Shoot everyone open carrying for implied threat.

[Whovian]

Makes sense to me. They have a weapon and are pretty much bound to use it.

Except for police. Maybe.

Please note that this post is meant as satire and does not call for the shooting of anyone. The poster is a pacifist and wishes ill on no one.

[RKP5637]

1. If I'm standing next to someone with an open carry weapon displayed, I'm going to be

very hesitant to hang around long, because to me it's an indication they're a bit unhinged.

[libtodeath]

2. Yeah,it would freak me out and I would wonder how safe they are.

[RKP5637]

3. And if a restaurant, bar, business establishments, no way am I going to hang around.

[tblue]

77. And I wouldn't go back either.

Way too creepy and I ain't no dummy.

[NYC_SKP]

344. ~*~*~*~* Who Who Whovian has LEFT the BUILDING!!!! ~*~*~*~*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=290284&sub=trans

[Hoyt]

4. They are certainly doing it as intimidation, although the yahoos are usually too stupid or callous

to recognize it.

[kentuck]

16. They are promoting fear.

In other words, terrorism. They are attempting to further their political agenda at the point of a gun. That is the bottom line.

[libtodeath]

20. Exactly

[tblue]

79. It is. It's psychological abuse of some sort.

Just plain wring. Just cuz they're paranoid.

[Euphoria]

217. Agreed.

That's exactly what it's all about.
They are calling upon second amendment and talking about protecting themselves but it's really all about intimidating and terrorizing others.

[patrice]

29. I want open carry, so I decide which public places I won't use. nt

[RKP5637]

32. K&R !!!

[patrice]

34. I feel concealed-carry violates my right to self-determination of what's responsible behavior. nt

[RKP5637]

41. Yep, excellent point. I would much rather be next to an open-carry than a concealed-carry so

I could get the hell away from them.

[patrice]

49. I can't trust the purpose of a weapon that's hidden. That purpose could be ANYTHING. Open carry

makes it more clear that the gun is for protection and I, thus, can make decisions about the open carrier and/or the threat quotient of the place in which our paths have crossed.

[Sheepshank]

167. OC doesn't make it clear to me it for protection.

I cannot read a persons mind, I cannot assume that it isn't for purposes other than for protection. That assumption would be extremly silly in todays climate and accessibility of firearms to anyone.

[raidert05]

184. Thank You

I open carry for one of the exact reasons you just said, people around me have the right to know I have a handgun on me, and I don't expect people not to pass judgement on me for it,and my carry step up is small enough most people assume a have a cell phone case on my hip from the front, you can't see it from the side wearing long sleeves and this is a hip holster with a retention device. A lot can be said about a person in how they carry a weapon as well, If I see someone with a decent looking pistol being carried in a nice functional retention holster on there person tucked nicely on the hip with slacks and a button up shirt, I'm not even gonna bat an eye lash or if they are wearing t-shirt and jeans with a belt, If i see some fool walking around with a beat up looking gun flopping all around on his side like a old western movie at high noon or he's all tactically dressed like he just jumped out of a swat movie with a gun hanging off his leg,its a lack of respect for the power that you wield at your finger tips in my own opinion, I'm gonna to take my family and get the F away from them because they are a accident waiting to happen.

[doc03]

216. If it is hidden how would you know? n/t

[tblue]

80. I want neither.

This is freaking me out.

[RKP5637]

94. I thought over the years we had become more civilized. All of this gun stuff is really

concerning. There are clearly some pockets of regressiveness in this country.

[nick of time]

95. You mean like the encouraging of shooting people doing what is

perfectly legal, even if it is assholish?
That kind of regressiveness?

[RKP5637]

98. That too! n/t

[nick of time]

99. Thank you.

Extremist posts from both sides of this issue doesn't help with getting meaningful gun control laws passed.

[RKP5637]

100. Yep, you're welcome, and what you say is quite true!

[Whovian]

197. You never got the idea of sarcasm in grade school did you?

[nick of time]

202. Sorry, after reading your transparency page,

I don't believe you were being sarcastic. If you were, you would have used the icon.

You shouldn't have even posted this thread in the first place and if you had any decency, you'd delete it.

[Whovian]

231. I'll stand by every one of the posts you mention.

I sometimes take unpopular or "rough" stances but none are against a true progressive spirit. They may offend some individuals but they are all within the bounds of civility.

[nick of time]

235. If they were all within the bounds of civility,

then why were they hidden?
You've more than proven yourself here for all to see.
Like I said, if you have any decency, you'd delete this thread.

[Whovian]

254. Did you read them? A hide takes three randomly selected peop;e

and their baggage to become a hide. I am proud of my hides.

[nick of time]

257. Wrong.

A hide takes 4 randomly selected people. And yes I did read them which led me to believe that you really believe what you posted here.

[cali]

224. I think you mean your op was satire. It doesn't qualify as either

satire or sarcasm.

[dballance]

88. While You are Absolutely Right About Your Self-Determination w/ Concealed Carry

I'm really not aware of any instances where a person who legally is carrying a concealed weapon has gone berserk and done a massacre shooting like the Sandy Hook/Gabbie Giffords/Aurora etc. shootings. So I try not to think about it or worry about it day-to-day.

Does anyone know of an instance where a concealed carry person went over the edge and just started shooting? It would be something those of us in favor of better gun regulation (I try not to use "gun control" since it's gotten so twisted by the NRA) to know about any instance where the CCW person just started shooting.

[Hoyt]

131. Ian Stawicki is one who had a permit. Zimmerman had a permit. Loughner was legal.

Every day we read about some "legal" toter shooting someone in a disagreement, or accidentally discharging their weapon.

Heck, the friggin Prez of NRA's son was convicted of shooting in a road rage incident.

I think too many folks steeped in guns are ignoring the obvious to protect their access to guns.

[dballance]

331. Thanks for answering my question.

I knew Zimmerman had a permit and I think he's guilty as hell of murder - just my opinion. But he didn't go on a rampage.

Loughner, on the other hand, did. So that's a great example.

[Lizzie Poppet]

172. Given that there are literally millions of CCW permit holders...

...even if there were a few dozen such incidents (and there aren't...), that wouldn't justify more than a passing concern over the possibility. Honestly, some folks' threat prioritization is whack.

[Hoyt]

334. If many more were killed, you'd still need your guns.

Talking about threats, unless you are dealing drugs or something, the chances of you needing a gun are quite small. Yet, not only do you have them, but you promote more guns in more places.

[Lizzie Poppet]

337. Nope.

In fact, I much more frequently suggest to people that they not select a firearm as their method of personal protection. that's because most people aren't willing to go to the not-inconsiderable bother of becoming reasonably skilled with the weapon, implementing proper security for it, and so forth.

Hate to burst your bubble.

Okay, that's not true...I quite enjoy it, actually. Your absurd, baseless forays into bullshit amateur psychoanalysis deserve all the bursting in the world.

[nick of time]

342. ^^^This^^^

[FLyellowdog]

51. 100% agree.

I want to know who these people are so I can choose to stay around them or not.

[patrice]

63. Open Carry is not PC on DU. I have to wonder if concealed carry isn't contributing to the

murder rate in some of our cities.

[bobclark86]

147. Sure as hell isn't...

in Chicago, Newark or Oakland (where CCW is either illegal or very hard to get).

That said, half of the cities on the top 10 list have horrible gun laws. The others have strict gun laws. Seems to have more to do with debilitating poverty than CCW, if you ask me.

[rbixby]

151. Interesting thought

I wonder why no studies have been done on this

[GreenStormCloud]

322. Some states keep annual statistics.

Here are the stats for Texas: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

As you can see, those with CHLs (Concealed Handgun License) have far lower conviction rates than the general public.

At the end of 2011 (2012 stats won't be out until June) there were 525,000+ people with CHLs and only six convictions (an all time high) for (3)murder/(3)manslaughter vs 573 from the general population. Population of the state is about 26 million. As a percentage of conviction CHLers account for less than one percent (.65%) of murder convictions, and 2.7% of manslaughter convictions.

2011 is an outlier for manslaughter convictions. Most years there are only 0 or 1 CHL convictions for manslaugher.

2010..1
2009..0
2008..0
2007..1
You can browse the records for all types of violent convictions for all years for yourself.

Those of us who have CHLs are proven to be the safest people you can be around regarding guns. And occasionally, we stop a crime.

[Bay Boy]

241. Are you talking about legal concealed carry or...

....illegal concealed carry? I'm sure illegal concealed carry results in quite a few murders.

[patrice]

45. If gun owners have a right to decisions about their security, don't non-gun owners have the

same right to decisions about their own security too?

Concealed carry violates my rights to my own decisions about my own security; it is, therefore, not a right but a PRIVILEGE acquired at the point of a gun.

[TeamPooka]

125. +1000

[Marr]

76. To me it's a sign of cowardice.

Every gun nut I know is terrified of home invasions and being assaulted while they're buying a loaf of goddamn bread. Almost none of them have ever spent so much as a weekend outside of the US, and every time *I* leave, they ask me, bewildered, if I'm not afraid of being kidnapped by bandits or killed by terrorists.

They are the biggest chickenshits I know, by far. Very scared of the world.

[kairos12]

210. Agreement with you

[doc03]

230. +1

[Starboard Tack]

180. How do you feel about being surrounded by concealed weapons?

If you can't see them does it make you feel safer?

[RKP5637]

189. No way! n/t

[nick of time]

193. Makes me feel a little bit uncomfortable also,

but if I can't see it, then I don't know about it.

[RKP5637]

196. I was in a store just the other day and started wondering who around me might be

doing concealed carry ... and I also got to wondering how many had the safety on correctly, etc., etc. Here, not too long ago, some guy was sitting in a restaurant fumbling for something in his pants pocket and shot his wife with a pistol.

[nick of time]

200. I sometimes wonder also,

but I live in a very rural area and just about everyone has firearms, so while I may disagree with it, I'm kinda use to it.
I myself don't carry anywhere unless I'm hunting, my firearms don't leave my farm and only come out to shoot a varmit that's going after my chickens and ducks.

[RKP5637]

256. Yep, and that all makes perfectly good and responsible sense to me!

[Starboard Tack]

310. That's how I feel too.

Yet thousands of permits to carry concealed handguns are being issued every day. No standardized training, if any, required. No standardized background checks, if any.

[RKP5637]

314. And around here we get random shootings, someone just starts shooting someone ... or someone sitting

at home gets hit by a stray bullet flying through the wall. And some places have roof leaks from people shooting holes through their ceilings.

[Starboard Tack]

327. I feel for you.

I have lived in neighborhoods like that.

[CherokeeDem]

258. I find it very unnerving...

Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I was at a service station this summer, and as I was pumping gas I looked between the pumps and saw a man with a weapon holstered in plain sight. I am no gun expert, but I thought it was strange for a police officer to be carrying what looked like a Smith and Wesson revolver...something I'd expect to see on a cowboy...not a cop. I looked closer and it was guy driving a SUV with some property development company sign on it. My first reaction, which I wouldn't have asked, was to ask him if he felt more manly with gun on his hip and then I thought...better not even talk to him.

The second I saw he wasn't a police officer...all the hairs stood up on the back of my neck. Police officers are trained to remain calm and not over-react... hopefully...my guess was this guy hadn't been trained. A short temper and a hair-trigger don't mix and it is very frightening. If I saw someone walk into a store with an assault rifle...I'd be booking it out there so fast. It is an infringement of my right to assemble when I have no idea of intent. Scary.

[RKP5637]

296. I drive cross country sometimes, and I'm not picking on any state or anything, but sometimes

when I stop for gas, food, toilet breaks and all I do run across some strange characters, like people do in many places. If I start seeing the same types with guns slung on them, that gives a whole new dimension to being concerned about my well being on some of these trips.

[onenote]

5. That makes as much sense as "shoot everyone wearing gang colors for implied threat"

Of course, that may well be your position.

[Aristus]

19. Yeah, 'cause a red jersey is just as dangerous as a Bushmaster...

[onenote]

35. No. Because a gangbanger who may well have a concealed weapon

is as much as, or more of, an implied threat to my safety as some guy openly carrying a weapon where it is legal to do so.

Also,who is supposed to "shoot" the person openly carrying a fiream? Oh, wait, its another person carrying a firearm. Either the guy with a gun isn't a threat to another person with a gun or they are both threats to each other. But where does the person not carrying a gun fit into this -- other than having a good chance of getting caught in the crossfire.

[Lizzie Poppet]

6. "...are pretty much bound to use it."

Yeah, that's rational...

[Whovian]

201. Rational, no. satyrical yes.

[Lizzie Poppet]

208. Far be it from me to discriminate against satyrs.

[jpak]

7. That's what SYG and Castle Laws are all about.

Legalized murder.

yup

[onehandle]

13. Worse. It's legalized lynching.

Judging by the results.

[nick of time]

17. And shooting someone for open carrying,

which is perfectly legal in most states, is called murder, do you condone that?

[jpak]

30. In SYG states, if the shooter feels his/her life is threatened then it's OK

to shoot an open carry douchebag.

Guns kill - and those that carry guns openly do it to threaten the lives of everyone they meet.

Pose a Threat.

Stand Your Ground.

Bang Bang

all nice an legal like.

Yup

[nick of time]

36. Bullshit.

Just because someone is being an asshole for open carrying doesn't justify shooting them. I'll tell you what, next time you see someone open carrying, just try shooting them and then claim that you were justified under the SYG law, if the state you're in has such a law.
That is, after you get released from prison for murder.

[jpak]

303. In Florida, carrying a box of Skittles and an Ice Tea is considered at threat

worthy of SYG.

Open Carry is worse.

yup

[nick of time]

305. Once again, bullshit

Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder and will stand trial for it. SYG doesn't apply in his case.

[onenote]

38. From what dime store did you get your law degree?

No. Not all nice and legal like.

[tblue]

83. Yup.

Legalized. OHMYGOSHALMIGHTY.

[nick of time]

85. Nope.

Not even close.

[HappyMe]

8. So you want to stop gun

violence by shooting people?

[Aristus]

23. Hey, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

I have it on good authority...

Anyway, I don't give a fuck if a guy loves his mother, cheers the Yanks, and salutes the flag. If he open-carries, and he's not a cop, then he's a bad guy. And deserves, maybe not to be shot, but certainly to be dick-punched a few times...

Of course, if a gun-crazy complained about getting dick-punched, it might lead to the banning of fists, but not guns...

[nick of time]

31. You start dick punching someone open carrying

and you just might get shot and it would be justifiable.
A better solution might be to walk up to the person and tell them what an asshole they are.

[PLARS1999]

40. If he is open carrying,

He may be compensating for something else, said "dick-punching" may take considerable accuracy.

[nick of time]

43. Good one.

I'm not anti gun, I'm anti asshole behavior, on both sides of the issue.

[Puzzledtraveller]

24. It's the fight violence with more violence meme that's all the rage!

[HappyMe]

25. sigh!

It's ridiculous. Makes me wonder how people find their way out of bed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. Mainly, he wants to stir up shit with OPs that he can then disown

as 'oh, it was only sarcasm'. Notice they have not bothered replying to anyone in the thread. Notice also they had 2 OPs hidden for stirring up shit yesterday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022293252
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022291042 (after complaining that no-one cared about a story, and apparently didn't kick his thread enough to satisfy him)
and a thread locked for complaining that jurors didn't like him trying to stir up shit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022293593
but he's not too busy to accuse someone else of trolling: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2295254

He's not looking for a discussion on the subject. Just reaction.

[HappyMe]

61. Good grief!

Quite the busy bee.

[Whovian]

205. I am very open to discussion.

And yes, I like "stirring up shit."

I have concerns over a five year old being held hostage by a deranged gun nut. So ban me for it. I'm sure you have tried.

[nick of time]

209. And it's people like you that make it so difficult

to have an honest debate on how to get meaningful laws passed.
And I mean both sides of the issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

283. Don't pretend this OP is 'open to discussion'

How can you discuss it? All people can say is "yes, he means it" or "no he doesn't". One means you're a psychopath; the other can just be reacted to with "OK, so what - I'll ignore the thread". Really, it's not funny. That's the problem here - you've just posted this to get noticed.

[nick of time]

14. Your society?

It's their society also and that society has made it legal in many states to open carry.
While I don't think open carrying is right, until the laws are changed, it's legal.
What you seem to want is to be able to murder someone for doing what is perfectly legal in many states.

[EastKYLiberal]

86. You're right. I sometimes post before thinking. Deleted. nt

[nick of time]

90. Thank you.

I know that this is a highly charged issue, but the OP seems to be encouraging the shooting of people doing what is legal in many states.

[Hoyt]

140. Lots of things are legal that are best not done.

Truthfully, I don't believe OP is serious about shooting a gun toter. But, I do think we should treat them like someone smoking a stinking cigar or walking around with a swastika or confederate flag.

[nick of time]

146. While I agree with you that alot of things are legal that shouldn't be done.

I don't agree with you about the OP not being serious, just read his transparency page.

[Hoyt]

155. Well then, how do you feel about some yahoo who checks his gun before strapping it on when

heading out to Chuck E Cheese. You think they are serious about shooting someone, even in a restaurant filled with innocent kids?

Those yahoos concern me a whole lot more than some guy pissed about guns on a Democratic forum.

[nick of time]

158. No I don't believe they're even thinking about shooting someone.

What I do think that while it's perfectly legal in many states, it's an asshole thing to do.
The only time my firearms leave my farm is when I go hunting, otherwise, they stay in my safe unless I need one to shoot a predator going after my chickens and ducks.

[sarisataka]

10. Ahh hell with it...

shoot everyone-it's the only way to be sure. Look on the bright side, this would eventually end gun violence

[actslikeacarrot]

11. how are you going to shoot them...

...if you aren't carrying yourself?

[nick of time]

12. You want to shoot someone for doing something that is

perfectly legal? Wouldn't that then make you a murderer?

[mokawanis]

18. How about instead

walking up to them and telling them they're being an asshole?

[nick of time]

21. I have no problem with that,

because they are, but condoning the shooting of someone for doing what is legal in most states is truly OTT.

[NCTraveler]

15. Pretty wild that this makes sense to you.

So I take it that you conceal your gun. If you are going to shoot them and are not carrying openly, you must have it concealed.

[patrice]

122. Reality doesn't always make sense. The point is: does this happen? nt

[NCTraveler]

152. Does what happen?

Concealed carry people seeing open carry people and shooting them because they are openly carrying?

The thought is so convoluted that there is no point.

[patrice]

154. What are your thoughts about gang culture? nt

[NCTraveler]

156. Love it. nt

[patrice]

174. Too bad that can cost some people their lives, like the young inauguration participant killed the

other day in Chicago.

[Union Scribe]

22. Another deep thought from Whovian.

[onenote]

39. +1

[Lizzie Poppet]

57. Yep..."deep" in the "bring your chest waders and a shovel" sense.

Par for the course, really...

[patrice]

26. Makes more sense than shooting someone for being in your driveway. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. This post advocates murder.

Shooting someone for carrying a pistol in a holster could only be interpreted as pre meditated murder in a place where doing so is not a against the law.

Surely this poster is not implying that he would shoot to wound because that would not neutralize the threat.

This post is flamebait that advocates murder and should be locked.

[pintobean]

28. Agree

Just waiting on the jury. TOS checked.

ETA:

[patrice]

33. True. & I apologize for my 2-cents-worth. I won't be deleting & I oppose murder. nt

[pintobean]

37. 3-3. I wasn't the first

so I don't have comments.

[nick of time]

42. So now I guess it's ok

to encourage the murder of people doing something that's legal, even if it's assholish.

[derby378]

44. I've had threads locked for far, far less

Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends...

[pintobean]

46. Admin still has a say.

TOS was checked, so they'll get it.

[nick of time]

50. If OP had an ounce of decency

this thread would be deleted.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. Check his transparency page

[nick of time]

55. Whoa.

That's quite the transparency page.

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. Color me gobsmacked. n/t

[obamanut2012]

315. Including killing law enforcement

[nick of time]

316. I know.

Amazing, ain't it?

[obamanut2012]

318. I think that is mentioned in the TOS

[Union Scribe]

69. I was but I deleted the mail

without reading the comments. Frankly, I wasn't interested in whatever 3 people might have to say, if anything, that defended such violent garbage.

[Electric Monk]

183. I like to shoot people with my 12MP Olympus

[cali]

48. You really are posting some of the most ridiculous stuff.

[RZM]

53. You're basing an anti-gun argument on shooting people?

That seems rather odd.

[Hoyt]

148. Certainly indicates how absurd carrying of guns in our society is.

If I thought OP were serious, I'd be disturbed. But he/she is not, and the OP shows how stupid, and inconsiderate toters are.

Leave em at home.

[nick of time]

150. Read his transparency page.

I do think he's serious.
But that's just my opinion.

[Hoyt]

157. And I think you are concerned about your access to guns.

Do you act like this when you are carrying or around your guns?

[nick of time]

160. You already know that I don't carry when off my farm.

I told you that a few days ago. I don't belong to your idea of a gun culture, my firearms stay on my farm locked up in my safe unless I'm hunting or I'm dispatching a predator going after my chickens and ducks.


It's people like you, on both sides of this highly charged issue, that makes it hard to pass meaningful laws.

[darkangel218]

54. Wow.. and i thought i seen it all.

[CBGLuthier]

58. There are certain tools of writing these literalists just can not grasp

I imagine they thought Mr. Swift was a monster for advocating eating babies.

[nick of time]

59. Seems pretty clear to the majority of people here.

The OP is encourging the murder of people doing what is perfectly legal in many states, even if it's assholish.

[nick of time]

62. Uh huh.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. Given some of his other posts

only and obtuse moron would think otherwise

[NCTraveler]

67. You are acting like this hit and run troll is brilliant.....

and only you can understand him. Maybe the reason you have such a clear grasp of their brilliance isn't actually about intelligence at all. Not positive. Just a maybe.

[HappyMe]

71. ...

[HappyMe]

65. I seriously doubt that

the OP has a grasp of the tools of writing.

Just looking for a ton of replies and attention.

[actslikeacarrot]

66. lololololol

If whovian is swift then my poetry in the eighth grade makes me bill Shakespeare!

[sarisataka]

72. There are a group with different political leanings

Who write things like- rape victims who get An abortion should be jailed- then come back and say- that's not what I meant.

Is this like that? Do we now admire such tactics?


Feel free to explain it to us fucking morons oh literary one

edit: sorry, obtuse morons

[Union Scribe]

73. The only thing Swift about the OP

is the pace at which they should be shown the door.

[obamanut2012]

317. Comparing the OP to Swift?!

[Oneka]

68. And i always thought that.....

Guns as a solution to guns, was a pro gun position?

Thanks for proving me wrong.

[patrice]

70. Maybe what we need is highly selective special permits for Concealed Carry & then only Open Carry

permits for everyone else.

[Motown_Johnny]

74. Can't we just sue them for reckless endangerment

and use all the accidental shootings that happen everyday as evidence against them?

[nick of time]

78. What reckless endangerment?

While I wholly diagree with open carry and think it's an asshole thing to do, if it's in the holster, how is it reckless endangerment?
Now if the weapon is taken out for no apparent reason, that's called brandishing and against the law.

[Motown_Johnny]

219. accidents happen, for instance....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2292112


^snip^


A guy just shot himself in the bathroom of the cyber cafe I am posting from (Open carry activist) [View all]

Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 08:47 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I rent a desk at Indra's in Eugene, Oregon where I have one of my desktops set up. The open carry guy who comes in here walked by me and went into the restroom behind me.

A minute later we heard a loud gunshot and a scream from the loo. We yelled in asking him if he was OK and he answered, "Get an ambulance."

He had shot himself through the leg putting his old west style replica revolver. The desk worker put a tourniquet on his leg and he asked for us to hide his gun so the police would not take it.








That bullet could have just as easily have gone through the door and struck someone else. He wasn't brandishing the weapon.

[nick of time]

228. He pulled the trigger.

A gun just sitting in a holster is not going to fire by itself. This is a case of someone being careless.

[Motown_Johnny]

237. keep in mind I was responding to a "shoot on sight" OP

My response of suing was in that context



But as you can see, accidents do happen. People get hurt, often innocent bystanders. The act of carrying a gun, for no reason other than to carry a gun, could be seen as endangering others.

[nick of time]

240. You're right.

Accidents do happen, although I wouldn't classify this as an accident, I would classify it as an asshole being negligent with his firearm and he should lose his gun rights.

[onenote]

89. Can i sue anyone who drives a car for reckless endangerment

and use all the reckless driving arrests and accidents that occur everyday as evidence against them?

No. Why? Because a person driving a car isn't per se doing anything reckless. And a person carrying a gun isn't per se doing anything reckless either. I support gun control legislation (and devoted a portion of my professional career to providing pro bono legal support to a leading gun control organization). But silly suggestions like "sue 'em for reckless endangerment" just make it harder on those that are pursuing potentially achievable gun control measures.

[nick of time]

92. ^^^This^^^,

[Motown_Johnny]

213. Cars have a legitimate use other than to end lives.

That is why using one is not reckless.

Carrying a firearm is far more reckless than driving a car.


Also, this was posted as an alternative to shooting them all on site. Context counts.

[onenote]

246. Using a car can be reckless. Using a gun can be reckless.

Both cars and guns can be used recklessly to harm people, including ending their lives. But simply carrying a gun is no more "reckless" than using a car.

And, of course, guns have legitmate uses other than to end lives. I daresay that the overwhelming majority of guns have never been used to end a life or even to attempt to end a life.

Sure, suing people who lawfully carry a weapon is an alternative to shooting them. But both options are stupid and don't help move the ball forward in finding realistic measures to keep certain types of weapons out of circulation and/or to make it harder for certain people to get a weapon.

[guardian]

325. Some lives need ending.

a few that come to mind:

* James Holmes
* Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
* Adam Lanza
* Anders Behring Breivik
* Nidal Hasan
* Timothy McVeigh
* Charles Manson
* Richard Speck

If someone had ended their lives a bit sooner a lot of innocent people could have been saved.

[Lizzie Poppet]

91. "all the accidental shootings that happen everyday"

You might find that argument a bit counterproductive, given that the number of accidental shootings in relation to the number of firearms is very, very low (and has been steadily declining for decades).

[One_Life_To_Give]

75. Deer Agree

Not an uncommon sight in much of the country though.

[patrice]

81. Can anyone here speak to whether this is the ground of SYG or not? What if 2 Open Carriers

have a history with one another? How would Concealed Carry ameliorate the expectations created by that history?

What are the rights of non-carriers in such situations?

[hack89]

104. Only if someone actually took their gun out the holster and brandished it

in a threatening manner.

If you shoot someone who has a gun in a holster then you are a murderer - plain and simple.

[patrice]

107. In terms of the hypothetical examples I used, in a concealed carry situation, what about SYG

between 2 or more people with a history that creates relatively probable legitimate expectations and concealed carrying is the status quo. How do SYG claims work in that kind of situation? TTE, "S/he moved a certain way, so I feared for my life etc. etc. etc."

[hack89]

110. SYG claims have to pass a common sense test

which is why they are evaluated by the police, the prosecutors, a grand jury and eventually a judge/jury.

SYG does not change the legal definition of self defense - it merely extends it outside your house. You still have to demonstrate a reasonable fear for your life and you have to convince a bunch of people that it was actually reasonable.

[patrice]

113. Why isn't anyone in this thread admitting that what you just said could apply to GANGS? nt

[jmg257]

166. Most SYG laws say you must be attacked, or use of force against you must "be imminent".

With SYG - you do not have a duty to retreat, not just in your home (Castle Doctrine) but any where you have the right to be. A vital difference is "presumption" which still depends on the location.

FLA Law:

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and...

That changes greatly when you are not in a dwelling, vehicle etc.

(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
...
776.031?Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate.... However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

http://www.blakedorstenlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1687102.html

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law hit the books in 2005...
Florida Law Prior to the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law

Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person could use only non-deadly force to defend against the imminent use of unlawful non-deadly force. Deadly force was authorized only to defend against imminent deadly force or great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.

Unless the person was in his home or workplace, he had a "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force. In one's home, the "Castle Doctrine" provided that the person had no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force against an intruder. However, he still needed the reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.

Florida Law After the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law

The "Stand Your Ground" Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and
The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

These two presumptions protect the defender from both civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of deadly or non-deadly force in self-defense{in a dwelling}. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.

You cannot presume the lawful carrying gun owner or the gang member is about to use deadly force againt you - until he starts to. Unless they break into your home that is.

[patrice]

178. Thanks for this. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

175. For a variety of reasons.

I review most of the gang shooting stories that get posted to the gungeon by both sides of this gun control debate. In nearly EVERY case, there is a disqualification to the shooter carrying lawfully.

Number one disqualification, the carrier is under 21. No handguns for sub-21 year olds.
Number two disqualification, the carrier was carrying concealed without a permit.
Number three, prior felony conviction.

I have yet to see a gang shooting posted wherein a gang member was lawfully carrying concealed, or open carry.
Hypothetically, it could happen I suppose, but I have yet to see it.

[patrice]

186. Thanks for the info. Yes, criminals will be criminals. I'm only trying to consider what recourse the

average person has when the STANDARD, for law-abiding or criminal gun-ownership since the average citizen has no way of knowing in either case, is concealed carry.

At least with open carry, the average person knows that they are in an environment in which others, likely law-abiding citizens, are concerned about their safety, otherwise . . . . what. are. the. guns. for?????

I know I have no right to take non-assault weapons away from people, I just want my rights to decide things respected with the information I need, open carry, in order to make this kind of choice in situations in which others, for reasons I have no OTHER knowledge of, think guns are necessary to their safety.

[AtheistCrusader]

194. Concealed carry was a compromise.

A lot of people are disturbed by open carry. I can respect that. I think there is a clear and obvious delineation between the body language of someone open carrying lawfully, and someone who intends mayhem. But that initial impulse might always be there. Concealed carry allows lawfully eligible citizens to carry, without disturbing others. It's something of security through obscurity for someone in your position, but at least it isn't in your face.

I am not belittling your position. I can appreciate it. Carrying a weapon concealed can reasonably make the suggestion that the person is 'up to something'. So I can see your viewpoint, even if I don't share it. But when people post stories here about concealed carry and open carry, open carry gets by far the larger, more vocal outpouring of derision. And I would think that is because of the interpretation of it as being deliberately provocative.

Ideally, I would much rather live in a world where I don't carry a gun at all. I'll be honest, it's heavy, and it's uncomfortable. It constrains where I can go and what I can do. In fact, I rarely do it. But taking the option off the table is not something I prefer. There are times and places that I have occasion to go, where I feel it reasonable and prudent to have the tools at my disposal, to defend myself, if the worst should happen.

But getting back to the original point, I think if the question is Open Carry OR Concealed Carry, the general public, INCLUDING the non-carrying members of said public, prefer those who do carry, do so concealed.

[patrice]

204. I can't imagine why people would want to be in places & with people who are dangerous & NOT

know it. Open carry would provide at least that much information.

I'm sorry, I must say that I think that concealed carry has succeeded as well as it has because merchants know that the general public is going to be creeped out by seeing all of the guns.

Maybe they are wrong; maybe I am wrong; maybe people would eventually get used to seeing so many other people packing, so we wouldn't have to wonder if there is danger of a shooting of somekind happening, but I don't see how that can happen either without open carry.

[AtheistCrusader]

251. Well, open carry is legal here.

Washington State has OC. Perfectly legal. It's rare when people do. I can only imagine the people who do are a tiny percentage of the general population, compared to people who concealed carry. I can usually spot other people concealed carrying. So can cops. They are VERY good at 'reading' people, and I don't just mean people committing the terminal fashion faux pa of a fanny pack.

I have had many a police officer make eye contact with me and hold my gaze, while evaluating me. They usually know. I give a reassuring smile, and a 'bow' nod, and we are all on our way.

I can't speak for all CPL holders, but *I* don't open carry for two reasons. One, I don't like making other people uncomfortable. I'm a big tall guy. I adopt a deliberately submissive posture/body language around people I don't know, because I want them to not feel threatened by me. Open carry would just make that so much worse. The other reason is a concept known in gaming circles as 'initiative'. Or, 'first attack'. I carry for my, and others, protection. I do not carry as a challenge to, or invitation to potential violent people around me. I can envision a scenario where, say I'm at the local gas station waiting in line, my presence, with a gun visible, not only doesn't deter an armed robber, but actually results in me being shot at the initiation of hostilities. As the ANNOUNCEMENT of hostilities, possibly from behind, with no clue that anything was amiss.

So, again, not looking deliberately for a fight and not looking to make myself a target, I employ security through obscurity, and I retain the right to determine my level of involvement in any happening around me. There are plenty of things that do not require the presence of a firearm to deal with, and some that could even be escalated by it, so deploying the weapon, let alone using it, is a very high bar of threat that I am reluctant to cross if I can avoid it.

[Berserker]

82. If advocating outright murder on a public forum

Is ok there are no rules any longer. Even a jury says it's acceptable. What the hell has this site turned into. This is a fucking disgrace.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

84. You really should self delete this OP

If for no other reason than that it reflects very poorly on you. From here forward people are going to link back to this post and say, "oh, ignore their opinion. They support cold blooded murder."

[justanidea]

87. Good luck with your life in prison goals for 2013!

[Socal31]

93. I truly hope the admins do the right thing.

OP needs a "welfare check" from his local PD.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

96. the last alert was a while ago...

by the time they act the damage will have been done by this thread... maybe they can help the author find the door. it truly is disgusting.

sP

[patrice]

103. I hope we can get a few answers about SYG, such as the examples in my previous post on SYG above.nt

[guardian]

97. "Shoot eveyone" "Except for police. Maybe"

Are you fucking insane?!?!?!

[lpbk2713]

101. You really need an answer?

There's a pattern here.

[a la izquierda]

102. Wow.

While open carry freaks me out a little, I would never advocate shooting someone as an "implied threat." I really detest shoot first, ask questions later mentalities.

[Fla_Democrat]

105. Let me guess

Someone has to stop those people who do nothing all day but fantasize about killing people?










Now, I don't normally do this, but I'm gonna give you a rec. Not because I agree with your idea... but I want more people to see just how committed you are to stopping gun violence.

[slackmaster]

109. I see what you did there, and I will join you in giving the OP an anti-Rec, Pablo Picasso style.

"When I don't have blue, I use red."

[slackmaster]

106. That's the most fucked up post I've read on DU this week

No mean accomplishment for Whovian.

[Throd]

108. And then shoot the shooters

[patrice]

111. Turn on the news, you all, how am I supposed to know whether someone carrying a gun is

going to shoot me or not?

[nick of time]

112. Maybe because the carrier is minding their own business and the firearm

is still in it's holster.

[patrice]

117. What if I turn my back on a carrier? What if there are several carriers? How do I watch them all?

especially if it's concealed carry.

[nick of time]

119. Well, it it's concealed,

then you don't even know it's there.

[patrice]

126. What if the concealed carrier is another Adam Lanza?

[nick of time]

132. Doubtful.

But you could drive yourself batty if that's all you think about all day. My philosophy is that when it's my time to go, it doesn't matter what I'm doing or where I am, it's just my time.
I adopted that thinking while in VN.

[patrice]

134. You're entitled to think how YOU think & ergo so am I & I think what I do can make a difference in

what happens.

[nick of time]

135. Of course your entitled to think what you want.

I hope I didn't come across as saying you don't.
But would you agree that extremist posts on both sides of the issue don't help in getting meaningful laws passed?

[patrice]

139. No! I'm fine with you, nick of time!! & Yes, extremism DOES cause problems, but honest, respectful

discussion isn't one of them.

[nick of time]

143. Unfortunately

you are correct.

[Fla_Democrat]

123. If it's concealed carry.....

how would you know?


If you stop to think about it, it may really blow your mind....... How many people around you on a daily basis.... are carrying concealed?

[patrice]

129. Q. What are they all so afraid of? A. One another. Ergo, why should I not be afraid of ALL of them?

[Fla_Democrat]

141. So, their fear is irrational

and yours is?


Add to that, I know a lot of people with concealed permits, I know a lot more that carry, but don't have the permit. I've never heard them describe themselves as afraid, only others who are fearful, trying to project onto them.


Me, I live my life not worrying about what is in someone's pants. Be it in their crotch, tucked into their waistband, or in their wallets. I didn't buy into the fear of them 'muzzlims' coming to blow me up, I'm not buying into the fear of them 'murikns' going to gun me down.

[patrice]

159. I wonder if the young lady who was blown away in my town lastnight would agree with your rose-tinted

glasses.

[Fla_Democrat]

173. Ok, lets try this another way, see how dedicated you are..

Since fear of firearms is rational, and reasonable, could I get you to agree to random stops and searches to find illegal firearms? I understand people with firearms are a danger, and should be shot (according to the OP), how about monitored?

text: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But, I am told it isn't unreasonable to fear fire arms, it isn't unreasonable to fear people with firearms. So, can you get behind trying to save people, by searching people at random? Think of the lives that could be saved, if police could just catch shooters, before they started shooting. How far, are you willing to go, to achieve your goals?

[patrice]

190. Isn't that a background check and registration issue? Why would such stops be "necessary" if there

were better implementation of laws already "on the books"?

So, no I'm not for random stops and searches. I don't think they are necessary.

[Fla_Democrat]

214. But, if they save lives

or, in the case of Sandy Hook, quite a few lives, it is unreasonable? As pointed out, Adam Lanza wouldn't have been stopped by the laws on the books, since it wasn't his weapons.

If his mother didn't have the weapons, it's possible that it wouldn't have happened. Or, it's possible that he may have obtained them some other way. If a check point had stopped him on the way to the school, it wouldn't have happened. Period.

It's not about saving lives, any more than taking off shoes at an airport gate is about stopping bombings. It's about giving the masses some placebo, so they don't panic.

You're not for rat frelling the 4th amendment, good, neither am I. I'm just not for rat frelling the 2nd, either. But, if one sat down and looked at the matter with a clear mind, not clouded with fear and trepidation, which solution would lead to less violence?

[jmg257]

181. If they are not fearful -why do they carry? Cause they like the extra weight?

A little fear is a good thing, keeps us from doing all kinds of stupid shit, and helps us to all kinds of good stuff.

I don't know of anyone who generally carries for only the simple reason that...they just like to (other then to avoid leaving the handgun in an unsafe place like a car or what-not.)

[Fla_Democrat]

185. Why do one carry a jack in their car?

Are they afraid of blow outs? Or do they prepare for the eventuality of a flat tire?

[jmg257]

192. YES! they are afraid...the same reason I wear a seatbelt, because I am afraid of an acccident!!

Of course I do not fear the inconvenience of a flat tire as much as the potential injury or death in an accident. But it is all for the same reason...fear. The same reason I install smoke alarms, because I am afraid of myself or my kids sleeping through a fire.

IF you carry a gun you do so because YOU FEAR BEING VICTIM, usually of someone else with a deadly weapon/instrument.

Why is it so hard to admit that?? A little fear is a good thing...causes us to put fences around our pools, put our kids in car seats, pass good laws to better protect us, hire lifeguards where we swim, install alarm systems & CO2 detectors in our homes, etc. etc.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

114. you also don't know when someone might poison your food

or run over you with their car or attack you with a knife or drop a piano on you or smack you with a shovel or hit you with an axe or mow you down with a lawn mower or or or or or ...

you can just assume everyone with a gun is evil, i suppose...

sP

[patrice]

118. One risk does not make another risk acceptable. nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

121. someone carrying a pistol is no more danger to you

than a guy with a chainsaw... your logic is bollocks. you're actually in much more danger from the cars on the road. so let's at least be more concerned about them.

sP

[bongbong]

236. Seriously????

> your logic is bollocks. you're actually in much more danger from the cars on the road. so let's at least be

Talk about irony! Your lack of knowledge of statistics and arithmetic is glaring.

Prove your claim.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

242. let's see...

what kills more people every year.... people in cars or people with guns??? hmmmm... everything out there says cars win... even in 2015, when the number is set to flip-flop (guns will supposedly win out) the number of deaths caused by people with guns is a bit off because more than half of those are suicides.

but you know that... and you can look it up. i suggest the CDC website...

sP

Here, I'll help : http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf

[bongbong]

259. LOL LOL LOL

> what kills more people every year.... people in cars or people with guns??? hmmmm... everything out there says cars win.

See, you just proved you don't know anything about statistics or arithmetic. You have to provide the amount of time each item is used (cars & guns) for an accurate comparison.

Don't worry, I've already done the numbers, and guns lose (actually America loses but that's besides the point).

I won't charge you for your lesson in elementary statistics.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

264. nope... i don't have to provide that

see, if i were trying to compare usage to accidents or incidents i would agree with you. but i wasn't. you are more likely to be killed by car than by gun. that is a fact. is it in part due to the fact that guns are not used as often or for the same numbers of hours as a car... sure. but the fact is you are still more likely to be killed by a car than a gun.

if you took statistics, you might want to look at getting your money back for that course... you didn't learn shit.

sP

OnEdit : you know, maybe you did learn statistics. if that is true, reading comprehension might be the problem. six of one...

[bongbong]

270. LOL

Keep digging that hole. Your claims are false, and I showed why they are.

> you are more likely to be killed by car than by gun. that is a fact.

Your "fact" is a falsehood, since you made a false comparison.

Pesky facts!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

274. you THINK you did...

and the fact that you can't seem to acknowledge your fault in logic is comical. YOU are the one who tried to tie this to usage... but once again, you know that and all you have is, well, nothing.

thanks for helping educate the readers of DU about how statistical analysis works...even if you don't get it.

pesky facts, indeed.

sP

[bongbong]

276. LOL

Here is your original claim:

> your logic is bollocks. you're actually in much more danger from the cars on the road. so let's at least be

That claim REQUIRES you compare the deaths on a per-usage basis. You did move the goalposts, and so you claimed to be right, but your goalpost moving is just more falsehoods.

Take Statistics 101 at your local community college.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

281. you are incorrect...

but that's ok. you keep thinking you have it figured out and rolling on the floor laughing. one day, when you are alone and thinking about it, it will click and you will have it. until then, you can rest in your self-assured knowledge...

sP

[bongbong]

284. LOL

You're wrong. Once again, hopefully you will take Statistics 101 at your local community college so you understand why you're wrong.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

286. let's see how many more LOL's you can post

proving you don't know what you're talking about.

sP

[bongbong]

288. LOL

You're hilarious (and pathetic). I'll take the time to explain things to you.

Let's say deaths due to gargling with acid are 3 a year. Let's also say that deaths due to gargling with mouthwash are 4 a year.

According to your "logic", that means that you are in more danger from mouthwash than acid, even though gargling with mouthwash is done 1,000,000,000x more than gargling with acid.

You can send your check for this basic lesson in statistics to me via DU.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

292. you are still incorrect...

i'll give you a hint to see if it helps...

IF guns were used for the same amount of time cars were used you would be right! (the hint is that they are not)...

so, I agree, a gun, per use, is much more lethal than a car.

but, since CARS are used MORE OFTEN (and for longer) than GUNS, you are in more danger from the totality.

let's see if you get it. i wasn't talking about a 'per use' base... i simply said you are in more danger from the cars (which are used MUCH MORE) than the guns.

i would wager you won't.

i will leave it at that... and i pray you don't teach statistics, because if you do, you are ripping people off.

sP

[bongbong]

304. LOL

Wow, you really don't get it? Simple semantics, and simple logic. I even explained it for you!

Your original claim:

> you're actually in much more danger from the cars on the road.

No, because there are fewer deaths in each HOUR you're exposed to cars, vs. the amount of deaths you get from an exposure to an hour of guns.

Please, please, take Statistics 101 at your local community college before you embarrass yourself again. I'm serious.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

306. and thank you for making my point...

let's see if you find it.

sP

[bongbong]

307. LOL

You Delicate Flowers have some kind of strange "secret language" ... how Liberals are always "making your point" in some mysterious way.

Gun-religion must affect people's brains. They make them soft & mushy, I guess.

[drm604]

115. On another board, I was in a discussion about the guy carrying the gun in the JC Penney store.

A new member entered the conversation; an obvious supporter and admirer of the JC Penney guy.

He explained (very patronizingly, in my opinion) that the man was doing this to help the rest of us get used to the sight of people openly carrying guns in public.

When we told him the we neither needed nor wanted such help, he responded that it was a good thing that our opinions don't matter.

So that's the mindset we're talking about. Our opinions don't matter. We just need help in adjusting to a new reality that we neither want nor need and for which there is no good argument but which he and his ilk wish to force upon us out of their own paranoia.

[nick of time]

116. So do you agree with the OP that

someone open carrying, while it is an assholish thing to do, but perfectly legal in many states, should be shot?

[drm604]

207. No I do not.

What would make you think that I agree with that? I don't think even the OP agrees with it, but is trying to make some kind of point.

[nick of time]

215. Just asking a question.

Glad you don't agree, however there are a couple here who do. And I wouldn't be so sure about the OP not believing what he says.

[drm604]

323. The OP doesn't seem to like guns.

So it would be pretty strange if he believed in shooting people.

[nick of time]

324. Maybe.

But reading his transparency page really opened my eyes as to what kind of person he is towards gun owners.

[drm604]

326. The fact that he doesn't like gun people

does not prove that he literally wants to shoot them.

[nick of time]

328. Probably not.

But he didn't need to start a flamewar like this. It's people like him, on both sides of this issue that make it hard to have an honest debate about getting meaningful laws passed.

[drm604]

339. Admittedly, his post was over the top.

It probably came from sheer frustration with the selfish and patronizing attitude of some of the people he's talking about. That was the point of my post. I was sympathizing with his frustration, not with the idea of shooting people, which I don't think was meant literally anyway.

[nick of time]

343. How about the frustration on the other side of the debate?

When there are threads like this, how does it help with honest debate?
How does the extremist proclamations on both sides of this issue help?
Don't blame just one side of this issue for the inflammatory language.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

120. I like it! None of this namby-pamby passive-aggressive nonsense

Just shoot. Clear and simple.

You are indeed a philosopher of some kind, Whovian.

[patrice]

124. What. are. guns. for?

[nick of time]

127. Self defense, Offense,

recreational shooting, hunting.

[patrice]

130. "Self defense, Offense" i.e. shooting other people with guns. nt

[nick of time]

133. Yes, but not just that,

Self defense could mean protecting yourself from an animal attacking you.

[patrice]

136. True & there is the sporting point. I'm just thinking about what applies to most people, which would

be guns in public places . . . for what/whose purpose??? To shoot other carriers, we are told, and if not that, then to shoot non-carriers???

In public contexts, it's a form of "free speech" particular to certain cultures and it appears, by virtue of concealed carry, to have privileges not accorded to non-carriers.

[nick of time]

138. That's a fair point.

Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

It's been a good discussion with you. Thanks.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

128. According to the OP, they are "bullet magnets"

You see someone with a gun, you shoot them. Period. No quibbling about "motive", no appeals, no mercy, no questions at all. Just shoot em.

(Think the OP was just fishin a little?)

[Fla_Democrat]

145. If that was the case..

he should come back and check the line. He caught some whoppers.

[darkangel218]

137. If this OP was directed towards a different group

I bet a lot more would be outraged and not just brush it off or making excuses.

[patrice]

142. There's a difference between a group that advocates for the right to marry, or for equality between

the sexes, compared to one that supports un-regulated indiscriminate potential for ultimate violence without regard to the rights of others to even know about that potential so that they can make their own responsible decisions about their behaviors and proximity to that potential for violence in public places.

[darkangel218]

149. Excuse me, but this OP is directed towards LAW ABIDING citizens and "maybe police"!!

Open carry is legal in many states, is it not Patrice? Advocating for the MURDER of citizens who are excercising their rights is completely WRONG and SICK!

I really hope the administrators are seeing this thread soon.

[patrice]

195. When concealed carry is the standard, how do I know whose carrying legally and who isn't, especially

when background checks and registration and resale are all soooooooooooo unregulated.

Concealed carry mixes good gun owners with bad gun owners and then prevents everyone else from at least having a chance to choose whether they want to be around anyone carrying a gun. At least with open carry, you have that much of a line, yes it's not determinative information, but it's better than NO information at all - and that's no information at all about a situation in which others think it is necessary to carry guns.

[patrice]

144. In case my point wasn't clear, some groups are advocating for their own authentic rights & others

are advocating for PRIVILEGE, in this case, the privilege to DO THE ULTIMATE VIOLENCE whenever/wherever THEY think it necessary.

Groups advocating for their own authentic rights SHOULD be protected. Groups advocating for PRIVILEGE should be CHALLENGED.

[darkangel218]

153. Many states already have open carry, is not matter of advocating anything!

And even if they didn't and were trying to get open carry in their states, you said they need to be CHALLENGED. CHALLENGED how, by ADVOCATING MURDER AGAINST THEM?? SIMPLY SICK!!

[patrice]

170. I'm FOR open carry, so everyone can make their own decisions about where they are & what they

are doing, including people who aren't carrying at all.

I don't think I need a gun and I don't like being in situations in which I may be wrong about that and concealed carry prevents my right to make that RESPONSIBLE determination. I could still be wrong, but at least I would have the opportunity to my rights to self-determination if my state were an open carry state.

Hell yes, I'd like for there to be no guns at all, but that is NOT going to happen, THEREFORE, I feel I have a right to know when I'm around guns. Open carriers can assume responsibility for their own behaviors however THEY choose, to shoot or not to shoot. That's THEIR business that has something to do with the fact that they are carrying a gun in the first place. Let them make their decisions and let me make mine. They get their choices whether they are carrying open or concealed. I do not get MY rights to decide something that I don't know, since the information that I would need in order to have my choice in the matter, is concealed from me by concealed carry.

Murder is happening RIGHT NOW, because of concealed carry. Tell the young lady who was blown away in my town lastnight, because of a traffic incident, that concealed carry can't result in murder. At least with open carry there would be fewer people with that opportunity, because what they are doing would be illegal.

[Niceguy1]

226. Out of curiosity

Can you cite the specific source of the right to know what a person has in their possession ? Many people have claimed to have a such a right but I can't seem to find the actually source.

[GreenStormCloud]

335. Was the shooter carrying legally?

How about posting a link to the news report? There may be more info available. It is extremely rare for a legal CCWer to commit such a crime. Sometimes it happens, but rarely.

[doc03]

161. I saw one guy with an open carry weopon and he also had an attitude. Someone asked him if anyone

was permitted to open carry in Ohio. He says what the fuck you think I would be doing it if it was illeagal.

[Bake]

162. You're pretty violent for an anti-gun person.

I suggest you get help.

Bake

[dionysus]

165. and what are they going to shoot the carriers with, a trebuchet?

[Fla_Democrat]

179. Don't suggest a hoopak

it tends to piss off some posters, and they get snippy.

[Hoyt]

177. Pro-gun, especially public toters, are pretty violent as well.

I wish they would get help, rather than more guns.

[nick of time]

182. That is an out and out lie.

Prove it.

It's comments like yours that inflame what is already a highly charged issue and does nothing to further the cause of crafting meaningful laws.

Just stop.

[Bake]

188. That's what hoyt does.

No attempt to discuss anything rationally, just lobbing bombs and calling names, making broadbrush statements with no evidence to back them up.

Bake

[nick of time]

191. And it's people like him who make it so difficult to have an honest

discussion about gun control.
I've really enjoyed reading Patrice's posts here, s/he is the type of person who can rationally discuss the topic without throwing out flames.

[Hoyt]

211. Doesn't take a lot to backup fact anyone carrying a gun has a degree of violence.

And some are callous enough to shoot people over property.

[Hoyt]

206. Simple, they carry a gun, they practice with a gun, etc. Non-violent people aren't like that.

[nick of time]

218. Another lie.

There are millions of gun owners in the country that are non violent, matter of fact, the majority of gun owners in the country are not violent.
Once again, it's people like you on both sides of this highly charged issue that make it so difficult to have an honest conversation about gun control.

[Hoyt]

223. You can't walk around with a gun, club, bomb, etc., and claim to be non-violent.

[nick of time]

234. Sure you can.

It's intent, not the object.

[Hoyt]

238. Non-violent people don't walk out door armed. They may not want to get hurt, but

They are violent enough to buy a gun(s), practice to shoot people, strap it on, etc. They are ready to shoot someone in a split second. That's pretty violent.

[nick of time]

243. More lies.

But whatever, you believe what you want.

[Hoyt]

247. Truth hurts.

[nick of time]

253. Whatever you say.

[bongbong]

239. LOL

And what is a toter planning on doing with his Precious? Beat somebody over the head with it? Shoot somebody with it?

Glaring logic FAIL

[nick of time]

245. I wouldn't know.

I don't carry a firearm. But most gun owners I know don't want to shoot anyone.

[Hoyt]

252. But they are violent enough to walk around prepared to do so.

Even when there is a good chance innocent people may be hurt, or the toter shoots when it's not necessary.

[nick of time]

255. Whatever you say.

[bongbong]

263. Really?

> But most gun owners I know don't want to shoot anyone.

That's what they tell you. In fact, that's what most of the mass-murderers & 2nd Amendment "defenders" told anybody who asked them the same question, pretty much right up until they started their various slaughters.

You have NO IDEA what they really want to do. Nobody does, in fact, frequently they don't (i.e, the "crimes of passion" done with guns that are immediately regretted)

Guns frequently turn a temporary emotional disturbance into death. That is why they are such a disgrace.

[nick of time]

265. Whatever you say.

[bongbong]

267. OK!

I'm glad you acknowledge that my point is right.

[nick of time]

269. Whatever you say.

[bongbong]

271. OK!

I'm glad you acknowledge that my point is right.

[nick of time]

278. Whatever you say.

[bongbong]

280. OK!

I'm glad you acknowledge that my point is right.

[nick of time]

282. Whatever you say.

[bongbong]

285. Getting your post count up

New strategy, I see! You Delicate Flowers are sure awfully delicate these days!

[nick of time]

290. Whatever you say.

[dionysus]

163. ask your doctor if thorazine is right for you...

[doc03]

164. I shoot them on sight just for self defence n/t

[nick of time]

168. And you'd be going to prison for murder.

Rightly so.

[doc03]

212. It was for my own protection I felt threatened. n/t

[nick of time]

222. Just because someone is open carrying is not grounds for feeling

threatened and shooting them. If you did that, you would be going to prison.

[onenote]

227. Another dime store lawyer.

Self defense laws vary but in general self defense requires an actual and objectively reasonable belief that you need to use physical force to prevent an immediate and imminent threat of unlawful force being applied to you. Moreover, many jurisdictions still require that a person still has a "duty to retreat" before using lethal force in self defense.

Your claim of self defense would fail on most if not all of the required elements.

[doc03]

250. WTF it was sarcasm don't get your panties in a bunch

I think anyone that open carries is most likely a coward that just wants to make a political statement. I don't get why people are afraid of their own shadow and have to carry a gun. I got a CCW myself just for the heck of it. I don't carry, it's a pain in the ass, a lot of the time places forbid weapons anyway and honestly I don't live in fear every time I leave my house. Chances are if I am somewhere and witness a robbery or something and I pull a gun I will get shot before anyone else. I don't give a damn if someone robs the convenience store I happen to be in, maybe they need the money. I don't need a gun to prove anything. I have seen one guy open carry in my life and he just gave me the impression he was mentally unbalanced and should be avoided. Someone asked him if you were allowed to open carry in Ohio and he had an attitude answer "WTF you think I would be carrying a gun if it was illegal."

[Fla_Democrat]

233. Really? How many have you shot in the last year?

Just curious.

[doc03]

262. Well I have only seen one I wasn't armed and I figured he was more

of a threat to himself then anyone else. He was the kind of guy someone just might take his gun away and shove it up his ass for fun.

[mwrguy]

169. See a gun, call 911

Let the professionals handle the nutters.

[nick of time]

171. And if it's legal in that state or city,

the dispatcher would ask if they're brandishing it in a threatening way, if not, then they wouldn't even send a cop out to check.

[bongbong]

244. Easy to get that

Just walk up to the Delicate Flower and ask him why he is so scared.

Make sure you have your cell phone set on video, so that after he threatens you with harm, you can have him arrested, and hopefully sue him.

I'd call that a "win-win".



I wouldn't recommend asking him why he is a "scared coward", since your death wouldn't be worth it...we know that many Delicate Flowers are ULTRA-sensitive about their Precious.

[nick of time]

249. So you would deliberately provoke a confrontation

with someone who is minding their own business? Says alot about your character.

[bongbong]

266. I'm helping secure America

> o you would deliberately provoke a confrontation with someone who is minding their own business? Says alot about your character.

Who says it is a confrontation? I'm just testing their suitability to own a gun, doing a valuable public service. What if somebody did that to Lanza, Loughner, or any of the hundreds of other Delicate Flowers who slaughtered Americans, before they did their slaughters? America would be a better place.

In fact, it appears that it is nearly MANDATORY for anybody who runs into a Delicate Flower toting in public to find out if they're a future mass murderer.

If a few words make a Delicate Flower explode, they're perhaps mentally ill, and anyways in no case should be allowed to own a murder weapon.

[nick of time]

268. Whatever you say.

[bongbong]

273. OK!

I'm glad you acknowledge that my point is right.

[Lizzie Poppet]

275. If by "helping secure America" you actually mean...

..."trolling a message forum to try and provoke yet another pointless flame war over gun control," then yeah, that you are.

[bongbong]

279. LOL

I see you didn't address my point, so I'll take it that you can't. Just an attack from another angle.

Don't worry, that's all the Delicate Flowers can manage when they run out of NRA Talking Points.

[Lizzie Poppet]

291. If you'd made a point that was anything other than utterly ludicrous...

...then perhaps I'd have bothered to address it. Instead, I gave it all the serious consideration it deserved.

That is to say, none whatsoever.

You're not fooling anyone, you know: you're not doing anything here other than the message forum equivalent of a fast and furious fap session. You enjoy tossing out grade-school inanities like "Delicate Flowers," appended to hyperbole and unsubstantiated assertions. You're trollin' bro...and not a soul here fails to recognize it. If you were doing the exact same shit from the other side of the argument, you'd have been PPR'd long ago.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

295. this one is actually kind of fun(ny)

i enjoyed getting to teach others through his/her posts...

sP

[Lizzie Poppet]

299. True

I think the first response I ever made to this poster (who I have rather belatedly realized is just trollin') was that he should laylay offoff his namesakenamesake...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

301. nice answer... i like that...

unfortunately, i cannot play any more tonight. long, fun weekend ahead and i have to get the hell out of the office so i can start it.

have a wonderful weekend yourself!

sP

[bongbong]

298. LOL

You spend a lot of words saying "I can't come up with a logical rebuttal".

Just use those eight words next time. You'll save keyboard wear 'n tear.

[Lizzie Poppet]

300. Ironic.

That you'd invoke logic while simultaneously committing a rather common, noob-level logical fallacy, that is.

Let's see if you can figure it out...

[bongbong]

302. LOL

Just say "Eight words" next time. Just between us, I know you'll be acknowledging your inability to rebut my point.

[Lizzie Poppet]

308. Clue: repeating the same fallacy doesn't make it less fallacious.

But thanks for answering my question: no, obviously you can't figure it out. Color me shocked.

I think we're done here. Feel free to append yet another outburst of giggling and shit-tier critical thinking if having the last word matters to you. Heck, I won't even bother to put you on Ignore. The entertainment value's too great. The board can always use unintentional comedy.

[bongbong]

309. LOL

> Heck, I won't even bother to put you on Ignore. The entertainment value's too great. The board can always use unintentional comedy.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you!

[shadowrider]

313. Just out of curiosity, will the professionals show up with a can of beans, a bicycle tire

or a gun?

Note for jury IF this is alerted on, one "famous" anti-gun person actually suggested using those items for self-defense.

[Hoyt]

329. You don't need a gun or two tucked in your pants if you are resourceful.

You are in the 7% or so in society that can't venture out without a gun.

[shadowrider]

340. My my my. You seem to assume a lot about me despite never meeting me.

Tell me, what color are my eyes? What color is my vehicle? How tall am I? If you can't answer those questions, you have no business, stating as fact, I'm in the 7% or so of society that can't venture out without a gun, since you've never met me.

[krispos42]

176. Shoot all men for implied threat.

Their concealed-carrying a rape weapon, after all.

[Fla_Democrat]

187. Ya hope it's concealed

/

[B2G]

198. Mental note: the key to a high post thread

is to spout bullshit.

Got it.

[nick of time]

203. Good one.

[truebluegreen]

199. Hey, I like it!

And so should the Republicans! It's EXACTLY like Darth Cheney's 1% Doctrine...you know, the one that justifies attacking someone else if there is a 1% chance that he/she may someday, somehow attack you!

The Pukes should be piling on this bandwagon, you betcha!

[Whovian]

220. Satire is a thing often lost on those with modest means between thier ears.

I cannot believe the calls for banning, internet dismemberment, and other things brought about by this post.

I don't believe anyone should be shot. I do believe in irony.

[Electric Monk]

229. A young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

[cali]

232. You haven't a frickin' clue as to what satire is if you think your op is such

Go read "A Modest Proposal" .

YOU calling others dim? That is ironic.

[onenote]

248. If you think your post constitutes "satire" or "irony" you need to go back to school

[darkangel218]

260. "I dont belive anyone should be shot".

Your OP says otherwise.

You're advocating Violence in your OP. Since w?/hen is advocating and inticing violence Satire??
Would you feel the same if some whacko was advocating shooting anti gun folks?? I don't think you would.

[Union Scribe]

319. Satire is a thing often lost on bad writers.

That'd be you.

[obamanut2012]

320. I think you need to take a course on satiric lit

Because, your OP really isn't satire.

[sarisataka]

321. Satire

[Taitertots]

221. Does that mean they should shoot you for openly threatening to murder them?

I mean you are openly advocating extra judicial execution of innocent people.

[Fla_Democrat]

225. over 200 replies and 10 recs

on a post that openly advocates violence. It has survived a jury and no telling how many alerts.

I can't think of anything to say more damning than that.

[Whovian]

261. Other than tongue in cheek comments go over your head

or that any anti gun message must be put down. Which is it?

[Fla_Democrat]

272. Oh, yea, very little anti-gun messages allowed here.

[nick of time]

287. Another post hidden?

He's on a roll today.

[Fla_Democrat]

289. Ya know, some people just don't get his satire.

-_-

[nick of time]

293. That's for sure.

[Lizzie Poppet]

294. Or, apparently, his lexicon.

Obviously anyone who doesn't know how to pronounce his misspelled, bizarre usages is an "idiot."

[Bucky]

297. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So you have to shoot all the implied threats.

Start shooting them NOW, goddammit! You have to stand your ground! Freedom isn't free, ya know.

[obamanut2012]

311. So, now advocating shooting police for carrying sidearms, huh?

[Walk away]

312. I am so happy to live in a state with strict gun laws. Apparently, we held out....

long enough for the country to finally wake up to this gun bull shit. I hope I never see the day when someone walks around my town with a gun unless they are in law enforcement or their hunting rifle is locked in a case and being carried from their house to their car and out of here. "No carry" is just fine with me. Keep your gun in your house if you can even get a license.

I spent many years working and living in South America, Northern Ireland and Cyprus during dangerous times. Why would I now want to live in a country that acts and lives like the 3rd world?

[cali]

332. I live in a state with virtually no gun laws and I've never felt even a little bit threatened

It's one of the safest states in the country. You don't need a license for concealed carry. 16 year olds can buy guns. The use of guns in crimes here is way low. The murder rate is very low. Not saying I wouldn't like to see stricter gun control, but Vermont just isn't a hot bed of gun crime despite having the laxest gun laws in the country.

[Walk away]

333. You live in a state that barely has a year round pupulation. It's a ridiculous comparison.

It's one of the most homogenous states in the nation as well. I doubt if your low crime rate has anything to do with your guns. You just have to drive for miles to find anyone to shoot. If you feel safer with a gun despite the statistical evidence....fine!
I used to vacation in Vermont but I won't bother going back if everybody is toting AK47s and proud of it! Sounds like the place has gone down hill.

[cali]

338. OK. Love how you assume I have a gun. I don't.

and I don't even know where my door key is. Haven't locked my door in over 20 years. Nor did I say that people walk around toting AK47s. And did you notice that I advocated more gun control for my state? Oh, and no Vermont hasn't gone down hill. We've become more Progressive. And people here are pretty darn wonderful and helping. Don't want to come here? That's fine. Lord knows we have too many tourists anyway. We're in danger of becoming some cute little New England theme park.

[Octafish]

336. Wouldn't that prove their point?

They've good reason to be paranoid, but helping enlighten them would be better in the long-term. Kharma-wise.

[wpelb]

341. I realize this is meant as satire, but . . .

Carried to its logical conclusion, the person who shot someone else open carrying would also have to be open carrying (at least at the moment of firing their own weapon), so someone else would have to open up their weapon and shoot the shooter, and so on, and so on, and so on. With 300,000,000 weapons reportedly floating around in this country, it could take a while before everyone was shot.

It's kind of like "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind": eventually, a bullet for a bullet is going to leave the whole world - or at least good chunk of it - full of lead.