|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 10, 2016 18:07:35 GMT
Count me in the bench with mergeleft--I had to look who posted and rub my eyes a few times! I've stated before that we own guns. We have LEO's in immediate family. We also think that the amount of deaths by guns is absolutely ridiculous and needs to change. The 2nd is very interpretable (depends on which "side" you are on and has been debated for a long time. There needs to be changes because it's not getting any better, and this is something that I'm passionate about. I don't feel that some restrictions/limitations put in place would alter my rights (as a good and responsible gun owner). I don't feel paranoid that big brother wants to chip away to take away all my rights (they don't have the money, time, resources to be doing any of that nonsense). I feel that there are many sitting in Washington who have been bought and paid for by the NRA and gun manufacturers who quash any legislature proposed to try to make things better. Rainbow bunny suggested going after the criminals/stupid gun owners. Well that's not currently working either. These bad guys out number the LEO's greatly. Then, the bad guys scream that their rights have been violated because of one reason or another; LEO approach suspicious scenarios, then it's all over the news that they are targeting because of ethnicity or location. Current culture has police even cautious about approaching anyone for fear of being sued or worse--killed. Drug trade fuel guns. Lots of drugs that are being combatted by LEO that pull their resources. Stupid gun owners. Well, they "think" that they are responsible gun owners ---until something happens. Kids find them, accidentally kill themselves or hurt/kill someone else. Do the shooters or gun owners go to jail when this happens? Not usually, especially when it is family they claim that they have been punished enough by the death of a loved one. Well they become "stupid owners" who are not punished, so there us absolutely no message sent out that if you are a "stupid gun owner" you will have a swift and severe punishment (that might aid in deterring others from making those stupid mistakes) So, in a nutshell just going after the bad guys doesn't work. Then you have those who think that they are "going to save the day" (cue the Mighty Mouse theme song) who CC or OC and who are just so sure with their savvy and training that if they encounter a situation where they are in a store or restaurant (any establishment) and they see a person trying to rob the place , that they are going to whip out their weapon and stop the crime and be the hero. They don't realize that they can be prosecuted if they hurt or kill the robber! It's not so easy it clear cut anymore that just because you have a permit you can pull out your weapon with no repercussions. There are many cases where the original "bad guy" has sued (and won) against the person trying to save the day. As a legal carrier (non-LEO) , you first have a responsibility to remove yourself from the situation if at all possible. In these situations, You're fooling yourself if you think you know more about shooting a gun than the bad guy. Sure you might paper target/range practice however, the bad guys are unpredictable, often on drugs, desperate and not in their right mind. Overestimating your ability against these kinds of people get people killed. You aren't going to be asked by the LEO's to stick around and help out either! People just are not trained to be in those stress filled situations involving gun shoot outs and, you could likely shoot the wrong person. You could shoot someone who says they have a weapon, but then actually does not. All in all, guns have become out of control and things need to change. It's not working at the end user so need to make some changes further up the line so that it has a chance to trickle down, take affect, and help get guns away from those who think that they should have them but clearly should not. Merge--Kim died last year. I completely agree with toughening up the laws in regard to stupid people who do not secure their weapons and someone is injured or killed because of it. (This is not agreeing with storage laws, which is different.) There should be swift and severe penalties for being careless.
I do not agree with "They don't realize that they can be prosecuted if they hurt or kill the robber!" Anyone who has gone through training will know that this is a possibility. I don't take that lightly at all. I have kids and grandkids (I'm a Nana y'all!) that I love and want to see. The last thing I want is to spend time in jail or injure/kill an innocent person. As a matter of fact, I realize that I may never need to use my weapon in defense, ever. I'm just glad it's there if the unthinkable were to ever happen. I take that very seriously.
I also do not agree that "As a legal carrier (non-LEO) , you first have a responsibility to remove yourself from the situation if at all possible." This is not true in my state. We have the Castle Doctrine and there is no duty to retreat. That doesn't mean that I would not, just that it is not required of me. I might first leave the situation if I could, hide if I could not leave, and defend if that were my last option.
And this "You could shoot someone who says they have a weapon, but then actually does not." should not happen with training. Like you don't shoot at rustling bushes because you don't know what/who is in there. Training, training, training.
I don't expect you to know these things, I don't believe you live in NC and have no idea if you've had any training.
And to the pea who recommended the 5.11 range bag - it's awesome! A bit large, but plenty of room to carry everything and I love the padding in it and the cup for spent brass!You clearly don't fully understand the full provisions (those that exist and those that do not) of the Castle Doctrine. A castle doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some countries or states, any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or workplace) as a place in which that person has certain protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend himself or herself against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws. In many jurisdictions in the United States, a person has a duty to retreat, to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. The castle doctrine negates the duty to retreat when the victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home. Deadly force may be considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[1] The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in the law of many jurisdictions. Justifiable homicide[2] inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine's no duty to retreat therefrom. Because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying a homicide. With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one's domicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom. The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori and Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries." ^^^just an overview It provides protects for you if defending in YOUR home, car, work--but not necessarily out in public . It's also not a "law" but guidelines, so it is not a 100% full on legal defense. As for training, I know what is "taught" in CC classes and it falls VERY short of "training" for situations as I have described. I know you fancy yourself as some kind of currently trained "LEO-type" of professional ready at a moments notice, but I am certain that there are a lot more who have no intense, long term, concentrated training whatsoever.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 18:13:26 GMT
I would like to know what states y'all live in that you can just go take a test and be handed a license to conceal carry.
Because in Texas - surely one of the most liberal states for gun rights - we are currently going through this process.
It involved an all day class and test. Then it involved a shooting test on another day. Then all the paperwork has to be sent off to the State Police for a lengthy background check, which we were told could take up to 120 days to get back.
There was no Tom, Dick, or Harry just waltzing in to apply for a CCW license and waltzing out with it the same day. It's serious business and not quick at all.
|
|
|
Post by scrapqueen01 on Jun 10, 2016 18:43:39 GMT
My state, Alabama, has open carry and concealed carry. The turn around time to hear back on a concealed carry license is 30 days as set by state law.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 10, 2016 18:54:43 GMT
just a short comment, to address birukitty mainly, I guess- you say you're so glad you live in a state where open carry isn't allowed and concealed carry is also not allowed. So because of that you're so much more comfortable going into public places because you're assured that no one there is carrying a gun-- right? ...I hope you don't think criminals in Maryland don't carry guns just because there are laws that tell them they can't. And you say you're more comfortable with the fact that LAW-ABIDING citizens can't carry a weapon? I think I'm fairly safe in saying there's a good chance that someone, oh, maybe someone with the intent to commit a robbery later-- or someone who is protecting their drug and drug money stash from a rival gang-- is probably still carrying a concealed weapon. And they may very possibly have that gun when they go into a restaurant to buy a meal, or to a gas station to fill up their car-- or are criminals supposed to never go places or do things that normal law-abiding citizens do?? And I really would like to know, why is everyone getting so hung up on the whole "IHOP" aspect of a person carrying a weapon?? Can't people be going about their business throughout the day and happen to go to a restaurant in the course of their daily activities?? Or does everyone except me go straight from their house to a restaurant and directly back home again?? I can leave the house in the morning and run a whole boatload of errands, go loads of places, and do tons of different things before I go back home. Why is someone carrying a gun *into an IHOP* so very alarming if carrying a gun is just part of that particular person's daily routine?? (And just what is it about an IHOP-- or any restaurant in general-- that makes having a gun there somehow *more* threatening than having it when a person goes into a store or anywhere else, anyway?? I really don't understand that logic at all.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 19:53:08 GMT
Did anyone read this article? It's applies to California only. This is basically the same law that we have here in Maryland. In order to conceal carry here you have to have a good reason and prove that reason, not any Joe, Dick or Harry gets a concealed carry license. So it's not unconstitutional if it's the law in the state of Maryland. I don't think it'll go to the Supreme Court. There's no need for it to. Since Maryland already has this law on it's books, California simply has to point to it as an example. Personally I think it is a very good, common sense law and I'm very happy it's the law here where I live. I can go to IHOP not worried some guy is conceal carrying because in his mind he thinks he can help with a gun crime taking place there without the training that our police force has. I'd much rather trust my life to the police force itself or take my chances until the police force gets there. The last thing I want is a crossfire between the police, the "concerned citizen with his own gun" and the criminal. No thanks. Debbie in MD. If you're willing too "take your chances" of dying in gun fire from a crazy person on a rampage, shooting up the place, while waiting for the police to arrive and put a stop to it, why wouldn't you be willing to take your chances with someone who is there right that second who could actually put a stop to it -right that second and possibly saving your life and the lives of many more? Lives that would have been lost while waiting for police to arrive.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 21:08:09 GMT
Did anyone read this article? It's applies to California only. This is basically the same law that we have here in Maryland. In order to conceal carry here you have to have a good reason and prove that reason, not any Joe, Dick or Harry gets a concealed carry license. So it's not unconstitutional if it's the law in the state of Maryland. I don't think it'll go to the Supreme Court. There's no need for it to. Since Maryland already has this law on it's books, California simply has to point to it as an example. Personally I think it is a very good, common sense law and I'm very happy it's the law here where I live. I can go to IHOP not worried some guy is conceal carrying because in his mind he thinks he can help with a gun crime taking place there without the training that our police force has. I'd much rather trust my life to the police force itself or take my chances until the police force gets there. The last thing I want is a crossfire between the police, the "concerned citizen with his own gun" and the criminal. No thanks. Debbie in MD. If you're willing too "take your chances" of dying in gun fire from a crazy person on a rampage, shooting up the place, while waiting for the police to arrive and put a stop to it, why wouldn't you be willing to take your chances with someone who is there right that second who could actually put a stop to it -right that second and possibly saving your life and the lives of many more? Lives that would have been lost while waiting for police to arrive. Simple you would have to trust that the "someone who is there right that second" actually knew what they were doing and not some John Wayne wannabe that would escalate the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 21:33:05 GMT
If you're willing too "take your chances" of dying in gun fire from a crazy person on a rampage, shooting up the place, while waiting for the police to arrive and put a stop to it, why wouldn't you be willing to take your chances with someone who is there right that second who could actually put a stop to it -right that second and possibly saving your life and the lives of many more? Lives that would have been lost while waiting for police to arrive. Simple you would have to trust that the "someone who is there right that second" actually knew what they were doing and not some John Wayne wannabe that would escalate the situation. If there's a crazed person shooting up the place, the situation is already escalated.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 21:38:56 GMT
Simple you would have to trust that the "someone who is there right that second" actually knew what they were doing and not some John Wayne wannabe that would escalate the situation. If there's a crazed person shooting up the place, the situation is already escalated. Just what the situation needs a John Wayne wannabe and a crazed person shooting at each other. What possibly could go wrong...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 21:46:16 GMT
If there's a crazed person shooting up the place, the situation is already escalated. Just what the situation needs a John Wayne wannabe and a crazed person shooting at each other. What possibly could go wrong... Sure, because everyone that carries is a John Wayne wannabe.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 22:02:50 GMT
Just what the situation needs a John Wayne wannabe and a crazed person shooting at each other. What possibly could go wrong... Sure, because everyone that carries is a John Wayne wannabe. How do you know they don't. And that's the problem because you don't know if they do or if they don't.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 22:10:25 GMT
Sure, because everyone that carries is a John Wayne wannabe. How do you know they don't. And that's the problem because you don't know if they do or if they don't. No, the problem in that situation is there's a crazed person shooting everyone. The people in that situation usually want it to stop as soon as possible.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 22:34:38 GMT
How do you know they don't. And that's the problem because you don't know if they do or if they don't. No, the problem in that situation is there's a crazed person shooting everyone. The people in that situation usually want it to stop as soon as possible. Fine, you believe what you wish. I will continue not to trust anyone with a gun unless they are law enforcement.
|
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,377
Jun 25, 2014 19:28:04 GMT
|
Post by RosieKat on Jun 10, 2016 22:49:14 GMT
Total anecdotal evidence of nothing here, but since the open carry law passed here (Texas), I've not seen anyone openly carrying except the usual people you'd expect to have weapons (police, etc.). Granted, I can be a little clueless, but even my eagle-eyed son who would point it out hasn't mentioned any. I do think here it was more to protect the people who do carry as a part of their everyday business, at least sometimes, and where concealing isn't always practical. I think I mentioned before my dad has to go survey land in the middle of nowhere, so who knows who he may stumble across and more likely, there are dangerous animals like javelinas. Carrying is a safety matter for him on these occasions. If he needs to stop at the grocery store on the way home, or wants to take a break for lunch, putting on a jacket in the middle of summer just isn't practical, and really, neither is locking it in the car. He doesn't carry it around all the time, just when it's legitimately necessary. Of course, someone seeing him at the grocery store may just think he's an old Texas boy carrying because he can...but that's not it at all.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 10, 2016 23:04:31 GMT
^^^ RosieKat , we see the same thing around here sometimes, too-- a couple times I've seen rancher / farmer type dressed people (cowboy hats, boots, very tanned, etc.) in the local grocery store who have been openly carrying, and I just figure it's because they came 'into town' to do their grocery shopping and need the gun for a javelina, rattlesnake, etc. I wouldn't expect those people to lock it in their car in the parking lot; it's safer for them to have it on their person, in my opinion. A couple times I haven't even noticed it at all, and as far as I'm concerned that's okay with me, too. My BF (who is much more observant of everything around him than I am; it's just how he is) has said a couple times, 'did you see they guy carrying the pistol?' and I won't have even seen it. I just don't assume everyone who carries openly (or concealed) is a "John Wayne wannabe" as someone called it-- no more than I would assume everyone who looks Middle Eastern is a militant Muslim terrorist. (and to be clear, I don't ever assume any such thing, lol)
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Jun 10, 2016 23:37:46 GMT
maybe there should be additional charges/time added to every sentence where the criminal used a gun? Mandatory sentences, not optional. Fines? Something that penalizes the person using the guns illegally/irresponsibly.......instead of making it harder for those of us who follow the law. Obama granted commutations and pardons to 61 Federal drug offenders in 2015. It was reported that these felons were supposed to be non-violent but he let a scumbag in Philly loose who used a firearm during his life of crime. I just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Jun 10, 2016 23:50:10 GMT
just a short comment, to address birukitty mainly, I guess- you say you're so glad you live in a state where open carry isn't allowed and concealed carry is also not allowed. So because of that you're so much more comfortable going into public places because you're assured that no one there is carrying a gun-- right? ...I hope you don't think criminals in Maryland don't carry guns just because there are laws that tell them they can't. And you say you're more comfortable with the fact that LAW-ABIDING citizens can't carry a weapon? I think I'm fairly safe in saying there's a good chance that someone, oh, maybe someone with the intent to commit a robbery later-- or someone who is protecting their drug and drug money stash from a rival gang-- is probably still carrying a concealed weapon. And they may very possibly have that gun when they go into a restaurant to buy a meal, or to a gas station to fill up their car-- or are criminals supposed to never go places or do things that normal law-abiding citizens do?? And I really would like to know, why is everyone getting so hung up on the whole "IHOP" aspect of a person carrying a weapon?? Can't people be going about their business throughout the day and happen to go to a restaurant in the course of their daily activities?? Or does everyone except me go straight from their house to a restaurant and directly back home again?? I can leave the house in the morning and run a whole boatload of errands, go loads of places, and do tons of different things before I go back home. Why is someone carrying a gun *into an IHOP* so very alarming if carrying a gun is just part of that particular person's daily routine?? (And just what is it about an IHOP-- or any restaurant in general-- that makes having a gun there somehow *more* threatening than having it when a person goes into a store or anywhere else, anyway?? I really don't understand that logic at all.) First of all I didn't say no one was carrying concealed carry. I said only a few who had passed the very strict requirements. And obviously I'm not an idiot. Of course I know criminals carry guns. But the chances of me running into a criminal in this fairly safe, upscale city is pretty low (although not impossible, I do realize that). This is a very safe city. I've lived here for the past 23 years. I'm not the least bit worried about my safety when I go our running my errands or am out in town. I am very blessed to live here. We moved here when the housing prices were low and just happened to get here at the right time. As far as the IHOP thing, it's because those of us who want more gun control and don't believe in conceal carry find it completely crazy that one would feel the need to carry a gun into a restaurant to eat pancakes. Well, that's my opinion. I'm not sure about anyone else's. It's almost funny in a way it's so illogical. Do you expect the sausages to stand up and start a revolt? Okay, okay I'm taking it too far. I'm sorry. It was a joke. It's just this is so far removed-the idea of carrying a gun around while shopping for groceries or eating in a restaurant, or going about daily life, from what I know that I find it hard to believe that people actually do this every day and think it's normal. But I understand they do in other parts of the country and feel very strongly about it. Obviously from this thread. I think there should be some middle ground where people can retain the right to bear arms but it should be limited like it is in Australia. Okay, that's not middle ground. That's way, way over to the left. That's what I want for this country, but it will never happen. I know that. If the murder of all of those kindergartners didn't change things nothing will. In the meantime more people will die year after year including many, many children. Debbie in MD.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Jun 10, 2016 23:55:05 GMT
Did anyone read this article? It's applies to California only. This is basically the same law that we have here in Maryland. In order to conceal carry here you have to have a good reason and prove that reason, not any Joe, Dick or Harry gets a concealed carry license. So it's not unconstitutional if it's the law in the state of Maryland. I don't think it'll go to the Supreme Court. There's no need for it to. Since Maryland already has this law on it's books, California simply has to point to it as an example. Personally I think it is a very good, common sense law and I'm very happy it's the law here where I live. I can go to IHOP not worried some guy is conceal carrying because in his mind he thinks he can help with a gun crime taking place there without the training that our police force has. I'd much rather trust my life to the police force itself or take my chances until the police force gets there. The last thing I want is a crossfire between the police, the "concerned citizen with his own gun" and the criminal. No thanks. Debbie in MD. If you're willing too "take your chances" of dying in gun fire from a crazy person on a rampage, shooting up the place, while waiting for the police to arrive and put a stop to it, why wouldn't you be willing to take your chances with someone who is there right that second who could actually put a stop to it -right that second and possibly saving your life and the lives of many more? Lives that would have been lost while waiting for police to arrive. Because I have no assurance whatsoever of that person's skills. I know under that kind of pressure more than likely most untrained (like the police force is trained) regular folks would panic and make the situation worse. How do I know this? Logic. I do have a brain. I've already said I'd rather trust the police force or take my chances until they get there. Asked and answered. You just don't like my answer. You will not change my mind. I know it's illogical to you but that's how I feel. Debbie in MD.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 11, 2016 0:36:13 GMT
Did anyone read this article? It's applies to California only. This is basically the same law that we have here in Maryland. In order to conceal carry here you have to have a good reason and prove that reason, not any Joe, Dick or Harry gets a concealed carry license. So it's not unconstitutional if it's the law in the state of Maryland. I don't think it'll go to the Supreme Court. There's no need for it to. Since Maryland already has this law on it's books, California simply has to point to it as an example. Personally I think it is a very good, common sense law and I'm very happy it's the law here where I live. I can go to IHOP not worried some guy is conceal carrying because in his mind he thinks he can help with a gun crime taking place there without the training that our police force has. I'd much rather trust my life to the police force itself or take my chances until the police force gets there. The last thing I want is a crossfire between the police, the "concerned citizen with his own gun" and the criminal. No thanks. Debbie in MD. If you're willing too "take your chances" of dying in gun fire from a crazy person on a rampage, shooting up the place, while waiting for the police to arrive and put a stop to it, why wouldn't you be willing to take your chances with someone who is there right that second who could actually put a stop to it -right that second and possibly saving your life and the lives of many more? Lives that would have been lost while waiting for police to arrive. The likelihood of that scenario rarely happens.
|
|
|
Post by Tamhugh on Jun 11, 2016 1:01:58 GMT
I would like to know what states y'all live in that you can just go take a test and be handed a license to conceal carry. Because in Texas - surely one of the most liberal states for gun rights - we are currently going through this process. It involved an all day class and test. Then it involved a shooting test on another day. Then all the paperwork has to be sent off to the State Police for a lengthy background check, which we were told could take up to 120 days to get back. There was no Tom, Dick, or Harry just waltzing in to apply for a CCW license and waltzing out with it the same day. It's serious business and not quick at all. It can take up to 45 days in PA, but from everything I can find, all you have to do is apply for the permit. If your background check comes back clear, you get a license. I know that one of my co-workers carries and she said she has never taken a class... just learned from her husband.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2016 4:51:33 GMT
If you're willing too "take your chances" of dying in gun fire from a crazy person on a rampage, shooting up the place, while waiting for the police to arrive and put a stop to it, why wouldn't you be willing to take your chances with someone who is there right that second who could actually put a stop to it -right that second and possibly saving your life and the lives of many more? Lives that would have been lost while waiting for police to arrive. Because I have no assurance whatsoever of that person's skills. I know under that kind of pressure more than likely most untrained (like the police force is trained) regular folks would panic and make the situation worse. How do I know this? Logic. I do have a brain. I've already said I'd rather trust the police force or take my chances until they get there. Asked and answered. You just don't like my answer. You will not change my mind. I know it's illogical to you but that's how I feel. Debbie in MD. It's not that I didn't like your answer, I just have a different viewpoint and from my view it doesn't make any sense to say someone is actually shooting at me, but I don't want anyone who's there to have the opportunity to make them stop because they might shoot me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2016 4:55:32 GMT
If you're willing too "take your chances" of dying in gun fire from a crazy person on a rampage, shooting up the place, while waiting for the police to arrive and put a stop to it, why wouldn't you be willing to take your chances with someone who is there right that second who could actually put a stop to it -right that second and possibly saving your life and the lives of many more? Lives that would have been lost while waiting for police to arrive. The likelihood of that scenario rarely happens. I've linked many instances of it happening.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 11, 2016 9:00:36 GMT
So what are their plans when they carry that gun in a crowded restaurant and 2 masked gunmen comes in to rob the place? Do I really believe they are only going to use their gun to protect themselves? No I don't. I don't know them-that's the scary part! The scary part for you are the law-abiding citizens trying to protect themselves, not the idiots who mask themselves and enter a crowded restaurant brandishing firearms? We have different ideas of what is scary and what is not.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 11, 2016 9:18:26 GMT
I've yet to be in an IHOP that has a coyote problem.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 11, 2016 9:27:22 GMT
Ok, so I have a question about concealed carry. How exactly is concealed carry regulated? In my state, the person takes a class. It takes a few hours and I'm assuming a test, and then you have a concealed carry permit. This is where my question begins..... then what? Here's the perfect example... My BFF has a concealed weapons permit. She owns a handgun. She is the last freaking person in the world who should be carrying a concealed weapon. She's emotional, over-reacts, and takes LOADS of RX pain meds. She doesn't practice shooting. I wouldn't want her taking her gun out around me. I would feel better knowing that concealed weapons carriers were stable people who can accurately use their weapon. I like the idea that there are potentially people around me carrying concelaed who can actually help in a situation, but how many people are like my BFF. How can that be regulated or is it and I just don't know about it??? Texas License to Carry Handguns - here's an 84 page document to read at your leisure.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 11, 2016 9:39:34 GMT
You would think these "professionals" would know better when it came to properly securing their guns. To hear you talk (or read your words, whatever) you'd think that officers routinely go around casually leaving their service weapons in plain view in unlocked automobiles. The reality is far more likely to be that these officers had a true purpose for having these weapons in their vehicles and that the weapons were actually appropriately stowed away when the officers left their vehicles. Or perhaps you think it is more appropriate for officers to knock on doors where reports of too much noise have been lodged fully armed with every weapon they have for their shift? The context of these robberies - into LEO vehicles, no less - is completely lacking here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2016 15:16:04 GMT
You would think these "professionals" would know better when it came to properly securing their guns. To hear you talk (or read your words, whatever) you'd think that officers routinely go around casually leaving their service weapons in plain view in unlocked automobiles. The reality is far more likely to be that these officers had a true purpose for having these weapons in their vehicles and that the weapons were actually appropriately stowed away when the officers left their vehicles. Or perhaps you think it is more appropriate for officers to knock on doors where reports of too much noise have been lodged fully armed with every weapon they have for their shift? The context of these robberies - into LEO vehicles, no less - is completely lacking here. Well you are wrong again. I have no doubt the guns were either, in the glove box, a briefcase of some sort, or in the trunk. Nor do I believe the robbers knew they were breaking into vehicles owned by law enforcement folks. Well maybe one case since the vehicle was parked outside his home and the guy was in his house sleeping when the car was broken into. I wonder if you understand that when thieves break into cars, in most cases, they have no idea what they will find but are hoping for something they can sell. That is why there are signs around in parking areas to remind one not to leave anything of value in your unattended parked car and the cop on the beat will tell you the same thing. Because once a thief gains access to the car, unless it bolted down, nothing is secure. And law enforcement types know this. Parked cars for thieves are soft targets again law enforcement types know this. Now rainbow made mention of a gun safe that is, I believe, bolted to the car. This being the case then every gun owner, including actually specifically law enforcement types, who leave their guns in their cars should have one of these safes in their cars otherwise they are being irresponsible. Period!
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Jun 11, 2016 15:20:30 GMT
I've yet to be in an IHOP that has a coyote problem. Come to Colorado. We have lots of little bears that come down for pancakes and maple syrup. I just got pepper spray for my birthday.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 12, 2016 0:02:25 GMT
To hear you talk (or read your words, whatever) you'd think that officers routinely go around casually leaving their service weapons in plain view in unlocked automobiles. The reality is far more likely to be that these officers had a true purpose for having these weapons in their vehicles and that the weapons were actually appropriately stowed away when the officers left their vehicles. Or perhaps you think it is more appropriate for officers to knock on doors where reports of too much noise have been lodged fully armed with every weapon they have for their shift? The context of these robberies - into LEO vehicles, no less - is completely lacking here. Well you are wrong again. I have no doubt the guns were either, in the glove box, a briefcase of some sort, or in the trunk. Nor do I believe the robbers knew they were breaking into vehicles owned by law enforcement folks. Well maybe one case since the vehicle was parked outside his home and the guy was in his house sleeping when the car was broken into. I wonder if you understand that when thieves break into cars, in most cases, they have no idea what they will find but are hoping for something they can sell. That is why there are signs around in parking areas to remind one not to leave anything of value in your unattended parked car and the cop on the beat will tell you the same thing. Because once a thief gains access to the car, unless it bolted down, nothing is secure. And law enforcement types know this. Parked cars for thieves are soft targets again law enforcement types know this. Now rainbow made mention of a gun safe that is, I believe, bolted to the car. This being the case then every gun owner, including actually specifically law enforcement types, who leave their guns in their cars should have one of these safes in their cars otherwise they are being irresponsible. Period! I had to dig to find it, just to make sure I hadn't missed something.... I know nothing about these thefts from LEO and you didn't provide adequate context for me to have any idea that one man left his weapon/s in his vehicle at his home. Nor have you described how the weapons were actually left in the vehicles. Were they secured are were they not? I haven't a clue. But what I do know is what you and others have said on this thread and on so very many others. You want to rely entirely on fully armed police who are ready to rush to you at a moment's notice. If an LEO officer is to carry around that kind of weaponry on their shift, you now also demand them to carry all of this weaponry upon their person when they make their more routine calls during every shift. If they carry a handgun and a shotgun or rifle, they are either to leave an officer behind in the vehicle as a guard or knock on people's doors fully armed with several armed weapons. Every time. Every shift. The only alternative is to actually leave a/several weapon/s in their vehicle. Which is surprisingly parked.... on the street. This makes them stupid. Along with the prevailing theory of the day that they are racist. And you are trying to convince people that these stupid police are the ones to entirely depend on in a shooting. It makes my head spin.
|
|
scrapaddie
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,090
Jul 8, 2014 20:17:31 GMT
|
Post by scrapaddie on Jun 12, 2016 0:20:00 GMT
But then you miss out on the fun guy at the gas station wearing pearl handled revolvers in old western holsters actually happened in AZ lol. He was a daily customer so I would see him once a week when I filled up with gas lol. I don't think this will be upheld because you run into severe constitutional issues. It says right to keep and bear arms. If you take away concealed, you only leave open carry. But I guess the point of the OP is that this could be the way to strike down the ability for the average joe to carry period. Im just guessing though, I could be wrong. Yep, they want to take away our right to carry at all. With or without it I'll have a weapon. Always.And the only weapon I own is a baseball ( or maybe softball)!bat. Haven't shot a gun since I was about 7
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 6:11:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2016 0:24:24 GMT
Well you are wrong again. I have no doubt the guns were either, in the glove box, a briefcase of some sort, or in the trunk. Nor do I believe the robbers knew they were breaking into vehicles owned by law enforcement folks. Well maybe one case since the vehicle was parked outside his home and the guy was in his house sleeping when the car was broken into. I wonder if you understand that when thieves break into cars, in most cases, they have no idea what they will find but are hoping for something they can sell. That is why there are signs around in parking areas to remind one not to leave anything of value in your unattended parked car and the cop on the beat will tell you the same thing. Because once a thief gains access to the car, unless it bolted down, nothing is secure. And law enforcement types know this. Parked cars for thieves are soft targets again law enforcement types know this. Now rainbow made mention of a gun safe that is, I believe, bolted to the car. This being the case then every gun owner, including actually specifically law enforcement types, who leave their guns in their cars should have one of these safes in their cars otherwise they are being irresponsible. Period! I had to dig to find it, just to make sure I hadn't missed something.... I know nothing about these thefts from LEO and you didn't provide adequate context for me to have any idea that one man left his weapon/s in his vehicle at his home. Nor have you described how the weapons were actually left in the vehicles. Were they secured are were they not? I haven't a clue. But what I do know is what you and others have said on this thread and on so very many others. You want to rely entirely on fully armed police who are ready to rush to you at a moment's notice. If an LEO officer is to carry around that kind of weaponry on their shift, you now also demand them to carry all of this weaponry upon their person when they make their more routine calls during every shift. If they carry a handgun and a shotgun or rifle, they are either to leave an officer behind in the vehicle as a guard or knock on people's doors fully armed with several armed weapons. Every time. Every shift. The only alternative is to actually leave a/several weapon/s in their vehicle. Which is surprisingly parked.... on the street. This makes them stupid. Along with the prevailing theory of the day that they are racist. And you are trying to convince people that these stupid police are the ones to entirely depend on in a shooting. It makes my head spin. I'm experiencing a strange case of deja vu.
|
|