Conceal-Carry Passes Handgun Bill in Minnesota by Channain

http://www.gunguys.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 17, 2003 8:09 AM

NONOLUNA

I guess all you can do is watch the stats...hopefully, gun related injury will not rise but if it does you probably have a good idea of why it did...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 17, 2003 8:30 AM

Not that I have a link or anything to back this up with, but violent crime tends to decrease when citizens are armed and willing to defend themselves.

And Hottie's right. Criminals aren't going to go for this, cos they probably can't produce liscenses for the weapons they already have. Permit or no, they will still have them.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 17, 2003 10:28 AM

ZELDA

Hey Channain,

As a Minnesotan-living-elsewhere I certainly feel your concern. But then again, it's a fairly level-headed state to begin with, and historically if they do something and it turns out bad, they're pretty quick to admit stupidity and go back and fix it. And it is true that criminals don't usually have a license of any sort, so that won't be where the real impact is felt.

I guess I'm saying don't fret too much. We're a relatively sane people. :)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 5:19 AM

i DO aim to misbehave

Quote:
Originally posted by Zelda
I guess I'm saying don't fret too much. We're a relatively sane people. :)

thanks, Zelda, Sarahetc, Nonoluna, HotforKaylee and particularly Succatash--the bear is CUTE!

it's true, Minnesotans are relatively sane people, with an exception here or there...there or here. as the daughter of a very pioneer-spirited pair, i support the Second Amendment. there are times, however, when the First Amendment can get a little, well, annoying.

the pastor at my church recently observed that they may have to come up with a sign: "Come in and worship, leave your gun at the door." brings to mind the weapons detector in Shindig, doesn't it?

so, not fretting, just watching the ways of the world and trying not to roll my eyes too much. gives a girl a headache after awhile.

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 5:20 AM

i DO aim to misbehave

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash
"I support the right to keep and arm bears."

that link's going in my faves

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:04 AM

Spent a year and a half delivering goods into some of the more interesting neighborhoods in Dallas, Houston, OKC, KC, etc. etc.

Didn't pack heat. (Did wear a large, barely-legal knife right on my hip, though.)

Never had a problem. Only had one situation where I thought I might.

But then, I'm a big, hefty fellow. Most predators go looking for the easier prey. Not bragging, though. There was more than one driver who got assaulted on the job. My number just never came up.

Like a friend of mine, woman I went to college with who was all of 5'1 and maybe ninety pounds.

In a not-too-bad neighborhood, walking to and from the college, twice she got chased home. One time, she barely got the door slammed in the guy's face. Thud.

So she started carrying a pistol in her purse. At the time, illegal as all hell in the state of Texas. (Texas, for god's sake!)

Had one other possible problem crop up, group of kids circling in a pickup. Put her hand in her purse, they got they idea and went on their merry way.

Had another friend, a woman who owned a small comic shop and closed at night, by herself, and usually carrying her bank drop. Texas having come around to letting peaceable citizens carry firearms, she got herself a permit.

THAT is who concealed carry is about. Those who are in circumstances that put them into dangerous situations on a regular basis should have a fighting chance. Generally, the very notion that the target might have a weapon puts the predator off.

In Texas, licensed carriers have a lower 'bad shoot' rate than the police.

There are costs associated with an armed society. But I'd rather live in a place where home invasion burglaries went to zero right after a couple of granny-ladies blew one straight to hell.

(Ironic story about my college friend. I was in a government class and debating the issue with my left-of-Karl Marx professor. His take on it was that the proposed law would allow anyone to bring a gun RIGHT INTO THIS CLASSROOM. Not true, but for three days a week the previous semester, my friend had. Along with god knows how many other women. In Texas you handle women's purses very gingerly... drop it and it might go off.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:17 AM

KAYTHRYN

Quote:
Posted by Archer:
Didn't pack heat. (Did wear a large, barely-legal knife right on my hip, though.) … But then, I'm a big, hefty fellow.

You sound so Jayneish, or at least someone who would give him a good fight.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
THAT is who concealed carry is about. Those who are in circumstances that put them into dangerous situations on a regular basis should have a fighting chance. Generally, the very notion that the target might have a weapon puts the predator off.

Damn right. I hope the legislature here in OH passes ours. I delivered pizzas for awhile. Very scary at times.

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:

You sound so Jayneish, or at least someone who would give him a good fight.

Not quite that big and hefty, ma'am. If confronted with a raging Jayne, I'd toss a chunk of steak off to the left and shoot him when he went for it.

I will admit a certain sneaky affection for the big lug, though. I've had occasion to associate with the type, and AB portrays the mindset to a 't'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 4:59 PM

And then I read your Jayne story up there, and now I feel really complimented.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 5:18 PM

KAYTHRYN

Quote:
Posted by Archer: And then I read your Jayne story up there, and now I feel really complimented.

Well, you called me "ma'am" so now I further believe you deserve the compliment.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 5:33 PM

It's a Texas thing, ma'am.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 6:24 PM

KAYTHRYN

Oh, swoon! So... uh, are you seeing anyone?

Just kidding.

Unless you’re not.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 7:04 PM

SWITCHY

Do I take it most people posting here are in favor of being able to carry concealed firearms?
Coming from a country where it's not the norm I'm not sure I understand the thinking. I certainly respect a persons right to protect their home and personal safety but isn't the primary issue the number of guns that will find their way into the wrong hands simply due to availability. The more arms issued the more chances for someone being shot n'est pas? I know this may be an unpopular posting but I have for a long time felt blessed to live somewhere where I didn't fear shootings on my block. Don't get me wrong, there are shootings here but per capita It's nothing comparable and I honestly believe our gun controls are largely responsible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:27 PM

KENWOOD

Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:
now I'm sure some of y'all reside in states that already have this law in place and I find it doubtful you're spending a great deal of time keeping your heads down.

I'll be interested to hear whatever insights you insightful folks might have.

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

I lived in Florida and now I live in Washington where it is much easier to get a CCW permit. Let me tell you it is hell. All the gunfire keeps me up all day ( I work nights ). We're always havein' to look for cover when we go
to and from the car ( especialy during sniper season ). A week doesn't go by that somebody doesn't shoot up a restuarant or fast food joint.
Not to mention the shootings on the subway. A few years ago some guy shot four teens in a subway car just for hasseling him. Luckily a local company has started selling bullet proof siding for your house. I'm supprised you all haven't heard about this since it's been all over the media that we have the highest murder rate of any city in the country.

Oh wait, I forgot, all that happened in places that don't allow concealed carry. The truth is I don't have a CCW. I haven't felt the need despite the fact that I do have the right. But my ex wife has had one for years. As a 5' tall woman she did feel the need.

Later,

ME.

Don't look back, som'thin' might be gainin' on ya.
Who let the pigs play poker?
Evo Shander was right!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 3:43 AM

i DO aim to misbehave

Quote:
Originally posted by Switchy
Do I take it most people posting here are in favor of being able to carry concealed firearms?

this is a forum for everyone, for or against.

Quote:
Originally posted by Switchy
I certainly respect a person's right to protect their home and personal safety but isn't the primary issue the number of guns that will find their way into the wrong hands simply due to availability.

I also have that respect. but let's look at the other side of conceal-carry legislation. in order to obtain the permit to conceal a weapon, the potential carrier has to attend a class and pass a test to receive a certification stating he/she has that right. however, this legislation does not necessarily make guns more accessible. as other postings here have indicated, most n'er do wells who would carry a concealed weapon for nefarious purposes would never dream of exposing themselves to official certification. they might as well put a neon sign over their apartment building saying "felon here!" conceal-carry is meant to marshall more responsible folk who wish to have the choice to carry. conceal-carry could even create stronger enforcement against those who choose to carry for unlawful purposes.

see? I been thinkin' again!

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 3:50 AM

i DO aim to misbehave

Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
Well, you called me "ma'am" so now I further believe you deserve the compliment

ever notice how "ma'am" from a Texan has a whole different nuance than hearing "ma'am" from the 17 year old at the grocery store checkout?

"I'm still flyin'...that's enough." ~ Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 3:51 AM

I have mixed emotions about our country's gun laws.

I highly recommend that everyone watch Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." It's great food for thought.

http://www.michaelmoore.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

I highly recommend that everyone watch Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." It's great food for thought.

Is it just me or does Michael Moore look like he needs to put his dentures in most of the time?

Gun legislation has been a family topic as of late. I have a relative moving to Michigan soon and other family members have been encouraging him to take advantage of as many Alabama guns laws as possible, since even if they aren't laws in Michigan, that state has some kind of "honor" clause.

I can't actually see him doing this, since he didn't grow up around them. Plus, how much self-defense does one need in Ann Arbor, unless the communism has gotten really out of control?

I live right around the corner from a gun store and have often wanted to go in and see if there were classes. More so since the non-English speaking grace-citizens that live around me have started using them on each other.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 6:25 AM

GAEBOLGA

I fear I'm about to deviate from the thread's title a bit, but them's the breaks....

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

My understanding of the Second Amendment (based on the notion of a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) is that it was intended as the 'final check' in our system of checks and balances: the government would have a hell of a time oppressing an armed populace against its will. Back in the 18th century. Currently, any legal firearm is pretty damned close to useless against modern military hardware (has anyone else seen the footage of that nutjob in LA who stole an Army Reserve tank a few years back? An obsolete tank?); this being the case, the 'final check' has been technologized into irrelevance.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it state that people have the right to bear arms to defend themselves or their property against their fellow citizens. The "keep and bear arms" bit is predicated on the "well regulated militia" bit, which is for the stated purpose of "the security of a free state," and that would seem to be at odds with the concept of individual protection.

On the other hand, the right to own and carry guns "shall not be infringed," which makes for a bit of a legal conundrum. In short, the Second Amendment is in desperate need of an overhaul to reflect both modern society and technology.

As our foreign friend Switchy indicated, the problem of an armed criminal populace has more to do with availability than legality, and the more guns that America produces and sells legally, the more guns there are available to be stolen or 'lost' (by individuals, licensed dealers, shippers, or manufacturers). Consequently, anything that increases the domestic demand for firearms increases their availability to criminals, which we can all agree is a bad thing (I hope...). According to the ATF, there were more than 3 million firearms manufactured in 2001, of which around 6% were exported, leaving more than 2.8 million firearms for sale in the US. In 2001.

At this point, there are simply too many firearms in circulation (among both criminals and law-abiding folk) for the benefits of outlawing guns to have any noticeable positive effect for a really, really long time. On the other hand, doing nothing to reduce the number of firearms America produces is simply going to land us deeper and deeper in the metaphorical hole. There is no easy answer to this problem, which is probably why most politicians seem reluctant to address it.

All of which gets us where, exactly? I'm not sure, but getting back to the actual subject of the thread, let me relate a brief interlude from my own life. Twelve years ago, I had a gun pulled on me and pointed in my face, which was both an uncomfortable and unforgettable experience. I had walked to a supermarket to buy a sandwich, and as I was walking back to work, this miserable psycho started screaming at me and proceeded to pull out a gun. Fortunately for me, a cop car was driving by at the time, and they were able to stop the 70-year-old grandmother from shooting me. Apparently she had decided that because I was a big guy with long hair and a trenchcoat, I must be the guy who broke into her house last week. In a similar vein, there have been at least two cases where nice, law-abiding soccer moms have killed people because they got cut off on the freeway.

Although these are isolated incidents, they reflect an aspect of reality that seems to get overlooked in the whole 'concealed carry' debate. If citizens want to have a shootout with the neighborhood mugger, that's their business (although hopefully it'll be in an alley far away from bystanders...), what concerns me more is the people who grab for their guns when they get pissed off. Not to be paranoid or anything, but I don't feel particularly comfortable betting on the stability of the general public. Most people I have to interact with are both irrational and stupid, and the thought that they could be carrying lethal weapons is in no way a comfort.

Of course, I live in Florida (land of the microwaved toddler), so there you go....

- Fear the badger, for it is mighty!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 8:06 AM

That's all I can take, I can't takes no more.

I'm gonna address a number of arguments here from different posts, so excuse me jumping around.

As the 'final check and balance', our civil/commercial firearms are not 'useless' against modern military hardware. The cops may not have been able to stop that rampaging tank, but if they'd called on local gangs, the tank would have been stopped in short order. Firebombs, barricades, and even small arms are sufficient to kill most heavy armor that is without infantry support. Don't take just my word for it, ask any tank vet from Vietnam to Bosnia. It's a question of how bad do you want to kill the tank, and how much you are willing to lose to do it. Our, the citizens of the USA, rights to bear arms as a revolutionary militia DO NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE EFFECTIVE against modern military, anyway. The balance remains important, despite becoming a smaller part of the entire check and balance system.

Some European countries require all males of service age to keep, maintain, and regularly train with, military grade firearms. Murder by firearm, accidental deaths by firearms, and crimes with firearms, are not a problem in these countries, yet there are guns in every closet. If availability equals crime, these should be among the most crime-ridden countries in the world, but they are not. Other European countries ban private ownership of firearms, and even, for a long time, did not allow the civil police force to carry sidearms. Crime is noticably more prevalant in these countries, and despite forbidding private gun ownership, crimes with firearms are common. While these are extreme examples, it seems clear: training, responsibility, and LEGAL ownership of firearms are good for a country; bans, ignorance, and ILLEGAL ownership of firearms are bad.

The right to defend self, family, and property is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and anyone who indulges in such silly thinking should be ashamed. Everything else revolves around the basic need and right for your security, and no government should exist without the basic duty to encourage and help provide that security. Since no government can supply a personal bodyguard for each citizen, the responsibility for self defense must be assumed by the citizen. I don't know about you, but nobody is allowed to threaten my children, my wife, my house, my friends, or me, without risking my response in SELF DEFENSE. That response will be measured, certain, and equal to the threat offered, meaning any threat of deadly force will be met with deadly force. It's my right and responsibility.

I'm an Oklahoma boy, born and raised. As one quarter Cherokee, I am tall and dark, somewhat hooked of nose, massive(my private term for very overweight, haha), and long of hair. No one has yet felt the need to pull a gun on me in all my 46 years. I have never had to weild a firearm in self defense (tho there have been the occaisional threats with toolhandles). The only shooting I've ever been involved with was during my time in the Army (which bans the possession of private firearms on base); one fella brought in a shotgun and shot another in barracks while I was on weekend guard duty. I personally feel support for the registration of legally owned firearms, although I'm very against this as a tool to ban or unfairly restrict legal ownership. As a Mailcarrier for the US Postal Service, I am forbidden to carry any weapon except my dog spray ( haw )while on duty.

Yet, despite not carrying myself, despite having not experienced some of the risky things others have, I FULLY SUPPORT THE LISCENSED CONCEALED CARRY OF FIREARMS. Training, responsibility, and legal support is gooood. Some folks get it in their heads that they are predators, that what others have can be taken, that others are prey. When the predators KNOW, for certain, that some of us folks are able and willing to defend ourselves and others, it's good. When the predators know, for certain, that only other predators will be armed, that's bad.

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:

The right to defend self, family, and property is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America.

That was very well written, Wulf. I'd like to comment on this section, and also on what Gaebolga had to say about it.

While there is no clause in the constitution that specifically says that people are entitled to defend themselves, family and property, the preamble to the constitution does say that the document is set forth to, among other things, insure domestic tranquility.

To enumerate the facets of domestic tranquility, look to the Declaration of Independence which says that humans are guaranteed certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These and the pursuit of them comprise domestic tranquility, in addition any other amorphous concepts or ideologies (peace, prosperity, etc).

Jefferson took this bit of phraseology from John Locke, who said that humans should never be denied life, liberty or property. The most fundamental piece of property is your physical person. In this manner, any and all force expended in the DEFENSE of your life and property is justifiable.

The second ammendment reinforces our inalienable right to defend our lives and property. The phrase "well-regulated militia" could mean an army of citizens defending their state as much as it could mean a father and son defending their farm.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 9:45 AM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
In this manner, any and all force expended in the DEFENSE of your life and property is justifiable.

While you would probably be justified in using 'any and all force' to defend your life, I don't believe that applies to property.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 10:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
In this manner, any and all force expended in the DEFENSE of your life and property is justifiable.

While you would probably be justified in using 'any and all force' to defend your life, I don't believe that applies to property.

Your life is your most fundamental property. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 10:35 AM

Thanks, Sarah.

Shiny, did I hear you say 'probably'? I truly hope that anyone who tries to end your life will be met with 'any and all force' in your defense. Just think of it as 'pro-active evolution' and do your damnedest, ok?

As for property, that can be a swampy subject. How many thousands of dollars stolen equate to finacially deadly assault? If someone snatches your purse, should you be allowed to blaze away with your .357? If you discover an armed stranger in your house late one nite, should you shoot first and call 911 later?

Kinda muddy. However, let's be clear: Thieves, invaders, and other criminals are breaking the law, preying on us, taking what they want. This behavior is a mental violence, ignoring the limits we place on ourselves. Make no mistake; when someone is stealing from you, they are assaulting you. Furthermore, they are usually aware of this, and often arm themselves ... to 'defend' themselves from their victims! It might not be ok to shoot down a purse-snatcher, but don't turn your back on him.

Don't be a victim, be a scout. Be prepared.

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 10:36 AM

Hooooooookay. This is what I get for sleeping.

Quote:
Switchy
I know this may be an unpopular posting but I have for a long time felt blessed to live somewhere where I didn't fear shootings on my block. Don't get me wrong, there are shootings here but per capita It's nothing comparable and I honestly believe our gun controls are largely responsible.

To each their own. The laws of your nation are the business of you and your government. For my own preferences, I will take the risk associated with civilian firearm ownership balanced against the increased security offered to those near and dear to me. I have yet to see a single shootout in the streets of Odessa Texas in all the years I've been living here. I have had an aunt working at the hospital when some local animals were making sport of the nurses on down in the parking lot on a regular basis. I had an acquaintance who got stabbed during a robbery while he was delivering donuts to a convenience store that the robbers knew was disarmed by policy.
The lesson is that when you take away the equalizers (i.e., guns) then brute force and brutality will be able run roughshod over the common person.

Polite commentary and honest questions certainly won't make you unpopular with me.

Quote:

Gaebolga
I fear I'm about to deviate from the thread's title a bit, but them's the breaks....

C'mon. The discussion was inexorably bound in this direction from the minute it was posted. A gun debate can't occur without a good "well-regulated millita" vs. "shall not be infringed debate" going down.

The primary purpose of civilian firearm ownership as a means of warding off tyranny is well established in the Federalist Papers. Additionally, to the Founders firearms were a means of livelihood, ranging from acquisition of meals to defense of homestead in the face of Indian attacks and the like.

The phrase is poorly constructed, agreed. I've heard arguments from both sides, from a Harvard semanticist issuing the analysis that the structure of the statement does not make the right to keep and bear subordinate to well-regulated militias. That's the interpetation I favor, given my bias on the issue.

As for the 'standing up to the government' bit, the whole concept has been oversimplified for some time now. Open opposition would of course be squashed flat. But in the unlikely event (at least at present) of the gov being able to field a large force of troops against the common public of this nation, they would bog down in the sheer scale of the task. Tanks are not good civil-control items.

Add to that the fact that a large portion of our military strength consists of reservists and the National Guard, and we're actually in pretty good shape vis a vis the threat of military domination. The majority of these boys and girls would be very disinclined to take up arms against their own countrymen on a wide-scale basis. Lincoln (who was a racist, fed the Constitution through a paper shredder and endorsed an atrocity-laden style of modern warfare in order to bring the Confederacy to heel.)and his successors set in motion the concept of eliminating the state-based military structure in order to prevent the War of Northern Aggression from ever recurring. Given the state of our military expenditures and the increased reliance on reserves and the Guard, we're right back where we started. To my mind, a good thing.

Quote:

All of which gets us where, exactly? I'm not sure, but getting back to the actual subject of the thread, let me relate a brief interlude from my own life. Twelve years ago, I had a gun pulled on me and pointed in my face, which was both an uncomfortable and unforgettable experience. I had walked to a supermarket to buy a sandwich, and as I was walking back to work, this miserable psycho started screaming at me and proceeded to pull out a gun. Fortunately for me, a cop car was driving by at the time, and they were able to stop the 70-year-old grandmother from shooting me. Apparently she had decided that because I was a big guy with long hair and a trenchcoat, I must be the guy who broke into her house last week. In a similar vein, there have been at least two cases where nice, law-abiding soccer moms have killed people because they got cut off on the freeway.

Although these are isolated incidents, they reflect an aspect of reality that seems to get overlooked in the whole 'concealed carry' debate. If citizens want to have a shootout with the neighborhood mugger, that's their business (although hopefully it'll be in an alley far away from bystanders...), what concerns me more is the people who grab for their guns when they get pissed off. Not to be paranoid or anything, but I don't feel particularly comfortable betting on the stability of the general public. Most people I have to interact with are both irrational and stupid, and the thought that they could be carrying lethal weapons is in no way a comfort.

As you said yourself, isolated incidents. You could get hit by lightning. You could (far more likely) get killed in a car wreck.

People don't 'chose' to get mugged, raped, beaten, or murdered. What you do when you take away their guns is take away the best defensive option they have in the face of such things.

And as a truckdriver, I'm far more concerned with people's propensity to treat their cars as weapons than with getting shot. But because some people choose to act like idiots doesn't mean you penalize the whole mass of innocent citizenry.

Wulfhawk-

I was wondering how long it would take for you to show up. But then, Oklahoma boys are a bit slow...

Referencing my above post, 'hefty' works just as nice as 'massive', fyi.

Quote:

Channain
ever notice how "ma'am" from a Texan has a whole different nuance than hearing "ma'am" from the 17 year old at the grocery store checkout?

That's because we pronounce it right. Sounds like "Mai-yam" when done properly.

Kaythryn-

My love life has "let buyer beware" stamped all over it. I'm incorrigible, often obnoxious, and 'appallingly insensitive' at times. Other terms that have been used include 'pedantic, so very pedantic' and 'completely oblivious.'

I'm also rather too busy to do justice to a relationship these days. I'm in the midst of those various grand schemes that will probably lead me to living in squalid conditions on the fringes of civilization and doing my laundry in the bathtub. Again.

I certainly am flattered and humbled though, ma'am.

Now, if everyone will excuse me I need to find a deep, dark hole to hide in before Wulfhawk demonstrates to me just how fast those little mail vans go.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 10:44 AM

Now, whare did ah put thet durn axe-handle?

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 11:11 AM

Quote:

...well established in the Federalist Papers.

Lincoln (who was a racist, fed the Constitution through a paper shredder and endorsed an atrocity-laden style of modern warfare in order to bring the Confederacy to heel.)and his successors set in motion the concept of eliminating the state-based military structure in order to prevent the War of Northern Aggression from ever recurring.

Ah may swoon.

Any man who has studied the Federalist Papers AND refers to it as the War of Northern Agression... wow.

And understands what Lincoln did to the 10th ammendment!!!

When Kaythryn gets tired of you, let me know. I'll step up.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 12:06 PM

Oh man. The axe handle means he's serious. Guess there's only one way to handle this. As soon as I can find a friend, I'll have him meet your second and we'll resolve this like gentlemen. Might I suggest Cuervo shots across the table?

And after that's all said and done, I'll have Alan Tudyk on my tail for stealing away his number one not-so-secret admirer. I'll just bet he's furiously re-reading the Bill of Rights while he sharpens his knife.

Knew I shoulda stood in bed...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 12:15 PM

I accept. Jose will settle this. We exchange shots til one man goes down. Winner pays for the tattoos.

8)

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Archer:

And after that's all said and done, I'll have Alan Tudyk on my tail for stealing away his number one not-so-secret admirer. I'll just bet he's furiously re-reading the Bill of Rights while he sharpens his knife.

Ooh. Tough choice. Were he to step in and start talking about the cultural ethos of the American Revolution, I would be, as it were, sold American.

What can I say? American History makes me easy.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 12:55 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Shiny, did I hear you say 'probably'? I truly hope that anyone who tries to end your life will be met with 'any and all force' in your defense. Just think of it as 'pro-active evolution' and do your damnedest, ok?

I only say probably because as with everything, the specifics of the situation make all the difference (e.g. someone might claim they felt threatened by a young inner city youth asking for bus fare in an...impolite manner and were therefore justified in shoot him in the head to protect his life)...it all depends on whether the actor has good reason to believe his life was in imminent danger (and who gets to decide whether it is 'reasonable')

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
As for property, that can be a swampy subject. How many thousands of dollars stolen equate to finacially deadly assault?

Hmm...I would have to say that IMO, deadly force would not be justified for non-violent theft of any amount.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
Is it just me or does Michael Moore look like he needs to put his dentures in most of the time?

Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? He made a great movie, even if you don't agree with him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
[BWhile you would probably be justified in using 'any and all force' to defend your life, I don't believe that applies to property.

I do believe it also applies to property. I bust my ass every single day for the wage that I make. If some numbnut wants to steal the car stereo that cost me 3 days wages, or the car that cost me 6 months wages, or the stuff in my house that I've spent a lifetime accumulating, you better believe if I catch him he's going to at the very least get a bullet in the kneecap. The time I spend at work is time I'm never going to get back. If you're stealing my property, you're stealing a piece of my life.

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 6:08 PM

Hooah!!

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 6:16 PM

I'm a mailman too, Wulf. What is it about us Postal Workers and guns, eh? PS what's the tanstaafl thing mean?

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 6:26 PM

KOFFEE

Quote:
Originally posted by Lerxst:
PS what's the tanstaafl thing mean?

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

----------------------------------------------
“It's a real burn, being right so often.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 6:30 PM

So true. Thanks!

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 7:08 PM

Dear Shiny, please, for your own good, pay attention.

There is no nonviolent theft.

If you give a bum on the street corner some change, that's charity. If the bum confronts you and demands money, that's violence. Same people, same exchange, same result, different thing.

It's ok to be kind, understanding, and charitable, but you must remember that every theft, even 'white collar' theft, is carried out with violence in act or mind. If the bum that demanded money on the street corner didn't get what he wanted, then what? Every criminal theft expresses a disregard for others, the very disregard that makes violence easy to consider.

I know you have your ethics to consider, but don't be a victim, don't play at being prey.

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 7:27 PM

Thanks, Koffee. Preciate ya coverin' for me.

Lerxst, I still owe you a Tequila challenge, don't I? I really own only one gun, a nice 12ga extended mag. However, my collection of swords and knives can bring visitors to a dead stop. 8)
And thanks to years of Medieval sword training, I like to think my Kukri is a match for any handgun...so long as we are in the same dark room.
I learned tanstaafl from Robert A. Heinlein's works of science fiction. Worth your time, if you got the time.

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 9:24 PM

KOFFEE

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Thanks, Koffee. Preciate ya coverin' for me.

No problem.

I was just happy that I remembered what it was. At another board I post at for the author Jean Auel( http://ecfans.com/cgi-bin/forums/ultimatebb.cgi ), one of the guys is a fan of Heinlein as well and uses that as his sig line.

----------------------------------------------
“It's a real burn, being right so often.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2003 11:09 PM

Miss Sarah, I have no doubt that Alan can recite the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, and the chapter and verse of the Federalist Papers.

Additionally, I bet he can really thunder out that whole bit about "Treason never prospers."

Bet he makes a killer shrimp scampi, too.

Wulfhawk- Y'know, all these years I avoided getting any tattoos for two reasons. First off, all those APBs and Most Wanted bits where they say "Suspect has a large rhinoceros tattoo on his left buttock." gave me an aversion to distinguishing bodily alterations. The other is the fact that I've seen how they don't come out looking that good after about forty years of wear. But the challenge has been given, and upon my honor I shall accept.

(And we know what that means... yep, training! I vow to spend the next six months not spending an off-duty moment without a bottle in hand. The legacy of my Viking ancestors is at stake here.)

Matters of honor aside, I believe you will full well understand when I say my political leanings tend to follow the path of one Professor Bernardo De La Paz, no?

Shiny- No one has the right to take your property against your will.* Simple as that. Letting someone trespass against your labors and possessions simply encourages them to take such liberties again and again, and ultimately perhaps talk themselves into worse predations. Furthermore, an intruder in my homestead in the night isn't going to receive a great deal of benefit of the doubt as to whether they're just trying to haul out my electronics or my precious precious books (as if) or perhaps harboring more malicious designs. In a civilized land, we draw our lines, and a person crosses them at their own peril.

*The exception being the accursed, wretched, babystealing blood-drinking godrotted scumsucking minions of the Infernal Revenue Service. It's a rather tender issue right now, because they're threatening to levy our assets over a Heavy Road Use Tax that we not only paid, but overpaid, and sent them documentation on, in order to receive the refund on our overpaid amount. Weeks ago we did this. Yet they call us up last week and come at us with a threat to essentially shut the company down. Some of those colorful Mandarin phrases from the show would work wonders for expressing my sentiments on the matter. Any company out there jerks me around like this, I don't ever shovel any money their way ever again. But alas, one cannot unsubscribe from the Feds. Feh. Rant off.

--------------------------------------------------

Paraphrased from memory, since retrieving my copy of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress would require a dedicated team of archaeologists.

"It turned out that we wouldn't have to rob banks to finance the revolution after all. Prof seemed to be disappointed by that."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:28 AM

Hey everybody, check this out!
http://www.strangefinger.com/america.mpg

15 MB video but worth the download. I don't know who made this but it's been in a movie.

http://www.strangefinger.com/america.mpg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:33 AM

HARDWARE

Okay, time to chime in with my $.02.

Having met the requirements for obtaining a license to carry in Massachusetts, one of the most difficult states to obtain a carry license in, I feel obliged to share some of what I learned in that process.

You can used deadly force, defined as any object or device designed to kill, to defend your life, or the life of another. You may not legally use deadly force to defend property, an exception to this in some states being livestock. A gun is deadly force. A knife is deadly force. A broken bottle is deadly force in most places. A baseball bat is not.

The supreme court has ruled that it is legal to shoot an armed felon fleeing the scene of a crime. That doesn't mean you won't be charged with a crime if you do this. It just means that the supreme court says it is okay, Keep in mind that the supreme court often reverses itself.

The supreme court has also ruled that the police do not exist to protect your life. The police exist to enforce the law. YOU are responsible for defending your life. You can also be charged with a crime for defending your life. Does that mean the charges will stick? No, but often the police have a "book 'em Dano" mentality that allows them to see all parties involved safely behind bars until things get sorted out.

Finally, true story, when I had my carry license in Mass. I carried a large frame automatic in a inside belt holster at the small of my back. I'm big enough to conceal a .45 automatic or a high capacity 9mm without it being noticeable. (another big, strapping lad.) After moving to another state and allowing my license to lapse I was carjacked. Three teenagers stuck a gun in my face and demanded my wallet, keys and car. I had owned the car for six days and I gave it up. When the police arrived I told them that the gun was a small revolver, too small to be a .38 and too big to be a .22. I also told them I did not recall seeing any holes in the face of the cylinder. The next day these Mensa members got caught driving my car with the starter pistol they used concealed under the seat.

If I had been carrying my pistol all three of those teenagers would have been dead. I would have made the assumption that since one was armed, all were armed.

If I had been carrying or not if I had taken a second look at the "gun" I would have reached into the car, grabbed my maglight and we would have played LAPD and Rodney King.

There is a "gray zone" where people with training are held to a higher standard. A small woman or man is going to be able to stand up in court and say that they felt their life was in jeopardy when confronted by three hostile teenagers where a 300 pound man will not. A person carrying a gun is held to a higher legal standard that a person without. They are supposed to exercise better judgement. Saying that because one person has not, that all people will act foolishly just doesn't follow.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:00 AM

SKULLNINJA

Coming from Arizona, where we have CCW permits (have one myself) and the right to carry in the open long before that (that's right, you can carry on your hip without permit), the hard cold fact of it is that neither promotes violence, in fact, all research (legitamate data, that is) shows that it actually lowers violent crime. The anti-gun wackos need to grow up. I'm a big man (6'4"), a former college football player, and the way I like to cut to the quick on the rhetoric is to point out that without a gun, most humans walking the planet aren't going to be able to stop me if I chose to assault them, but if somebody pulls out a gun, it puts me in the same boat with everybody else.

Bless Governor Ventura for laying down the groundwork for this common sense "right".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Hey everybody, check this out!
http://www.strangefinger.com/america.mpg

15 MB video but worth the download. I don't know who made this but it's been in a movie.

Everyone needs to watch this video clip!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 6:12 AM