should know you don't have to work the action every ten seconds like in the movies.

Round in the chamber, finger off the trigger. It's called "Condition 1" by people who like to name things and it's the only way you should be carrying a loaded handgun.

Your weapons, and I include any weapons here, not just guns, should always be as close to ready to use as possible or you might as well not be carrying it. The samurai didn't invent a whole school of lightning fast sword techniques that start with the student seated uncomfortably and the blade in the scabbard because situations that call for violence are convenient and allow you time to prepare. If you ever need a weapon, a single second is no longer a small unit of time. Every fraction of a second you can save with preparation, you should do.

If you have a gun with no round in the chamber, your best be will be to throw it at their face, and hope they flinch.

You strike me as one of those people who sits around fantasizing about situations in which you get to shoot someone and "be the hero".


Could be worse. I occasionally picture myself owning a gun, drawing it on a criminal, being disarmed, and being found several hours later with a few holes in my head.
 
2014-08-18 08:45:30 AM  
Subby should probably barricade himself in his mom's basement.
 
2014-08-18 08:46:47 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm a firm believer that in today's society, where gang shootings, armed robberies, muggings, etc..happen, a armed society is a polite society. Sure, you get the occasional moron like in this story, but darwin seems to weed those out. If in a town, or city, it is common for people to wear a weapon for self defense, it is far less likely that some asshole will try to rob, mug, or commit a robbery of a store, bank, etc...when there is a great chance that most if not all of the people there are armed and able to defend themselves. Criminals want cash, not gunfire. So they go for the "soft" targets that they know are easy cash.Hell, look at any town in a state where people commonly carry. You don't see allot of bank robberies, muggings, or general felonies that you see in cities where nobody is allowed to defend themselves. Generally thugs will not try to rob someone / someplace where they know people are able to defend their property / lives.


There were, 5,086 bank robberies in the US in 2011
A total of 3 people were killed who were not the actual robbers 2 of those were police officers.
there were 73 injuries that were not the perpetrator.

Arizona, Florida, and Texas had 210, 214, and 294 robberies and New York (the state) had 339.

California had 687.

Lets adjust these for population.  (robberies per 100,000 people)

CA 1.84
NY 1.75
FL 1.09
TX 1.11
AZ 3.18

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics -2 011/bank-crime-statistics-2011


In other words, bank robberies are neither a problem nor are the rampant in states with stricter gun laws in comparison with states with more relaxed gun control.

I could no go on to refute the regular robberies claim, and the violent crime stuff too but honestly I doubt you'll even read this.  Violent crime is way down in the US and it has nothing to do with guns or the lack of guns.  It's completely unrelated and to believe that you need a gun to protect yourself ask any person who does concealed carry how often they have actually drawn their firearm.  The answer will almost always be never.  Carry it all you want, it's your right but don't kid yourself into thinking you are just one trigger pull away from being a hero.  That's the sort of attitude that will get someone killed needlessly.
 
2014-08-18 08:48:02 AM  

monoski: Bit'O'Gristle: Mock26: Man gets drunk, runs over child, kills child.  Where is the call to ban alcohol?/

/There is too much profit for booze makers, sellers, and tax money coming in. That's why.

Last I checked there is a ban on drunk driving. -1 for a stupid analogy.


really, who was talking about drunk driving..i was answering a question.  Why not ban booze. I gave the reason.

-2 for inability to understand a story plot.
 
2014-08-18 08:48:18 AM  

cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.

Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.

It's standard with most of the war veteran gun owners I know, and those they taught it to.


I wasn't taught to short magazines or keep the chamber empty. I was taught to carry the firearm in the manner that it is intended to be carried: with one in the pipe and a proper holster.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2014-08-18 08:48:21 AM  

BlindRaise: I passed my 15 minute driver test that a retarded ape could ofhave passed


FTFY

/aren't you glad it was only testing your driving capacity?
 
2014-08-18 08:50:13 AM  

badhatharry: This is why we have the 2nd. It is to make sure we get to keep the 1st.


BTW - To quote Bullet Tooth Tony, "you've got your parties muddled up. There's no pussy here, just a dose that'll make you wish you were born a woman.."

The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

However - you use free speech, you can win. The pen is FAR more powerful than the sword.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2014-08-18 08:50:24 AM  
I think we can all agree that it's really the woman's own fault. The law said she could carry her own gun so she wouldn't be a victim and she opted not to. Maybe a good guy with a gun could've stopped this.
 
2014-08-18 08:51:55 AM  

Egoy3k: That's the sort of attitude that will get someone killed needlessly.


According to CDC's WISQARS, there are about 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S., though only about 600 people killed in such shootings.
 
2014-08-18 08:52:43 AM  
We really should outlaw accidents.
 
2014-08-18 08:55:01 AM  

heili skrimsli: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.

Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.

It's standard with most of the war veteran gun owners I know, and those they taught it to.

I wasn't taught to short magazines or keep the chamber empty. I was taught to carry the firearm in the manner that it is intended to be carried: with one in the pipe and a proper holster.


Never said they learned it on active duty.  My vietnam veteran uncle carries a Ruger, which has no safety.  One chamber empty.
 
2014-08-18 08:56:33 AM  

monoski: Egoy3k: That's the sort of attitude that will get someone killed needlessly.

According to CDC's WISQARS, there are about 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S., though only about 600 people killed in such shootings.


Only accidental shootings are needless?
 
2014-08-18 08:56:41 AM  

Egoy3k: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm a firm believer that in today's society, where gang shootings, armed robberies, muggings, etc..happen, a armed society is a polite society. Sure, you get the occasional moron like in this story, but darwin seems to weed those out. If in a town, or city, it is common for people to wear a weapon for self defense, it is far less likely that some asshole will try to rob, mug, or commit a robbery of a store, bank, etc...when there is a great chance that most if not all of the people there are armed and able to defend themselves. Criminals want cash, not gunfire. So they go for the "soft" targets that they know are easy cash.Hell, look at any town in a state where people commonly carry. You don't see allot of bank robberies, muggings, or general felonies that you see in cities where nobody is allowed to defend themselves. Generally thugs will not try to rob someone / someplace where they know people are able to defend their property / lives.

There were, 5,086 bank robberies in the US in 2011
A total of 3 people were killed who were not the actual robbers 2 of those were police officers.
there were 73 injuries that were not the perpetrator.

Arizona, Florida, and Texas had 210, 214, and 294 robberies and New York (the state) had 339.

California had 687.

Lets adjust these for population.  (robberies per 100,000 people)

CA 1.84
NY 1.75
FL 1.09
TX 1.11
AZ 3.18

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics -2 011/bank-crime-statistics-2011


In other words, bank robberies are neither a problem nor are the rampant in states with stricter gun laws in comparison with states with more relaxed gun control.

I could no go on to refute the regular robberies claim, and the violent crime stuff too but honestly I doubt you'll even read this.  Violent crime is way down in the US and it has nothing to do with guns or the lack of guns.  It's completely unrelated and to believe that you need a gun to protect yourself ask any person who does con ...


/yes i did read your post.  I was referring more to the physiological aspect of knowing a populace is armed and able to defend itself. ie..in the criminals mind.  if you were going to rob a store, and there were 2 stores, one where you KNOW the owner is armed, and one where you KNOW the owner is not, which one would you pick to rob? That is what i was saying.
 
2014-08-18 08:57:22 AM  

Abox: BlindRaise: Itstoearly: Meanwhile, in 2012, 33,561 people died in automobile accidents (more than 91 people per day, or more than one person every 16 minutes), but no one on fark complains that private transportation should be outlawed.

This is what I'm talking about! It's time we sat down and had a common sense discussion about car control in this Country.

I think most liberals would support applying the controls we already put on car transfer/ownership to guns and be done with it..


This is basically already the case (and then some) when buying a new firearm from an FFL dealer. https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
 
2014-08-18 08:58:17 AM  

Publikwerks: badhatharry: This is why we have the 2nd. It is to make sure we get to keep the 1st.

BTW - To quote Bullet Tooth Tony, "you've got your parties muddled up. There's no pussy here, just a dose that'll make you wish you were born a woman.."

The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

However - you use free speech, you can win. The pen is FAR more powerful than the sword.


You give way too much credit to our brave law enforcement officers.
 
2014-08-18 08:58:27 AM  
Damn filter..."psychological" not physiological.
 
2014-08-18 08:58:56 AM  

born_yesterday: Joe Blowme: Funny how constitutional rights work, huh?

Yes, I'm sure the right for a drunk to shoot an innocent bystander coming out of a bar was exactly what the framers envisioned.

A brilliant argument.


Sounds like you have a different version of the constitution... or just cant read.
 
2014-08-18 08:59:10 AM  

cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.

Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.

It's standard with most of the war veteran gun owners I know, and those they taught it to.

I wasn't taught to short magazines or keep the chamber empty. I was taught to carry the firearm in the manner that it is intended to be carried: with one in the pipe and a proper holster.

Never said they learned it on active duty.  My vietnam veteran uncle carries a Ruger, which has no safety.  One chamber empty.


Just in case someone says "I saw a ruger with a safety".  His does not have one, next?
 
2014-08-18 09:00:15 AM  
I think the bigger issue is stupid. If we could find a way to fix stupid we would have it licked.
 
2014-08-18 09:00:25 AM  

DubtodaIll: We really should outlaw accidents.


Or at least have a 3 day waiting period for accidents and how to have accidents classes before you can actually have an accident.
 
2014-08-18 09:00:46 AM  
You know, if you easily distracted commandos insist on being armed everywhere, I just don't care. I've given up and resigned myself to accepting this country's self destructiveness. That's just what we do. We must have what we want no matter the cost.

But I swear, if I get shot because one of you unitards is playing Johnny Ringo in the saloon with your cheapazz Glock outside of Dick's Sporting Goods, I'm gonna...well I don't know. Either die or shake my fist at you really sternly.
 
2014-08-18 09:02:30 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: /yes i did read your post.  I was referring more to the physiological aspect of knowing a populace is armed and able to defend itself. ie..in the criminals mind.  if you were going to rob a store, and there were 2 stores, one where you KNOW the owner is armed, and one where you KNOW the owner is not, which one would you pick to rob? That is what i was saying.


That's my point though, more armed states don't perform better than less armed states.  Like every other social issue the drivers of crime are both complex and varied.  Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do not solve or even alleviate the issue to any significant degree. I'm not saying you shouldn't protect yourself. If you feel that you should then by all means do, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this will solve crime or that crime is rampant.  Crime is not rampant and guns won't solve it.
 
2014-08-18 09:06:03 AM  

SquiggsIN: In addition, I fully believe that "gun free zones" like schools/colleges are nothing but an invitation for the crazies who DO want to do harm.


Oh.  Well, if you BELIEVE it, then it must be a sound basis for public policy!

firearms aren't going away even if you pass a hundred laws banning them.

Except for all the countries where disarmament initiatives DID result in a near-eradication of firearm-related crime.  But America must have too much exceptionalism for us to make our country safer that way.
 
2014-08-18 09:07:31 AM  

DubtodaIll: We really should outlaw accidents.


And while we're at it, lets also outlaw murder, that should really curb the gun violence problem... how did we not think of that before? Is there any problem legislation CAN'T solve?!
 
2014-08-18 09:08:02 AM  

badhatharry: Publikwerks: badhatharry: This is why we have the 2nd. It is to make sure we get to keep the 1st.

BTW - To quote Bullet Tooth Tony, "you've got your parties muddled up. There's no pussy here, just a dose that'll make you wish you were born a woman.."

The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

However - you use free speech, you can win. The pen is FAR more powerful than the sword.

You give way too much credit to our brave law enforcement officers.


Oh, don't get me wrong - they may still shoot you. But, if you try and use force to enact change, they WILL shoot you.
 
2014-08-18 09:08:23 AM  

GORDON: The test for concealed carry was WAY harder.


I'd suggest not nearly hard enough based on the evidence of the article.
 
2014-08-18 09:09:46 AM  

doglover: GodComplex: carrying with a round in the chamber

Why would you carry a gun without a round in the chamber?


Because you know the chances of you needing to be able to draw and fire in an instant are virtually zero, while the additional risk of having a round in the spout is considerable. On the extremely off chance that you actually ever would be better off drawing a handgun, the additional two seconds you need to rack the slide is going to decrease your "safety" by an infinitessimal percentage.
 
2014-08-18 09:11:14 AM  

cwolf20: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.

Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.

It's standard with most of the war veteran gun owners I know, and those they taught it to.

I wasn't taught to short magazines or keep the chamber empty. I was taught to carry the firearm in the manner that it is intended to be carried: with one in the pipe and a proper holster.

Never said they learned it on active duty.  My vietnam veteran uncle carries a Ruger, which has no safety.  One chamber empty.

Just in case someone says "I saw a ruger with a safety".  His does not have one, next?


There are lots of things that old timers do that doesn't make sense. Things like decocking a 1911, which is more dangerous than carrying as it was designed to be carried - cocked and locked.

It is my considered opinion, after thirty years of firearms experience, that if you're doing anything special so that you can pull the trigger and expect something other than a round being fired, you're doing it wrong.

Veteran, cop, or gun store counter jockey, the expectation should always be that pulling the trigger makes the gun fire. Anything else will make a person lax with their trigger discipline and then I'll have to hear their dumb ass saying 'It just went off.'
 
2014-08-18 09:12:35 AM  

thaylin: Olo Manolo: So in other words, somebody got shot and it had absolutely nothing to do with this law being passed?? "but,but, guns!"


"Man dies in car crash 3 days after eating ham sandwich. Ham sandwich under close investigation"

To be honest we dont know it had nothing to do with the law. If you read the article the man was a drunk, and bars are a place that they are allowed to carry guns now. So if he was coming from a bar then it does have something to do with the law.


That the law does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol by individuals who are carrying a firearm is a serious oversight.
 
2014-08-18 09:13:39 AM  

Egoy3k: Bit'O'Gristle: /yes i did read your post.  I was referring more to the physiological aspect of knowing a populace is armed and able to defend itself. ie..in the criminals mind.  if you were going to rob a store, and there were 2 stores, one where you KNOW the owner is armed, and one where you KNOW the owner is not, which one would you pick to rob? That is what i was saying.

That's my point though, more armed states don't perform better than less armed states.  Like every other social issue the drivers of crime are both complex and varied.  Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do not solve or even alleviate the issue to any significant degree. I'm not saying you shouldn't protect yourself. If you feel that you should then by all means do, but don't fool yourself into thinking that this will solve crime or that crime is rampant.  Crime is not rampant and guns won't solve it.


/Well, per your statement on "crime isn't rampant" that would depend on your view, and what city you live in.  Detroit and Chicago would like a word with you.
 
2014-08-18 09:14:25 AM  

skozlaw: GORDON: The test for concealed carry was WAY harder.

I'd suggest not nearly hard enough based on the evidence of the article.


Georgia has no requirement for obtaining a concealed-carry permit other than passing a background check and paying your money. There's no proficiency test or training requirement.

My two cents: concealed handguns carried by non-criminals have such a tiny effect on crime that it's not even worth talking about. They don't make unarmed people significantly less safe, and they don't make armed people significantly safer. Most people who get shot would have been shot even if they had a pistol on them (quite a number of them ARE armed). Concealed carry weapons are basically anti-gorilla amulets for the VAST majority of paranoids who carry them.
 
2014-08-18 09:17:14 AM  

Egoy3k: There were, 5,086 bank robberies in the US in 2011
A total of 3 people were killed who were not the actual robbers 2 of those were police officers.
there were 73 injuries that were not the perpetrator.

Arizona, Florida, and Texas had 210, 214, and 294 robberies and New York (the state) had 339.

California had 687.

Lets adjust these for population.  (robberies per 100,000 people)

CA 1.84
NY 1.75
FL 1.09
TX 1.11
AZ 3.18

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics -2 011/bank-crime-statistics-2011


In other words, bank robberies are neither a problem nor are the rampant in states with stricter gun laws in comparison with states with more relaxed gun control.

I could no go on to refute the regular robberies claim, and the violent crime stuff too but honestly I doubt you'll even read this.  Violent crime is way down in the US and it has nothing to do with guns or the lack of guns.  It's completely unrelated and to believe that you need a gun to protect yourself ask any person who does concealed carry how often they have actually drawn their firearm.  The answer will almost always be never.  Carry it all you want, it's your right but don't kid yourself into thinking you are just one trigger pull away from being a hero.  That's the sort of attitude that will get someone killed needlessly.



Playing with statistics is fun!  Violent crimes reported to police happen at a rate of roughly 400 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, per year in the US.   That  means your chance of being the victim of a violent crime is about 1 in 250, per year.  If you apply these odds to your lifespan, your chance of being the victim of a violent crime in your lifetime is about 1 in 3.

Of course,  way more crimes happen than are ever reported to the police, but either way... it  does happen and to act like you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning is simply foolish.  I've personally been robbed at gun point, and I sure wish I had a gun on me instead of having to rely on the kindness and clear-headed logic of a crack head for my safety, so there you go.
 
2014-08-18 09:17:53 AM  
The preamble supports a right to Pursue life.. does that include procuring sustenance? If so then my pursuit of happiness has  TON of other implications, but that's for another topic...

However, the Fourth Amendment is clearly not for hunting, survival, sports, personal protection, or recreation, it is to form a militia for to control a dissident and non-representative government. Did our forefathers expect you to still be able to hunt and provide food for your home, maybe even protect your home, state laws would certainly condone this interpretation, but it is not a 4A protected activity.

Given that most of what people use a gun for is not 4A protected, I question its place in modern society. Let the few states that still have "frontier" land handle living in that area independently with state law and federal exclusions.

I believe we should all know how to use guns, have access to them when needed for 4A reasons, and ideally never touch one outside the structured teaching environment. Ideally we should be able to live and die without ever needing to form a militia, and therefor never handle the weapons.

Lets have an armory at the lowest levels of government we can, and keep every single firearm needed to arm the local area at that armory. Responsibility to secure of the armory, and any liability therein, should belong to the ENTIRE community. Federally require gun education for every citizen, and make harsh penalties for possession of a firearm outside the few federal exclusions or in the act of a organized militia 

4A is protected, people know how to safely handle them, no one should ever have them in most circumstances allowing strict ass shiat punishments for possessing them. We can even figure out the complicated private ownership liability exchange issues, where people would want to own and maintain their own property, stored at the local armory.
 
2014-08-18 09:19:26 AM  

cwolf20: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.

Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.

It's standard with most of the war veteran gun owners I know, and those they taught it to.

I wasn't taught to short magazines or keep the chamber empty. I was taught to carry the firearm in the manner that it is intended to be carried: with one in the pipe and a proper holster.

Never said they learned it on active duty.  My vietnam veteran uncle carries a Ruger, which has no safety.  One chamber empty.

Just in case someone says "I saw a ruger with a safety".  His does not have one, next?


I personally think all single action handguns should have a thumb safety.  Down should always be off, or red dead.  Goddamn I can't stand it when they reverse the action.  I like the SR22 but they done farked up and reversed the safety.
 
2014-08-18 09:19:41 AM  

DrBrownCow: Publikwerks: That's not true - if the man had been visiting a bar(and since the police told the employees not to talk to the press, that seems likely) where he wouldn't have been able to carry before, had this been before the law change, he might have been unarmed and unable to therefor accidentally shoot the tourist.

1.  It isn't stated whether the guy had concealed carry permit in the first place.
2.  The law didn't make it OK to consume alcohol in a bar while in possession of a gun. If he was drinking, then he's clearly not following the law.
3.  If he wasn't drinking, then his negligence could have happened anywhere, and so the change in law still doesn't apply.



1. Irrelevant. You dont need one now. The law makes it more likely that someone will carry without a permit in these places.
2.  Incorrect. There is no law against carrying your weapon and drinking alcohol in GA unless you are hunting or fishing. It is only against the law to discharge your weapon while inebriated.
3. Except it more than likely would not have happened here, which means the law is still part of the problem.
 
2014-08-18 09:19:44 AM  

badhatharry: thaylin: badhatharry: thaylin: An employee who answered the telephone Sunday at the Old Heidelberg said the police had instructed the restaurant's staff not to speak to reporters.

WTF, so the cops dictate who can talk to now?

This is why we have the 2nd. It is to make sure we get to keep the 1st.

Really? It does not seem to be working.. And I hope you hold on to your guns when the government uses drones to drop bombs on you.

The threat of an armed uprising is still a pretty good deterrent to government tyranny. I would hope that the sheep will rise up before they start droning people.


I have never been able to accept this horseshiat argument. Politicians are not afraid of your guns. They fear your votes. It is the voting pattern of gun owners that prevents overreach of government, not their bullets.
 
2014-08-18 09:20:24 AM  
If only he had had some sort of mechanical and/or electronic safety, like one of those pistol-grip safeties or ring sensors, such that the gun wouldn't fire unless his hand was fully on it.
 
2014-08-18 09:21:17 AM  

Dimensio: That the law does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol by individuals who are carrying a firearm is a serious oversight.


This is an inaccurate statement.  You can carry inside establishments which serve alcohol, you cannot CCW while intoxicated.  The law was revised this way to allow people to carry inside restaurants etc with a full bar, like Applebees.  It was never intended to allow you to go drinking at the bar while carrying.
 
2014-08-18 09:21:37 AM  

Zafoquat: the Fourth Amendment is clearly not for hunting, survival, sports, personal protection, or recreation,


yeah, it's about your stuff being secure from illegal searches and seizures.
 
2014-08-18 09:22:28 AM  

Zafoquat: The preamble supports a right to Pursue life.. does that include procuring sustenance? If so then my pursuit of happiness has  TON of other implications, but that's for another topic...

However, the Fourth Amendment is clearly not for hunting, survival, sports, personal protection, or recreation, it is to form a militia for to control a dissident and non-representative government. Did our forefathers expect you to still be able to hunt and provide food for your home, maybe even protect your home, state laws would certainly condone this interpretation, but it is not a 4A protected activity.

Given that most of what people use a gun for is not 4A protected, I question its place in modern society. Let the few states that still have "frontier" land handle living in that area independently with state law and federal exclusions.


wisdems.org
 
2014-08-18 09:23:54 AM  

Zafoquat: The preamble supports a right to Pursue life.. does that include procuring sustenance? If so then my pursuit of happiness has  TON of other implications, but that's for another topic...

However, the Fourth Amendment is clearly not for hunting, survival, sports, personal protection, or recreation, it is to form a militia for to control a dissident and non-representative government. Did our forefathers expect you to still be able to hunt and provide food for your home, maybe even protect your home, state laws would certainly condone this interpretation, but it is not a 4A protected activity.

Given that most of what people use a gun for is not 4A protected, I question its place in modern society. Let the few states that still have "frontier" land handle living in that area independently with state law and federal exclusions.

I believe we should all know how to use guns, have access to them when needed for 4A reasons, and ideally never touch one outside the structured teaching environment. Ideally we should be able to live and die without ever needing to form a militia, and therefor never handle the weapons.

Lets have an armory at the lowest levels of government we can, and keep every single firearm needed to arm the local area at that armory. Responsibility to secure of the armory, and any liability therein, should belong to the ENTIRE community. Federally require gun education for every citizen, and make harsh penalties for possession of a firearm outside the few federal exclusions or in the act of a organized militia 

4A is protected, people know how to safely handle them, no one should ever have them in most circumstances allowing strict ass shiat punishments for possessing them. We can even figure out the complicated private ownership liability exchange issues, where people would want to own and maintain their own property, stored at the local armory.


/your perfect world sounds nice, but criminals don't generally respect / care about gun laws, so in your world, only criminals would have guns.  Everyone else who cares about the law would not.  Sounds fun yes?
 
2014-08-18 09:25:33 AM  

Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.


Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


img.fark.net

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

img.fark.net

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
dl.dropboxusercontent.com

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.
 
2014-08-18 09:26:29 AM  

cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.


That's the right way to do things...if you're carrying an old (old) school single action revolver before they started introducing transfer bars (ie if the gun fell or was hit hard enough the hammer could connect with the firing pin and detonate the primer of a loaded round).  So for those, yeah you carried your 6 shooter with an empty under the hammer.  It didn't slow you down at all because you still had to manually cock it and all you really lost was the 6 round capacity.

Some people are anal retentive (or just have old habits) and do the same with more modern revolvers that do have the transfer bar installed -- I'm admittedly one as even though it makes perfect sense I have a hard time trusting it.

However, this is a pointless practice with anything other than revolvers.
 
2014-08-18 09:29:23 AM  

SquiggsIN: I don't think we're really safer with more people carrying everywhere they go because people are stupid and they do stupid things.


Ding ding ding!  We have a winner.  In any large population there will always be an abundance of stupid people and sure enough we see numerous incidents of stupidity each and every day.  Hell, there'd be no Fark if it wasn't so.  So, yes, let's make sure we don't limit access to deadly weapons for the general population.  Brilliant plan.  Anyone who disagrees is against FREEDOMZ!
 
MFK
2014-08-18 09:29:46 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: /yes i did read your post.  I was referring more to the physiological aspect of knowing a populace is armed and able to defend itself. ie..in the criminals mind.  if you were going to rob a store, and there were 2 stores, one where you KNOW the owner is armed, and one where you KNOW the owner is not, which one would you pick to rob? That is what i was saying.


You're right. We should always act as if the paranoid fantasies of the most paranoid among us are just a hair's breadth away from coming true.

what the hell world do you want to live in where perceived danger lurks behind every corner and everyone you come across is a potential mortal enemy and you can't even go to the CVS to pick up some Preparation H without feeling the need to make sure you've got the ability to end someone's life snugly nestled on your hip?

You do realize that people can and DO go about their daily lives without worrying the need for firepower right?
 
2014-08-18 09:30:36 AM  

Zafoquat: make harsh penalties for possession of a firearm outside the few federal exclusions or in the act of a organized militia


Your proposal is Unconstitutional.
 
2014-08-18 09:31:57 AM  

Alonjar: Dimensio: That the law does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol by individuals who are carrying a firearm is a serious oversight.

This is an inaccurate statement.  You can carry inside establishments which serve alcohol, you cannot CCW while intoxicated.  The law was revised this way to allow people to carry inside restaurants etc with a full bar, like Applebees.  It was never intended to allow you to go drinking at the bar while carrying.


What you say cannot be true, or individuals who blame the law for a negligent shooting committed by an intoxicated individual would be intellectually dishonest for doing so.
 
2014-08-18 09:33:49 AM  
"Unfortunate" is when your pants split, you f*cking idiot.  Your husband just offed someone out of stupidity and recklessness,
 
2014-08-18 09:36:33 AM  

mcsiegs: "Unfortunate" is when your pants split, you f*cking idiot.  Your husband just offed someone out of stupidity and recklessness,


Yea, but he did it while protecting himself and the people around him.
 
2014-08-18 09:37:38 AM  

badhatharry: jso2897: BlindRaise: Itstoearly: Meanwhile, in 2012, 33,561 people died in automobile accidents (more than 91 people per day, or more than one person every 16 minutes), but no one on fark complains that private transportation should be outlawed.

This is what I'm talking about! It's time we sat down and had a common sense discussion about car control in this Country.

Nah, f**k. We should just let people walk into car agencies and drive 'em away. Screw the "registration", and "drivers licenses". Making them get licenses infringes on their right to be secure in their persons and property.

Imagine you lived in the early days of America. Some town bureaucrat decides that everyone needs to register all their horses and wagons. The people would have told him to go fark himself.

But when cars came along they were new and dangerous. So everyone agreed that the government needed to regulate them. Idiots.


Well, that's not my point. My point is that if guns and cars are alike, we should regulate them alike. If they are NOT alike, we should knock it off with the stupid, snarky "analogies". They just come off as dumb.
 
2014-08-18 09:38:04 AM  

way south: Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


[img.fark.net image 850x478]

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

[img.fark.net image 574x369]

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x640]

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.


/Nice try, but im pretty sure that looting and burning down stores isn't a first amendment right.
 
2014-08-18 09:38:55 AM  

mcsiegs: "Unfortunate" is when your pants split, you f*cking idiot.  Your husband just offed someone out of stupidity and recklessness,


The tree of liberty must be watered with blood once in a while. She's just happy it wasn't her loved ones' blood.
 
2014-08-18 09:38:56 AM  

Zafoquat: The preamble supports a right to Pursue life.. does that include procuring sustenance? If so then my pursuit of happiness has  TON of other implications, but that's for another topic...

However, the Fourth Amendment is clearly not for hunting, survival, sports, personal protection, or recreation, it is to form a militia for to control a dissident and non-representative government. Did our forefathers expect you to still be able to hunt and provide food for your home, maybe even protect your home, state laws would certainly condone this interpretation, but it is not a 4A protected activity.

Given that most of what people use a gun for is not 4A protected, I question its place in modern society. Let the few states that still have "frontier" land handle living in that area independently with state law and federal exclusions.

I believe we should all know how to use guns, have access to them when needed for 4A reasons, and ideally never touch one outside the structured teaching environment. Ideally we should be able to live and die without ever needing to form a militia, and therefor never handle the weapons.

Lets have an armory at the lowest levels of government we can, and keep every single firearm needed to arm the local area at that armory. Responsibility to secure of the armory, and any liability therein, should belong to the ENTIRE community. Federally require gun education for every citizen, and make harsh penalties for possession of a firearm outside the few federal exclusions or in the act of a organized militia 

4A is protected, people know how to safely handle them, no one should ever have them in most circumstances allowing strict ass shiat punishments for possessing them. We can even figure out the complicated private ownership liability exchange issues, where people would want to own and maintain their own property, stored at the local armory.


I... don't think you know what the 4th amendment is about.  At all.
 
2014-08-18 09:40:06 AM  

Alonjar: Of course,  way more crimes happen than are ever reported to the police, but either way... it  does happen and to act like you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning is simply foolish.  I've personally been robbed at gun point, and I sure wish I had a gun on me instead of having to rely on the kindness and clear-headed logic of a crack head for my safety, so there you go.


This is just retarded.

Are you going to walk around all day long, with a gun drawn, pointing it at everyone you see, in case they MIGHT pull one on you?

No? Oh.

So what happens when "the crackhead" mugs you? Well, you certainly weren't expecting it, so this gun you wish to be carrying around wasn't exactly ready or accessible. So now he has a gun in your face, and is demanding your money. What exactly happens if you try to reach for a gun to "Defend yourself"? Oh, look at that, you just got shot in the face by the twitchy fingered crackhead, now you're dead and broke, instead of just broke.

Man, that gun sure did help keep you safe!

Oh, so it wasn't a concealed weapon you say? The crackhead could visibly see it? Hello, Mcfly, he's a crackhead, do you think he really cares? Same result. Gun in your face, you hand over your money, if you make even a slight movement towards your weapon, you get shot in the face.

Firearms should be illegal for 99.9% of the population. Only about 0.1% actually knows how to use them properly, and has the training to not get shot in the face in the above situation anyway. The majority of those people are military. (Though even a good portion of the military doesn't have the proper training for that type of stuff). They do absolutely NOTHING to make anyone safer. Best case scenario - the outcome of these situations ends up identical to how it would have if no firearms were involved - worst case scenario, the country coroner has a busy night.

Anyone arguing for guns for purposes of safety, must also, by following the same logic, support the tsa and all airport security involved. The right to carry is absolutely nothing more than security theater. It makes dumb, or insecure people feel safer, despite providing no actual security or safety.

I wish I could craft words better, but it is just really sad seeing the same dumb arguments over and over. Face the facts. There are only three reasons to carry a firearm.

#1: You wish to delude yourself into some  false sense of security

#2: You're an idiot who is overcompensating for other shortcomings.

#3: You are one of the very very VERY few people in the country(world really) who are properly trained, and experienced to actually carry one of these, know what to do and how to use it in a real-world situation, and have an actual reason other than "C UZ GOD SAID SO" (Hint: You aren't one of those people. Neither are you. You might be but probably not. Ok that guy is, but none of the rest of you are. Get over it).


We could go through the studies and statistics and all but prove that firearms don't make anyone safer, and a quite legitimate argument can be made that making them entirely illegal WOULD make people safer, because well, those numbers and studies actually exist. But forget logic or data, this is Fark, no one comes here to think. First round of makers mark is on me!
 
2014-08-18 09:41:42 AM  

way south: Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


[img.fark.net image 850x478]

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

[img.fark.net image 574x369]

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x640]

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.


And you have proven my point - The protesters in Fergusen might get shot at, but they have a chance at winning. I would say, a pretty good chance.

Clive Bundy is going to lose.

If you think Clive Bundy has won, well, talk to me in a year. Matter of fact, I bet you it happens some time after Nov. 4th. Election years are not good years to get into shootouts.

But after Nov 4th, shiats on. In a years time, he will be in jail or dead, and the government will be auctioning off his shiat.
 
2014-08-18 09:42:26 AM  

way south: Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


[img.fark.net image 850x478]

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

[img.fark.net image 574x369]

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x640]

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.


Good point - in a nation where redneck thief Cliven Bundy isn't compelled to obey the law, why should the citizens of Ferguson? It's almost as if they are some lower class of people who are expected to obey the law, while others of the right complexion are free to ignore it.
Then, people whine about "lawlessness".
Funnier than shiat, it is.
Michael Brown should have been old, fat, white and stupid - he'd be alive today.
 
2014-08-18 09:42:37 AM  

Publikwerks: And the Samurai trained for years and years before they were samurai.


Not really. They were samurai so they trained for years. Not vice versa. Caste society and all that.

It wasn't even a chicken or the egg thing. Lots of the more wealthy samurai didn't train so much, and many were giant dick weasels, which is how that whole 47 Ronin thing went down.

And there's no such think as a bokken. It's a bokuto in Japanese. Bokken is an English word made up by wannabes who don't even know the word "waster" already existed in English. And shinai are a relatively new toy invented and popularized during a major decline in the martial activity in Japan toward the later half of the Tokugawa period.

So I must disagree with your attempt at a philosophy on weapons. Especially since my career brings me in contact with a lot of people. I mean like A LOT of them. People are not like computers. In fact, sometimes they maliciously rebel against the system just to be assholes. Those types can even become robbers, murders, and rapists. So I'm tellin' you that if you feel the need for a pistol, you'd best have a round in that chamber or a good life insurance policy because the time it takes you to rack your gun is far longer than it will take you to be robbed, raped, or killed.

Now, if you don't feel the need for a pistol, and honestly why would you in 2014, that's a totally different thing.
 
2014-08-18 09:43:19 AM  
There was a case of a jogger running along side a canal. A guy ran up to him and shot him in the throat then took his wallet as he lay bleeding out.

It's too bad the jogger wasn't running with his equalizer in his hand. He might have been able to get a round off.
 
2014-08-18 09:43:55 AM  

MFK: Bit'O'Gristle: /yes i did read your post.  I was referring more to the physiological aspect of knowing a populace is armed and able to defend itself. ie..in the criminals mind.  if you were going to rob a store, and there were 2 stores, one where you KNOW the owner is armed, and one where you KNOW the owner is not, which one would you pick to rob? That is what i was saying.

You're right. We should always act as if the paranoid fantasies of the most paranoid among us are just a hair's breadth away from coming true.

what the hell world do you want to live in where perceived danger lurks behind every corner and everyone you come across is a potential mortal enemy and you can't even go to the CVS to pick up some Preparation H without feeling the need to make sure you've got the ability to end someone's life snugly nestled on your hip?

You do realize that people can and DO go about their daily lives without worrying the need for firepower right?


/sure, i totally respect your right to be a victim if you choose to do so. I choose not to be.  Have i insulted your choice? No.  Have i called you a liberal peace loving hippie or something of that nature? Just because I choose to be able to defend myself, doesn't in any sense make me paranoid. It makes me prepared in case something does happen. That doesn't mean i walk around with paranoid delusions of being a hero, it just means that i have chosen to be able to defend myself if need be.  Why does this disturb you so?  I don't worry about it at all actually, because i have the means to defend myself and my family if i have to. You either have the ability to defend yourself or you don't. No need to label or take it to the extreme right of paranoid.
 
2014-08-18 09:44:00 AM  

Publikwerks: In a years time, he will be in jail or dead


I've heard that before, and they never deliver.
 
2014-08-18 09:44:43 AM  

whistlerdash: So what happens when "the crackhead" mugs you? Well, you certainly weren't expecting it, so this gun you wish to be carrying around wasn't exactly ready or accessible. So now he has a gun in your face, and is demanding your money. What exactly happens if you try to reach for a gun to "Defend yourself"? Oh, look at that, you just got shot in the face by the twitchy fingered crackhead, now you're dead and broke, instead of just broke.


I am certain that you will be able to cite data showing that what you describe is the most common outcome for a lawful firearm carrier who is confronted by a criminal, and I therefore eagerly await the citations that validate your claim.
 
2014-08-18 09:47:43 AM  

jso2897: way south: Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


[img.fark.net image 850x478]

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

[img.fark.net image 574x369]

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x640]

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.

Good point - in a nation where redneck thief Cliven Bundy isn't compelled to obey the law, why should the citizens of Ferguson? It's almost as if they are some lower class of people who are expected to obey the law, while others of the right complexion are free to ignore it.
Then, people whine about "lawlessness".
Funnier than shiat, it is.
Michael Brown should have been old, fat, white and stupid - he'd be alive today.


/if Michael Brown had not robbed a store and beat a cops face in, he would be alive today.  Bad life decisions.

FTFY
 
2014-08-18 09:48:16 AM  

Alonjar: Dimensio: That the law does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol by individuals who are carrying a firearm is a serious oversight.

This is an inaccurate statement.  You can carry inside establishments which serve alcohol, you cannot CCW while intoxicated.  The law was revised this way to allow people to carry inside restaurants etc with a full bar, like Applebees.  It was never intended to allow you to go drinking at the bar while carrying.



Possession and/or discharge of a firearm while under the influence
It is against the law to be in possession of firearm while engaged in hunting and fishing activities or discharge a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug to the extent that it is unsafe for the person to discharge such firearm except in the defense of life, health, and property;
It is also against the law to discharge a firearm while engaged in any shooting activity while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug.
It is NO defense to violation of this law even if you are legally entitled to use such a drug (prescription).

You can legally get drunk off your ass in Georgia with a concealed weapon on you, as long as you don't fire it, or you're not out hunting.

That may not have been the intention of those who wrote the bill, but they are not the smartest people in the world, or even in the legislature.
 
2014-08-18 09:48:54 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: No need to label or take it to the extreme right of paranoid.


movieboozer.com

Go get 'em, shooter.

And, yea, statistically speaking, by carrying a gun around you are choosing to be a victim. There really isn't much more you could do to up your odds of being shot without resorting to running around begging for people to do it.

But. You know. Scary people on the subway or something, I guess.
 
2014-08-18 09:49:01 AM  
Safety, Mothertrucker. Can you use it?

/Beretta 92fs
 
2014-08-18 09:49:16 AM  

LazyMedia: Alonjar: Dimensio: That the law does not prohibit the consumption of alcohol by individuals who are carrying a firearm is a serious oversight.

This is an inaccurate statement.  You can carry inside establishments which serve alcohol, you cannot CCW while intoxicated.  The law was revised this way to allow people to carry inside restaurants etc with a full bar, like Applebees.  It was never intended to allow you to go drinking at the bar while carrying.


Possession and/or discharge of a firearm while under the influence
It is against the law to be in possession of firearm while engaged in hunting and fishing activities or discharge a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug to the extent that it is unsafe for the person to discharge such firearm except in the defense of life, health, and property;
It is also against the law to discharge a firearm while engaged in any shooting activity while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug.
It is NO defense to violation of this law even if you are legally entitled to use such a drug (prescription).

You can legally get drunk off your ass in Georgia with a concealed weapon on you, as long as you don't fire it, or you're not out hunting.

That may not have been the intention of those who wrote the bill, but they are not the smartest people in the world, or even in the legislature.


You should employ some fairness in your consideration: the authors are likely amongst the most educated individuals within the state of Georgia.
 
2014-08-18 09:50:43 AM  

Alonjar: Playing with statistics is fun!  Violent crimes reported to police happen at a rate of roughly 400 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, per year in the US.   That  means your chance of being the victim of a violent crime is about 1 in 250, per year.  If you apply these odds to your lifespan, your chance of being the victim of a violent crime in your lifetime is about 1 in 3.

Of course,  way more crimes happen than are ever reported to the police, but either way... it  does happen and to act like you have a greater chance of being struck by lightning is simply foolish.  I've personally been robbed at gun point, and I sure wish I had a gun on me instead of having to rely on the kindness and clear-headed logic of a crack head for my safety, so there you go.


Learning to read is also fun. I suggest you try it sometime. Maybe next time you'll understand and respond to the actual point being made instead of responding to the point you think is being made.

Also if you enjoy statistics you might want to have a more nuanced view than assuming that those 400 crimes per 100,000 people are equally distributed. They aren't.
 
2014-08-18 09:50:51 AM  

skozlaw: And, yea, statistically speaking, by carrying a gun around you are choosing to be a victim. There really isn't much more you could do to up your odds of being shot without resorting to running around begging for people to do it.


[citation needed]
 
2014-08-18 09:52:39 AM  

LazyMedia: doglover: GodComplex: carrying with a round in the chamber

Why would you carry a gun without a round in the chamber?

Because you know the chances of you needing to be able to draw and fire in an instant are virtually zero, while the additional risk of having a round in the spout is considerable. On the extremely off chance that you actually ever would be better off drawing a handgun, the additional two seconds you need to rack the slide is going to decrease your "safety" by an infinitessimal percentage.


Glad we have firearms and self defense experts on fark to set us all straight.
 
2014-08-18 09:54:22 AM  

skozlaw: Bit'O'Gristle: No need to label or take it to the extreme right of paranoid.

[movieboozer.com image 523x294]

Go get 'em, shooter.

And, yea, statistically speaking, by carrying a gun around you are choosing to be a victim. There really isn't much more you could do to up your odds of being shot without resorting to running around begging for people to do it.

But. You know. Scary people on the subway or something, I guess.


wow...your logic..well..needs work. So by what you're saying, your "logic" by carrying a sidearm to defend myself, I am making myself a "victim".  Hmmmmmm.  I fail to see how carrying CCW "begs" people to rob / assault me.  But whatever gets you through the day pal.
 
2014-08-18 09:55:09 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Just because I choose to be able to defend myself, doesn't in any sense make me paranoid. It makes me prepared in case something does happen. That doesn't mean i walk around with paranoid delusions of being a hero, it just means that i have chosen to be able to defend myself if need be.


You are not prepared, unless you're wearing body armor and are a trained gun fighter. All you've done by carrying a pistol is up the stakes; you can now choose to turn a mugging into a gun fight. This isn't a defensive or protective strategy.
 
2014-08-18 09:56:54 AM  
SquiggsIN:
"if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."  firearms aren't going away even if you pass a hundred laws banning them.

It works for every other developed countries.
 
2014-08-18 09:57:14 AM  
Serval people touched on holsters, but no one pointed out that there was no mention of one in the article, I'm going to venture to say that I'll bet the pistol was not in a holster.  I don't know that for sure but a good educated guess.  Or it was a crappy POS that doesn't qualify as a holster. Most negligent discharges can be attributed to holster inadequacies coupled with poor trigger discipline. I've seen people that think it's perfectly fine to carry a pistol in their pocket without a holster designed for that purpose.  It is NOT ok.  As said earlier, keep your booger hook off the bang switch until ready to destroy something.

I also agree with carrying it the way it was designed, loaded and ready to fire.  Along with treating every gun as loaded and ready to go boom.
 
2014-08-18 09:57:45 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: /if Michael Brown had not robbed a store and beat a cops face in, he would be alive today. Bad life decisions.

FTFY


If Cliven Bundy had not robbed the Federal Government, and gotten into an armed standoff with law enforcement, he'd be alive today.
Oh, wait.
He is.
 
2014-08-18 09:58:35 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: wow...your logic..well..needs work. So by what you're saying, your "logic" by carrying a sidearm to defend myself, I am making myself a "victim". Hmmmmmm. I fail to see how carrying CCW "begs" people to rob / assault me. But whatever gets you through the day pal.


Sorry, I'm not fluent in word salad so I have no idea what that disjointed, meandering response was supposed to mean.
 
2014-08-18 10:00:24 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: skozlaw: Bit'O'Gristle: No need to label or take it to the extreme right of paranoid.

[movieboozer.com image 523x294]

Go get 'em, shooter.

And, yea, statistically speaking, by carrying a gun around you are choosing to be a victim. There really isn't much more you could do to up your odds of being shot without resorting to running around begging for people to do it.

But. You know. Scary people on the subway or something, I guess.

wow...your logic..well..needs work. So by what you're saying, your "logic" by carrying a sidearm to defend myself, I am making myself a "victim".  Hmmmmmm.  I fail to see how carrying CCW "begs" people to rob / assault me.  But whatever gets you through the day pal.


I am aware of a study of individuals in Philadelphia that found that individuals who carried a firearm were more likely than those who were not carrying a firearm to be shot during an assault. So obvious was the causation that the study authors felt no need to differentiate between individuals who carried lawfully and those who carried unlawfully, nor was any further demographic analysis conducted to determine whether the act of carrying a firearm was itself the causative factor or whether a common causative factor existed for both carrying a firearm and being more likely to be shot in an assault.

When a result is so obvious, meaningful statistical analysis is unnecessary.
 
2014-08-18 10:00:33 AM  

meintx2001: keep your booger hook off the bang switch until ready to destroy something


These complicated directions are infringing on my rights.
 
2014-08-18 10:02:49 AM  

skozlaw: Bit'O'Gristle: wow...your logic..well..needs work. So by what you're saying, your "logic" by carrying a sidearm to defend myself, I am making myself a "victim". Hmmmmmm. I fail to see how carrying CCW "begs" people to rob / assault me. But whatever gets you through the day pal.

Sorry, I'm not fluent in word salad so I have no idea what that disjointed, meandering response was supposed to mean.


We are aware that you choose to willfully ignore information that does not agree with your worldview.
 
2014-08-18 10:02:52 AM  

Dimensio: When a result is so obvious, meaningful statistical analysis is unnecessary.


It is actually meaningless from a certain perspective.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-18 10:04:10 AM  
That woman's family probably thank God she died free of oppressive firearms regulations.
 
2014-08-18 10:08:25 AM  

LazyMedia: Bit'O'Gristle: Just because I choose to be able to defend myself, doesn't in any sense make me paranoid. It makes me prepared in case something does happen. That doesn't mean i walk around with paranoid delusions of being a hero, it just means that i have chosen to be able to defend myself if need be.

You are not prepared, unless you're wearing body armor and are a trained gun fighter. All you've done by carrying a pistol is up the stakes; you can now choose to turn a mugging into a gun fight. This isn't a defensive or protective strategy.


/sure it is. First of all, i am highly trained in the use of arms. ARMY, Police, etc.  Second of all, i don't agree with your "up the stakes" comment.  A mugger is going to be armed, generally with a knife, or even a gun.  If i had no weapon to defend myself, i would be forced  to do one of two things. 1. hand him my cash, and hope he doesn't kill me as a witness, or 2. use my fists and hope he doesn't kill me with his gun / knife.   This option makes you the "victim" no matter if you win or not.  You are pretty much at his mercy.  Now, if i have my sidearm, and he has a knife or gun, i at least have a chance to defend my life and property. Sure, i could still get shot or stabbed, but i could get shot or stabbed if i had no weapon in the first place.  At least this would give me a chance to fight back.  And muggers are generally cowards. Same with those scumbags that rob convenient stores. They want the cash, and no struggle.  Look at the youtube vids.  Every time the owner pulls out a firearm to defend his life, and his property, the robbers run like the little cowards they are.  They want a nice compliant non combative victim. It really comes down to if you are willing to defend yourself or not. It's totally up to you.
 
2014-08-18 10:10:11 AM  
Kill a wedding party with a bomb.

"Unfortunate consequence of war"

A swat team raids a home based on a false lead or simply goes to the wrong house and kills someone.

"Unfortunate mistake that lead to the lose of a life."

Your government does this shiat all the time. Not only do they do this, it is ridiculous calling someone a mass murder when governments appear to *be* the leading cause of mass murder.

It is unfortunate. One person gets shot from an accidental discharge and "WE SHOULD BAN GUNS! ENOUGH ALREADY."

Isn't this weird:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/11/11662345-german-police -f ired-just-85-bullets-total-in-2011

"German police fire 85 bullets in one year."

People, this is Germany. GERMANY! You know the people that had secret occult societies, relationships with Aliens, Created anti-gravity, plotted to overtake the world, killed millions of people ( or so the "Hilter Channels" on cable told us). You are more likely to be killed by an American police officer over a bungled SWAT raid or a routine traffic stop.

We should ban swimming pools because you could drown.
 
2014-08-18 10:10:19 AM  

heili skrimsli: cwolf20: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.

Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.

It's standard with most of the war veteran gun owners I know, and those they taught it to.

I wasn't taught to short magazines or keep the chamber empty. I was taught to carry the firearm in the manner that it is intended to be carried: with one in the pipe and a proper holster.

Never said they learned it on active duty.  My vietnam veteran uncle carries a Ruger, which has no safety.  One chamber empty.

Just in case someone says "I saw a ruger with a safety".  His does not have one, next?

There are lots of things that old timers do that doesn't make sense. Things like decocking a 1911, which is more dangerous than carrying as it was designed to be carried - cocked and locked.

It is my considered opinion, after thirty years of firearms experience, that if you're doing anything special so that you can pull the trigger and expect something other than a round being fired, you're doing it wrong.

Veteran, cop, or gun store counter jockey, the expectation should always be that pulling the trigger makes the gun fire. Anything else will make a person lax with their trigger discipline and then I'll have to hear their dumb ass saying 'It just went off.'


and, I've reached the extent of my second hand knowledge.  Since I have yet to own a gun, or fire one since R.O.T.C. in high school in 89-93 when most people failed to realize that the students walking to the flag each morning to raise it, and afternoon to lower it.  That said students had live rounds in their pockets. To go with the rifle competition team rifles they were carrying.

Granted, I didn't know that either until 5 or 6 years after I graduated.
 
2014-08-18 10:12:10 AM  
Don't know if it's been said yet, but you don't 'accidentally' fire your gun.  You either discharge it with intent, or discharge it with negligence.  Either way, it's a deliberate act.  This pro-gun owner says the asshole in the article needs to get 10 years (the statutory maximum in GA.)
 
2014-08-18 10:15:38 AM  

skozlaw: Bit'O'Gristle: wow...your logic..well..needs work. So by what you're saying, your "logic" by carrying a sidearm to defend myself, I am making myself a "victim". Hmmmmmm. I fail to see how carrying CCW "begs" people to rob / assault me. But whatever gets you through the day pal.

Sorry, I'm not fluent in word salad so I have no idea what that disjointed, meandering response was supposed to mean.


/it means, that you can 1. carry a weapon to defend yourself, your property, and those you love, or, you can rely on the mugger / rapist / burglar / whatever not killing or farking you up because you have no means to defend yourself. I choose not to rely on the judgement of someone who is bold enough to stick a gun or a knife in my face. You do what you want, i choose to defend myself and not just lay down for it.
 
2014-08-18 10:16:08 AM  

skozlaw: BlindRaise: Cars...

Are a useless analogy since they require an actual level of responsibility and accountability to drive around in public, unlike guns which, in most states, can be carried around by any old random idiot with nothing more than a nice note from the local Sheriff's office.

But don't let the fact you went completely off the rails stop your derp train from rolling.


Actually it is a good analogy, but only if you care about the number of deaths they cause.  Just admit that you dont care that they died, only the method in which they did.  Same goes for swimming pools since they kill more children than firearms.  Because if you truly cared about the loss of life then you would cry and yell just as loud about making cars safer and mandatory lessons & lifejackets anytime the tempurate rises above 85.
 
2014-08-18 10:16:54 AM  

Dimensio: Bit'O'Gristle: skozlaw: Bit'O'Gristle: No need to label or take it to the extreme right of paranoid.

[movieboozer.com image 523x294]

Go get 'em, shooter.

And, yea, statistically speaking, by carrying a gun around you are choosing to be a victim. There really isn't much more you could do to up your odds of being shot without resorting to running around begging for people to do it.

But. You know. Scary people on the subway or something, I guess.

wow...your logic..well..needs work. So by what you're saying, your "logic" by carrying a sidearm to defend myself, I am making myself a "victim".  Hmmmmmm.  I fail to see how carrying CCW "begs" people to rob / assault me.  But whatever gets you through the day pal.

I am aware of a study of individuals in Philadelphia that found that individuals who carried a firearm were more likely than those who were not carrying a firearm to be shot during an assault. So obvious was the causation that the study authors felt no need to differentiate between individuals who carried lawfully and those who carried unlawfully, nor was any further demographic analysis conducted to determine whether the act of carrying a firearm was itself the causative factor or whether a common causative factor existed for both carrying a firearm and being more likely to be shot in an assault.

When a result is so obvious, meaningful statistical analysis is unnecessary.


I know right?  As soon as I find a statistic that helps me prove my point, I stop questioning it.
 
2014-08-18 10:17:01 AM  

socoloco: We should ban swimming pools because you could drown.


My brother was killed in a concealed carry swimming pool accident. Some dick was just walking around with it on the street and next thing I know my bro is at the bottom of the pool, not breathing. Dude didn't even have a permit.

It was a farking tragedy, y'know? You're just minding your own business down at the Try n' Save and BAM! Next thing you know you're at the bottom of some asshole's swimming pool because he wasn't being careful with it in public.
 
2014-08-18 10:17:39 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: mcsiegs: "Unfortunate" is when your pants split, you f*cking idiot.  Your husband just offed someone out of stupidity and recklessness,

The tree of liberty must be watered with blood once in a while. She's just happy it wasn't her loved ones' blood.


You mean like this family:

http://ewn.co.za/2014/04/29/father-accidentally-shoots-son
 
2014-08-18 10:18:41 AM  

skozlaw: socoloco: We should ban swimming pools because you could drown.

My brother was killed in a concealed carry swimming pool accident. Some dick was just walking around with it on the street and next thing I know my bro is at the bottom of the pool, not breathing. Dude didn't even have a permit.

It was a farking tragedy, y'know? You're just minding your own business down at the Try n' Save and BAM! Next thing you know you're at the bottom of some asshole's swimming pool because he wasn't being careful with it in public.


You should try living in Detroit sometime.  Man, some of those guys will throw in a pool just for lookin' at em.
 
2014-08-18 10:19:25 AM  
If the woman had a gun this would not have happened
 
2014-08-18 10:19:45 AM  

cwbysfan: skozlaw: BlindRaise: Cars...

Are a useless analogy since they require an actual level of responsibility and accountability to drive around in public, unlike guns which, in most states, can be carried around by any old random idiot with nothing more than a nice note from the local Sheriff's office.

But don't let the fact you went completely off the rails stop your derp train from rolling.

Actually it is a good analogy, but only if you care about the number of deaths they cause.  Just admit that you dont care that they died, only the method in which they did.  Same goes for swimming pools since they kill more children than firearms.  Because if you truly cared about the loss of life then you would cry and yell just as loud about making cars safer and mandatory lessons & lifejackets anytime the tempurate rises above 85.


We still can't have it both ways.
If guns are like cars and swimming pools, the regulate them as such.
If they aren't, then the analogies are useless.
 
2014-08-18 10:20:15 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: i choose to defend myself and not just lay down for it.


Sounds like you get in a lot of gunfights. Tell us about that. It sounds interesting.
 
2014-08-18 10:22:11 AM  
This is going great, you guys. Finally got the court arranged to your liking so they could start this grand social experiment and it's really been amazing. I think that old saying is "You've got to murder a few by standers "on accident" to make an omelette. A delicious human omelette."
 
2014-08-18 10:23:10 AM  

Mock26: Man gets drunk, runs over child, kills child.  Where is the call to ban alcohol?


Don't you mean ban automobiles? I'm okay with that. Most of you haven't a clue how to drive carefully.
 
2014-08-18 10:23:12 AM  

Publikwerks: way south: Publikwerks: The 2nd doesn't protect the first. The first protects the second. Just look at Ferguson right now. If those protesters were all armed, the police would have had carte blanche to mow em down. If you get into a gun pissing fight with the government, you will lose.

Heres an example of people using their first amendment rights, and the police respecting them.


[img.fark.net image 850x478]

Heres an example of people using their second amendment rights, getting mowed down by the law.

[img.fark.net image 574x369]

Here is the difference in the way the government looks at these situations.
[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x640]

Ultimately you need the whole list of rights, because while the first amendment is a powerful tool for directing change you still need a balance of power and an orderly stage where that change  is allowed to happen.

You need your weapons, and proper representation, and to be counted at the polls, and your privacy, your right be treated fairly at trial, and so on...

Start peeling away at these other rights and the right to free speech no longer matters.
No one in power will be listening. No one in power will care.

And you have proven my point - The protesters in Fergusen might get shot at, but they have a chance at winning. I would say, a pretty good chance.

Clive Bundy is going to lose.

If you think Clive Bundy has won, well, talk to me in a year. Matter of fact, I bet you it happens some time after Nov. 4th. Election years are not good years to get into shootouts.

But after Nov 4th, shiats on. In a years time, he will be in jail or dead, and the government will be auctioning off his shiat.


When you've already suffered hundreds of casualties, after a century of continual bias and abuse at the hands of the law, a legal victory isn't much consolation for that town... and that's not what they'll get.
At best they'll see one officer go to jail for murder, or maybe they wont.
Either way, this nonsense continues. 

/Bundy may lose his legal argument, but he's not the one watching national guard trucks roll into his town.
/Winning indeed.
 
2014-08-18 10:23:46 AM  

IvanTheSilent: Don't know if it's been said yet, but you don't 'accidentally' fire your gun.  You either discharge it with intent, or discharge it with negligence.  Either way, it's a deliberate act.


Uh...
 
2014-08-18 10:23:53 AM  

doglover: Publikwerks: And the Samurai trained for years and years before they were samurai.

Not really. They were samurai so they trained for years. Not vice versa. Caste society and all that.

It wasn't even a chicken or the egg thing. Lots of the more wealthy samurai didn't train so much, and many were giant dick weasels, which is how that whole 47 Ronin thing went down.

And there's no such think as a bokken. It's a bokuto in Japanese. Bokken is an English word made up by wannabes who don't even know the word "waster" already existed in English. And shinai are a relatively new toy invented and popularized during a major decline in the martial activity in Japan toward the later half of the Tokugawa period.

So I must disagree with your attempt at a philosophy on weapons. Especially since my career brings me in contact with a lot of people. I mean like A LOT of them. People are not like computers. In fact, sometimes they maliciously rebel against the system just to be assholes. Those types can even become robbers, murders, and rapists. So I'm tellin' you that if you feel the need for a pistol, you'd best have a round in that chamber or a good life insurance policy because the time it takes you to rack your gun is far longer than it will take you to be robbed, raped, or killed.

Now, if you don't feel the need for a pistol, and honestly why would you in 2014, that's a totally different thing.


First off, lets not nitpick over how to spell wooden sword in Japanese using western characters. It ignores the point that the Samurai, even with a caste system, didn't inherit the ability to draw their swords at lighting speed - they trained. And trained. And trained. They were as good as they were not because their weapons were superior, but because their technique was superbe. And they had wooden training sword because they respected their weapons and the danger of using them.


Thats the point. If you have trained and have a mastery of your handgun, feel free to keep a round chambered. But if I carried, I have way too much respect for the power of a handgun to carry it with a round in the chamber.

BTW - I don't have alot of experience with handguns - does it take more than 1 second to work the action? I mean, I can cycle my remington 1100 in less than 2. Hell, I bet I can load a shell and be ready to fire in less than 2. The reason I ask is that adding 2 seconds, I don't know how critical they are. Unless the person is charging at you, either they are already assaulting you, or you should have enough time to work the action.

I don't think the cost in time is worth the risk.
 
2014-08-18 10:24:10 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: ...i choose to defend myself and not just lay down for it.


I chose not to live in a rejected Mad Max movie script. Seemed easier than your way.

cwbysfan: Because if you truly cared about the loss of life then you would cry and yell just as loud about making cars safer and mandatory lessons


Oh, yea, because if there's one thing that hasn't happened in the last 30 years it's massive advances in automotive safety.

Did you know my car literally can't crash into anything in front of it provided whatever the object is doesn't pull out with less than the minimum space physically required by the brakes to bring the car to a stop? My car is so wildly unsafe it stops itself. Has something like 8 air bags and the front end has been designed specifically to reduce impact injuies to pedestrians should it go off by accident and hit one.

Insane how little we've done in this field, huh?

WHEN are we going to focus on car safety in this country? WHEN!?
 
2014-08-18 10:25:37 AM  

TwowheelinTim: Mock26: Man gets drunk, runs over child, kills child.  Where is the call to ban alcohol?

Don't you mean ban automobiles? I'm okay with that. Most of you haven't a clue how to drive carefully.


Just put all the grammy and pappy McSwervies on special RV only highways and interstates.
 
2014-08-18 10:27:53 AM  
Check out the mean streets of Helen, GA where this responsible gun owner was packing for everyone's safety.

media-cdn.tripadvisor.com www.cabinsinhelen.net cdn.sheknows.com cedarcreekcabinrentals.com


I just thank god he was there to keep everyone safe.
 
2014-08-18 10:30:41 AM  

way south: When you've already suffered hundreds of casualties, after a century of continual bias and abuse at the hands of the law, a legal victory isn't much consolation for that town... and that's not what they'll get.
At best they'll see one officer go to jail for murder, or maybe they wont.
Either way, this nonsense continues. 

/Bundy may lose his legal argument, but he's not the one watching national guard trucks roll into his town.
/Winning indeed.


I dunno, I don't know what will happen to the cop, but the Fergusen PD and St. Louis County LEOs are gonna get shaken up. They are going to be under a microscope, and hopefully will eventually come out of it as better departments.
 
2014-08-18 10:34:10 AM  
So what brand of firearm was it? Was it this one?

i1.ytimg.com

Or was it this one?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/02/jim-barrett/why-i-dont-like -t he-glock-and-similar-guns/
 
2014-08-18 10:34:30 AM  

kellyclan: The chance of a modern firearm having a mechanical malfunction that causes a misfire is only slightly greater than the chances of your car starting itself and driving into a crowded playground.

The correct term for this situation is "negligent discharge" and it happens when you put your booger hook on the bang switch.


How cute, you think consumer handguns have kept up with the times. Wake up. They're using the same 200 year old design, where a striker hits a mercury fulminate cap to discharge. Even the safety designs are iffy. My Astra has a funky safety that's supposed to separate the pin from the hammer unless the trigger has been pulled, but I don't assume it works as in the manual.

Accidental discharges are a part of the sample set with firearms. The more samples of people casually interacting with chambered weapons, the more discharges you'll get.
 
2014-08-18 10:37:04 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: AngryDragon: rzrwiresunrise: The Safe Carry Protection Act is passed and a woman's death ensues.

To quote the wife of Lampien, "It's an unfortunate situation."

Unfortunate.

Shooter was a retired judge?

That's the part you're worried about? You must be a member of GeorgiaPacking.org.


Um...no.

"A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Part 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to carrying and possession of firearms, so as to provide an exemption from certain laws regarding the carrying and possession of firearms by retired judges; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.  "
 
2014-08-18 10:37:19 AM  

Publikwerks: The reason I ask is that adding 2 seconds, I don't know how critical they are.


THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! You don't know so you shouldn't count on them being non-critical.
 
2014-08-18 10:41:44 AM  
A Texas woman died late Saturday after she was struck by a stray gunshot in the town of Helen in North Georgia.

How many Helens agree that this gun law is stupid?
 
2014-08-18 10:44:48 AM  

badhatharry: I would hope that the sheep will rise up before they start droning people.


Hadn't you noticed? Only the black people have the guts to protest when a government "drone" kills one of theirs. What do we white people have to our credit? OWS? That was pretty lame. How many people does the government have to kill at one time before we all collectively say "Enough!"? Are we really so emasculated by our cell phones? Encapsulated by our televisions? Isolated by our internet connections, where we read daily of ever-increasing governmental contempt for the values and rights that made this country the envy of the world, only to shudder and think to ourselves "Okay. As long as it's not MY door they're kicking down. As long as it's not MY infant they're critically injuring with a flash-bang grenade. As long as I'm innocent, I have nothing to fear."

You know, maybe when it comes to governmental contempt, we've earned it with our complacency.
 
2014-08-18 10:47:06 AM  

skozlaw: BlindRaise: Cars...

Are a useless analogy since they require an actual level of responsibility and accountability to drive around in public, unlike guns which, in most states, can be carried around by any old random idiot with nothing more than a nice note from the local Sheriff's office.

But don't let the fact you went completely off the rails stop your derp train from rolling.



Which state exactly will let a person walk around with only a note from the local sheriff's office?

Since your big on "facts" and all.
 
2014-08-18 10:47:09 AM  

HAMMERTOE: badhatharry: I would hope that the sheep will rise up before they start droning people.

Hadn't you noticed? Only the black people have the guts to protest when a government "drone" kills one of theirs. What do we white people have to our credit? OWS? That was pretty lame. How many people does the government have to kill at one time before we all collectively say "Enough!"? Are we really so emasculated by our cell phones? Encapsulated by our televisions? Isolated by our internet connections, where we read daily of ever-increasing governmental contempt for the values and rights that made this country the envy of the world, only to shudder and think to ourselves "Okay. As long as it's not MY door they're kicking down. As long as it's not MY infant they're critically injuring with a flash-bang grenade. As long as I'm innocent, I have nothing to fear."

You know, maybe when it comes to governmental contempt, we've earned it with our complacency.


Eric, is that you?

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2014-08-18 10:47:40 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: LazyMedia: Bit'O'Gristle: Just because I choose to be able to defend myself, doesn't in any sense make me paranoid. It makes me prepared in case something does happen. That doesn't mean i walk around with paranoid delusions of being a hero, it just means that i have chosen to be able to defend myself if need be.

You are not prepared, unless you're wearing body armor and are a trained gun fighter. All you've done by carrying a pistol is up the stakes; you can now choose to turn a mugging into a gun fight. This isn't a defensive or protective strategy.

/sure it is. First of all, i am highly trained in the use of arms. ARMY, Police, etc.  Second of all, i don't agree with your "up the stakes" comment.  A mugger is going to be armed, generally with a knife, or even a gun.  If i had no weapon to defend myself, i would be forced  to do one of two things. 1. hand him my cash, and hope he doesn't kill me as a witness, or 2. use my fists and hope he doesn't kill me with his gun / knife.   This option makes you the "victim" no matter if you win or not.  You are pretty much at his mercy.  Now, if i have my sidearm, and he has a knife or gun, i at least have a chance to defend my life and property. Sure, i could still get shot or stabbed, but i could get shot or stabbed if i had no weapon in the first place.  At least this would give me a chance to fight back.  And muggers are generally cowards. Same with those scumbags that rob convenient stores. They want the cash, and no struggle.  Look at the youtube vids.  Every time the owner pulls out a firearm to defend his life, and his property, the robbers run like the little cowards they are.  They want a nice compliant non combative victim. It really comes down to if you are willing to defend yourself or not. It's totally up to you.


I just watched a video of a girl who appeared to be on the roof of a parking garage. A male assailant attempted to pull her purse from her. His stance clearly indicated his intention to get the purse and run. Instead, she pulled a pistol from her bag and shot him point blank in the face. According to the comments, this event was cause for great celebration. I thought to myself that it's rather ironic that we consider some countries barbaric because they cut off people's hands for thievery. While here, we see justice in shooting a mugger in the face. I understand why she did what she did, as I've been mugged twice. But I don't see it as cause to celebrate. I'd rather pepper spray a person and skidaddle, than have their blood on my hands over a few dollars.

Consequently, the time I was mugged by an unarmed man who pulled me into a doorway, put his arm over my throat and his knee in my groin was far scarier than the time I was held up by a 14 year old and his friends pointing a pistol in my face. That just pissed me off. I really thought the former assailant had more in mind that a bus ticket and a useless credit card. If I'd had a gun, I highly doubt I would've been in a position to use it on him, but I sure might have.
 
2014-08-18 10:47:53 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Are we really so emasculated by our cell phones?


That's probably a yes. Imagine the Revolutionary War with smartphones.


PotBellyPimp: Sup Jefferson. U wrot the DI?

TommyJ: Not yet, Ben. Three more lives in Ye Olde Candy Crush

 
2014-08-18 10:49:57 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: I choose not to rely on the judgement of someone who is bold enough to stick a gun or a knife in my face. You do what you want, i choose to defend myself and not just lay down for it.


Are you saying that you would attempt to draw your gun when somebody already had a knife or a gun in your face and demanded your wallet?  I think that it's safe to assume that chances are high that an individual driven to point a weapon at another's face is probably desperate and in the midst of a huge adrenaline rush and maybe not thinking clearly, or is experienced enough to be calculating and thinking very clearly.  Would you pull a gun in that situation?

Now, if said criminal has stated that he is going to kill you, or you have some reason for believing that they want to do more than take your wallet/watch/car then that's understandable.  However, significantly increasing the risk to yourself to protect what are essentially meaningless, insured posessions seems pretty stupid.  Unless you're Doc Holliday you're not going to be able to draw, aim and fire in the time a twitchy nutcase will be able to pull the trigger, are you?
 
2014-08-18 10:52:47 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Check out the mean streets of Helen, GA where this responsible gun owner was packing for everyone's safety.

[media-cdn.tripadvisor.com image 550x412] [www.cabinsinhelen.net image 500x333] [cdn.sheknows.com image 600x399] [cedarcreekcabinrentals.com image 773x571]


I just thank god he was there to keep everyone safe.


Jesus christ, if that town got any whiter we'd have to invent a new color name.
 
2014-08-18 10:54:03 AM  

robrr2003: Which state exactly will let a person walk around with only a note from the local sheriff's office?


Mine.

It took me twenty minutes, I believe it cost $20 and the sheriff's office mailed me a nice little piece of paper less than two weeks later via certified mail.

I'm sure it's lapsed by now. I should probably get it renewed. I have it on good authority that there's just criminals, terrorists and bronies coming out of the goddamn woodwork to get me! Ahh!
 
2014-08-18 10:54:20 AM  

wildcardjack: kellyclan: The chance of a modern firearm having a mechanical malfunction that causes a misfire is only slightly greater than the chances of your car starting itself and driving into a crowded playground.

The correct term for this situation is "negligent discharge" and it happens when you put your booger hook on the bang switch.

How cute, you think consumer handguns have kept up with the times. Wake up. They're using the same 200 year old design, where a striker hits a mercury fulminate cap to discharge. Even the safety designs are iffy. My Astra has a funky safety that's supposed to separate the pin from the hammer unless the trigger has been pulled, but I don't assume it works as in the manual.

Accidental discharges are a part of the sample set with firearms. The more samples of people casually interacting with chambered weapons, the more discharges you'll get.


The link I posted above discusses the difference between pistol designs.
 
2014-08-18 10:55:38 AM  

doglover: Publikwerks: The reason I ask is that adding 2 seconds, I don't know how critical they are.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! You don't know so you shouldn't count on them being non-critical.


I'm not saying they are not critical, but I everything is a risk. And I think the risk that those two seconds are critical is far less that the risk of carrying around a weapon with a round in the chamber.

Again, it's not really something you can measure I think. But since I don't carry a weapon with me most of the time, and even when I do, it's unloaded, action open, it's kinda an untested philosophy.
 
2014-08-18 10:59:02 AM  

Publikwerks: way south: When you've already suffered hundreds of casualties, after a century of continual bias and abuse at the hands of the law, a legal victory isn't much consolation for that town... and that's not what they'll get.
At best they'll see one officer go to jail for murder, or maybe they wont.
Either way, this nonsense continues. 

/Bundy may lose his legal argument, but he's not the one watching national guard trucks roll into his town.
/Winning indeed.

I dunno, I don't know what will happen to the cop, but the Fergusen PD and St. Louis County LEOs are gonna get shaken up. They are going to be under a microscope, and hopefully will eventually come out of it as better departments.


I hope that change will happen... but I gotta say that we've been here before.  We've seen bad PD's revert to their old habits as soon as the shiatstorm died down. This didn't start with the shooting of Michael brown. I doubt it will end anytime soon.

On the other hand, there's Bundy. A situation that could have been negotiated a dozen better ways. 
Yes he's white, but they brought the dogs and the teargas and the sniper rifles with the full intention of pulling the very same paramilitary crap on him.
But he had guns, and he had friends who had guns. Now everyones being polite and respectful at some bizzare teabaggers camp out. The total incident has had zero casualties so far as I've heard.

Maybe the government was only afraid it would turn into another Waco or worse, but its plans obviously changed. Bundy is now going back to court while Ferguson is getting invaded by soldiers.

Its a pretty stark contrast in the governments behavior.
 
2014-08-18 10:59:46 AM  

LazyMedia: Possession and/or discharge of a firearm while under the influence
It is against the law to be in possession of firearm while engaged in hunting and fishing activities or discharge a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug to the extent that it is unsafe for the person to discharge such firearm except in the defense of life, health, and property;
It is also against the law to discharge a firearm while engaged in any shooting activity while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug.
It is NO defense to violation of this law even if you are legally entitled to use such a drug (prescription).

You can legally get drunk off your ass in Georgia with a concealed weapon on you, as long as you don't fire it, or you're not out hunting.

That may not have been the intention of those who wrote the bill, but they are not the smartest people in the world, or even in the legislature.


I dont know what to tell you man.  I'm looking at my Georgia CCW card right now, and it is clearly printed right on it that you arent allowed to CCW while under the influence.
 
2014-08-18 11:01:43 AM  

Alonjar: I dont know what to tell you man. I'm looking at my Georgia CCW card right now, and it is clearly printed right on it that you arent allowed to CCW while under the influence.


Well, like you guys are always so fond of saying, good thing it's against the law, because criminals never break the law.
 
2014-08-18 11:02:03 AM  

Egoy3k: HotWingConspiracy: Check out the mean streets of Helen, GA where this responsible gun owner was packing for everyone's safety.

[media-cdn.tripadvisor.com image 550x412] [www.cabinsinhelen.net image 500x333] [cdn.sheknows.com image 600x399] [cedarcreekcabinrentals.com image 773x571]


I just thank god he was there to keep everyone safe.

Jesus christ, if that town got any whiter we'd have to invent a new color name.


I'm sure it's a nice place to visit, or at least was before armed idiots were allowed on the streets.
 
2014-08-18 11:02:55 AM  

skozlaw: Alonjar: I dont know what to tell you man. I'm looking at my Georgia CCW card right now, and it is clearly printed right on it that you arent allowed to CCW while under the influence.

Well, like you guys are always so fond of saying, good thing it's against the law, because criminals never break the law.


You have to understand that they're very responsible.
 
2014-08-18 11:09:08 AM  

Itstoearly: Meanwhile, in 2012, 33,561 people died in automobile accidents (more than 91 people per day, or more than one person every 16 minutes), but no one on fark complains that private transportation should be outlawed.


Your gun isn't required to get to work, nor is it required to move goods from state to state. Stop being a coont, your argument's been ripped apart more than enough times already.
 
2014-08-18 11:09:43 AM  
I suspect this was an Assisted Suicide. Anyone who's been to Helen Georgia surely agrees.

"Just kill me now" were her last words ..
 
2014-08-18 11:10:59 AM  

Publikwerks: But since I don't carry a weapon with me most of the time, and even when I do, it's unloaded, action open, it's kinda an untested philosophy.


Untested? You are LIVING that philosophy every day you walk out of the house without a weapon. In all those years, how many times have you needed one? Since you're still alive, I'll guess it's less than two. That's the real issue about safety. In 2014 almost nowhere in the industrialized world is dangerous enough to warrant a weapon.

But if you think you'll need a weapon, any kind of weapon, make sure your 0-attack time is as short as possible. Many fights are decided in the first attack. You want to be the one to make it.
 
2014-08-18 11:16:03 AM  
Sounds like he freedomed that hell out of her.
 
2014-08-18 11:19:11 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Egoy3k: HotWingConspiracy: Check out the mean streets of Helen, GA where this responsible gun owner was packing for everyone's safety.

[media-cdn.tripadvisor.com image 550x412] [www.cabinsinhelen.net image 500x333] [cdn.sheknows.com image 600x399] [cedarcreekcabinrentals.com image 773x571]


I just thank god he was there to keep everyone safe.

Jesus christ, if that town got any whiter we'd have to invent a new color name.

I'm sure it's a nice place to visit, or at least was before armed idiots were allowed on the streets.


Oh I'd visit it for sure the mini-golf course looks sweet, but I couldn't live there.
 
2014-08-18 11:19:42 AM  
Step 2 = Darwin (freakin idiots)
/lives in GA
//loves Helen and funnel cakes
 
2014-08-18 11:22:11 AM  

mdeesnuts: GodComplex: I don't think any amount of classroom training is going to prevent people from thinking that carrying with a round in the chamber and the safety off is a good idea.

I've always wondered about this. If you carry a semi-auto wouldn't you want a round in the chamber? If you're carrying because you think, however remotely, that *oh fark* moment may happen do you really want to have to rack the slide?


From my standpoint, if I don't have enough time to draw and rack the slide, I probably should be using something else, like mace. Or at least keep the safety on. Seems too many people try to play Quick-Draw McGraw and put a hole in their leg.
 
2014-08-18 11:26:27 AM  

EbolaNYC: I wouldn't. Too easy to shoot yourself in the hand and kill some poor fark that's minding their own business.


Then buy a handgun with multiple safeties, a good quality holster, and use them. The vast majority of CCW holders carry with one in the chamber, and the vast majority don't negligently discharge their firearms. This idiot made the news for one of two reasons:

1. He was carrying a defective, broken, or poorly designed firearm (and/or holster).
2. He was an idiot who did something stupid, e.g. drunkenly pulling the trigger.
 
2014-08-18 11:26:55 AM  

heili skrimsli: cwolf20: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: heili skrimsli: cwolf20: Why... do people forget one of the standard safety rules.  Have one less round in the gun that it carries, and make sure the empty is the first thing that will attempt to fire.  That way if there is an accident, only an ominous click will sound.

Because that's not one of the 'standard safety rules.'

Keeping your farking finger off the trigger, however, is one of them.

It's standard with most of the war veteran gun owners I know, and those they taught it to.

I wasn't taught to short magazines or keep the chamber empty. I was taught to carry the firearm in the manner that it is intended to be carried: with one in the pipe and a proper holster.

Never said they learned it on active duty.  My vietnam veteran uncle carries a Ruger, which has no safety.  One chamber empty.

Just in case someone says "I saw a ruger with a safety".  His does not have one, next?

There are lots of things that old timers do that doesn't make sense. Things like decocking a 1911, which is more dangerous than carrying as it was designed to be carried - cocked and locked.

It is my considered opinion, after thirty years of firearms experience, that if you're doing anything special so that you can pull the trigger and expect something other than a round being fired, you're doing it wrong.

Veteran, cop, or gun store counter jockey, the expectation should always be that pulling the trigger makes the gun fire. Anything else will make a person lax with their trigger discipline and then I'll have to hear their dumb ass saying 'It just went off.'


A couple things.

I was in the Army from 2002 till 2010 and did 3 combat tours with the 101st.  The "hot" condition of your weapon depended on where you were and what you were doing.  The ONLY time you'd have a round in the chamber is if you were about to initiate contact or you were on foot patrol in formation.  While on patrol or guard duty (gate or tower), machine gunners kept a round racked because the weapons fire from an open bolt position.  Other than that, you were toast if they found a round in your chamber.  On the FOB, you better not have a magazine in the weapon or a belt in your machine gun.  Even with all those measures and training, we probably had a negligent discharge once a week, usually into a clearing barrel.

As far as loading your 30 round mags with 30 bullets, that's a stupid thing to do.  20 round mags seemed to be fine with being loaded full as they are straight.  The 30 round mags on the other hand were known for failure to feed.  We were taught to load with 27 rounds in each 30 round mag and put the extra 18 rounds into a 20 round mag.  Yes there are SOOPER COOL aftermarket mags and followers that make it where the malfunctions happened less, but with debris, dust, and sand, you don't take chances.

Lastly, if you carry a 1911 locked and cocked, you need to have your firearm taken from you.  Any decent 1911 or variant isn't hard to hammer cock, and in my experience and training can be accomplished during the draw from the holster and prior to obtaining a sight picture.  If you can't thumbcock a 1911, you don't need to be carrying one.  Not only is it a safety issue to carry cocked, it also weakens your hammer spring which could lead to a failure to fire.
 
2014-08-18 11:31:40 AM  

CJHardin: I was in the Army from 2002 till 2010 and did 3 combat tours with the 101st. The "hot" condition of your weapon depended on where you were and what you were doing. The ONLY time you'd have a round in the chamber is if you were about to initiate contact or you were on foot patrol in formation. While on patrol or guard duty (gate or tower), machine gunners kept a round racked because the weapons fire from an open bolt position. Other than that, you were toast if they found a round in your chamber. On the FOB, you better not have a magazine in the weapon or a belt in your machine gun. Even with all those measures and training, we probably had a negligent discharge once a week, usually into a clearing barrel.

As far as loading your 30 round mags with 30 bullets, that's a stupid thing to do. 20 round mags seemed to be fine with being loaded full as they are straight. The 30 round mags on the other hand were known for failure to feed. We were taught to load with 27 rounds in each 30 round mag and put the extra 18 rounds into a 20 round mag. Yes there are SOOPER COOL aftermarket mags and followers that make it where the malfunctions happened less, but with debris, dust, and sand, you don't take chances.

Lastly, if you carry a 1911 locked and cocked, you need to have your firearm taken from you. Any decent 1911 or variant isn't hard to hammer cock, and in my experience and training can be accomplished during the draw from the holster and prior to obtaining a sight picture. If you can't thumbcock a 1911, you don't need to be carrying one. Not only is it a safety issue to carry cocked, it also weakens your hammer spring which could lead to a failure to fire.


Good post.

/not snark
 
2014-08-18 11:33:27 AM  
FTA: "The gun accidentally discharged, and the bullet traveled across Helen's tourist-laden Main Street and struck the woman in the side."

What was she doing by the street? Three times as many people are accidentally killed by cars than by guns. She was crazy.
 
2014-08-18 11:38:37 AM  

DrPainMD: FTA: "The gun accidentally discharged, and the bullet traveled across Helen's tourist-laden Main Street and struck the woman in the side."

What was she doing by the street? Three times as many people are accidentally killed by cars than by guns. She was crazy.


Don't hurt yourself.