Tuesday, 02 March, 2010

1. By Bisbonian. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @08:08am:

   "John Hardy was
   a desperate little man
   He carried two guns
   every day..."
2. By scot. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @08:29am:

   Legal gun owners and permit to carry citizens are about the last people I fear. If I'm next to one in a mall or at Starbucks, I have absolutely zero problem. Actually, I feel safer. I remember an interview with a survivor of that slaughter down in the San Diego McDonalds. She said one of the most frustrating thought in her mind as the psycho went around the restaurant executing people was that her handgun was outside in her car's glovebox. Nice little poem Bisbo. You are smart.
3. By LandStander. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @08:46am:

   Yes, what we need more of is loaded guns in everyday situations. There are just not enough weapons capable of killing multiple people within seconds in our public spaces.
   
   Other places people need to carry more handguns...
   Your kid's preschool
   Bars
   Government buildings, i.e post office, court house, jail
   Public parks
   Political rallies, esp. those with public figures in attendance
   Church, other places of worship
   All schools / universities
4. By scot. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @08:59am:

   LS: Killing or defending? Honest, law abiding armed people in any one of those places would be fine with me. Haven't all these places, in fact, been subject to maniac attacks where all the law abiding could do was cower?
5. By Andrew. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:10am:

   It's startling, the number of people I've completely failed to shoot at in the 1000 or so times I've carried a gun in public. I begin to think that some - not all - of those that so vehemently oppose legal concealed carry (after background checks and accuracy testing) are the same types that would stand on the edge of a cliff with someone else and have that little voice inside their heads saying 'push... push... PUSH...' and just might do it.
   
   Having a gun in any of those places above doesn't mean in any way that have a temptation to kill anyone more than if I left it at home. I suppose you just have to be there.
6. By Mean Jean. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:12am:

   All those times you carried that gun you didn't need it. So why carry it?
7. By LandStander. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:24am:

   @scot
   Perhaps you believe this statement to be true:
   
   All people who choose to carry guns are properly trained in their use and are able to aim accurately and quickly in any variety of situations. They have perfect vision. They do not have any psychological illness, do not abuse drugs or alcohol, are not currently intoxicated with drugs or alcohol. They are honest, cautious, perceptive and dexterous. Their hands do not shake, even in the most stressful and chaotic of situations.
   
   I do not believe the above statement to be true. The difference between you and I on this issue may simply be a matter of who trusts any stranger with a loaded handgun.
8. By Andrew. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:33am:

   @Mean Jean
   It's strikingly similar to the number of days I've carried car insurance, homeowners insurance, life insurance and gone back to make sure the gas is off.
   
   @LandStander
   Well said. Obviously you're being facetious, but I get the point. I work in government about 500 feet from our local police station. I have yet to meet a police officer whom I did not out shoot 100% of the time. I also have yet to meet a police officer who has drawn their weapon who did not have the shakes or get tunnel vision. On that note, I leave my gun at home when I go anywhere where I'm going to be drinking alcohol. I do get your point, but unless you're suggesting that police officers should also not carry guns, your comments are perhaps a bit overdone.
9. By Evil Klown. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:34am:

   Wait a minute ... you mean you can go into lib-central with a gun?
10. By Mean Jean. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:43am:

    And meth-heads break into your house while your'e at work and steal your homeowners insurance.
    
    You kid takes your car insurance to school and kills 3 classmates with it.
    
    You don't turn off the gas and blow up your wife.
    
    I get your logic.
11. By Andrew. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:50am:

    @Mean Jean
    I understand what you're getting at. There is a difference. I just used the best analogy that I could. I fairly strongly resent your assumption that I would leave a weapon where a child could find it and especially resent that I would somehow kill my wife. As to the meth-heads, I suppose it's possible that they could get into the safe. I got the best one I could afford and it's 7" thick steel/concrete with a 6 digit digital lock. There is only so far one can take safety in those circumstances.
    
    The funny thing is that I know I'm never going to change your mind. Clearly your rather rude assumptions mean that you don't even care to try to change mine. I'll just leave it with this:
    
    I am a responsible man who pays his taxes, likes Obama about as much as I liked Bush, works 40 hours a week and tries to get out of the house and get some exercise when I can and cares very much about his two boys (7 and 2).
    I believe I'm being safe. You think you know better than me.
12. By LandStander. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:52am:

    @Andrew
    I'm sure there are many cops who shouldn't carry guns, and many of them don't need to. Not every officer in the suburb I grew up in needed a loaded handgun at their side at all times. In the city I live in now, I wouldn't dream of asking a cop to patrol my neighborhood without a gun!
    
    I'd like to see a larger transition towards more non-lethal weaponry (for personal defense and law enforcement). Israel has done this in military settings with great success. I suspect people are attached to handguns not just because of their use in self defense (which has a mixed record and leads to many accidents), but more because of tradition and their function as a hobby. Maybe there is a machismo factor there, too. Whatever the reason, people have ZERO interest in transitioning to non-lethal weaponry and EXCESS interest in carrying loaded handguns wherever they please.
13. By Mean Jean. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:57am:

    I'll tell you where I'm coming from. I was raised by a man who owned 27 guns (no exaggeration) and who hunted safely, obeyed all the precautions.
    
    He also liked to get real drunk and threaten to kill everyone in the house. Sometimes he'd take a gun out of the cabinet just to...make his point.
    
    He paid his taxes but he wasn't real big on keeping up with his insurance.
14. By Kishkumen. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:57am:

    @LandStander
    Not here to argue, just want to let you know that there is interest in non-lethal weaponry. My local carry group spends quite a bit of time discussing non-lethal options and focus on how using a gun is a last resort when all other options have failed. Many who carry a gun also carry a taser as well as pepper spray, and will use them first. I do realize that the common view of the gun toting hick doesn't convey these things, but most people who are serious about defense don't jump directly to lethal options.
15. By Andrew. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @09:57am:

    @LandStander
    You really almost have me there. I agree 100% with literally everything you said except that I personally have no machismo factor. I get quite somber and a little too serious when I carry. I feel there is a responsibility there and I try my best to act appropriately.
    
    Really, otherwise I agree with you and if I lived somewhere other than Las Vegas I can say with near certainty that I wouldn't be concerned enough to bother with the large heavy sweat collecting uncomfortable thing who's use would almost instantly ruin my life. Even if I shot someone who was actively shooting at me - even in a gun friendly state like Nevada - if I wasn't put away, his family could sue me for wrongful death or similar. It's not an easy decision for a responsible person to carry.
16. By Andrew. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @10:07am:

    @Mean Jean
    I'm very, very sorry. That makes me sick and I can understand your position utterly now.
    
    I grew up in a house with no guns. My parents did not dislike them or like them particularly. I was 24 before I fired one and was 28 when I was pictured in American Handgunner magazine. Perspective changes everything. My children have never seen me drunk or smoking a cigarette (though I do smoke on occasion) and the worst they've seen me angry is when Lego Indiana Jones is glitching on our xBox and Indiana won't jump to the next platform properly.
17. By Mean Jean. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @10:17am:

    We have two guns in the house (3 counting my pellet pistol). One is a handgun. We never carry them, concealed or otherwise.
    
    You sound like a reasonable, cautious person. But I fear you are in the minority.
18. By Andrew. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @10:20am:

    @Mean Jean
    Quit it. If you imply that I've in any way convinced you that people can agree on the internet you'll break my four year embargo on epic flame wars.
    
    :) Thank you very much.
19. By Mean Jean. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @10:28am:

    I'd say it's time for a group hug, but you know what Mae West said about concealed guns...
20. By Pat. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @11:19am:

    The Starbucks open carry policy will last until someone is shot to death in a Starbucks (in an open carry state.) After the next Starbucks Shooting, the victim's family will sue the crap out of Starbucks and this policy will be ended.
    
    I have no problems with someone keeping guns in their home for self defense. Castle doctrine rules. However, I don't trust anyone not to shoot me because he/she is drunk/stoned/angry/forgot to take their meds/suddenly hates life/just got fired/ etc.
    
    Starbucks + "Open Carry" = BIG FAT FUTURE LAWSUIT!
21. By Candidus. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @11:56am:

    I'd like to see a larger transition towards more non-lethal weaponry...

    
    Cops like less-than-lethal weapons because they allow them to subdue the non-compliant without getting their hair mussed, and with a reduced risk of lawsuits being filed against them. However, against an imminent lethal threat cops will almost always go for their pistol given the choice, because less-than-lethal weapons are poor substitutes when your life is on the line.
    
    Private citizens who rely on such things as pepper spray and tasers for personal protection should keep in mind that, while cops may swear by the effectiveness of such devices, they generally use them in less dangerous situations than those in which Joe Citizen may legally call upon them.
22. By LandStander. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @01:17pm:

    It is nice to hear about progress towards more non-lethal weaponry. We had a transit cop shoot and kill an unarmed man at point blank range a few months back near where I live. I can't say for sure if our transit police should or shouldn't be carrying handguns, but I can say for sure that if no one else has a gun, there is really no reason to have yours out of its holster! That's where non-lethal weapons should come in, and I hope they continue to gain prominence, and some commenters have suggested they are.
    
    I've got to add another point about gun use in cities vs towns. I initially liked what Pat said about "Castle doctrine rules" until I realized that in my old, dense apartment building, a neighbor could easily throw a stray bullet into my sleeping body while 'protecting' themselves. One of many reasons that gun policy should really differentiate more between urban and non-urban spaces.
23. By sekirt. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @02:50pm:

    When I had a job that allowed carrying a gun, I did. I drew it one time in 13 years, against a German. A German Shepherd. He (or it might have been a she) came out of nowhere and I did not know what it was going to do. Turned out to be a friendly situation.
    
    While I may not have been inside a Starbucks, I have been in countless other restaurants, schools, businesses, airports, courts, etc; Never a problem. You've most likely been next to someone carrying a gun, several times, and didn't even know.
24. By ASL. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @03:22pm:

    Most sheepherders are friendly, even German ones. Their native mountain clothing is functional, but asexual in appearence. This often leads to gender confusion as they approach you.
25. By wally the duck. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @04:43pm:

    The signs all the offices and institutions post here is: "Dangerous weapons banned on these premises"
    
    That's silly. What weapons are non-dangerous? Then they wouldn't be weapons, would they?
26. By bdn2004. Comment posted 02-Mar-2010 @06:05pm:

    One well connected punch from Mike Tyson could kill most people. I guess he should just be banned.
27. By Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. Comment posted 03-Mar-2010 @01:14am:

    I want a grenade launcher. But the fascist government won't let me. I also want an APC.
28. By scot. Comment posted 03-Mar-2010 @09:00am:

    Dangerous weapons banned. Yeah. That works.
29. By ted. Comment posted 03-Mar-2010 @09:01pm:

    a civil, respectful discussion! awesome! thanks to the contributors in this thread, I thought it pretty interesting stuff.
30. By Andrew. Comment posted 03-Mar-2010 @09:37pm:

    Ted, quit restoring my faith in the online community. It won't end well!
31. By John. Comment posted 13-Mar-2010 @09:47pm:

    I think you have more chance of dying from Starbuck's coffee that being shot in their store

Original content © 2011, John Walkenbach