[Craig328]

farrell2k, on 17 December 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

Although it's but anecdotal I can relate that I have avoided two potentially bad incidents by either telling someone I was armed or actually producing a handgun. I have no doubt that had I not been armed during the second incident that I would likely have been in a physical altercation with a guy way larger than me...and I probably wouldn't have come out of it well.

If you did this in Georgia, what you did was likely highly illegal. It's a very serious crime. You may not brandish your weapon in any manner unless you can prove that your life is in danger, or you are stopping a felony in progress. I believe brandishing a weapon is a felony in GA.

Thank you for your on the spot legal analysis. That said, once again, you're wrong. For one, the incident happened down in Tampa, FL and it happened around 10-12 years ago. It was a road rage thing where some guy driving a commercial delivery truck literally flipped his shit in the middle of rush hour on Dale Mabry Highway (6 lane road at that point). Traffic stopped, he got out of his truck behind my car, came around to my father's side (front passenger) of my car (I have no idea why) and is screaming and demanding to "get out of the car" and that he's "going to kill you". Neither of us says a word in reply but the guy gets madder and starts to threaten to punch the window in. He's still there (because traffic is still stopped) and he's getting more irate by the moment to the point where he balls up a fist and starts to (I don't know that I can describe this correctly) starts to sway back and forth like he's getting ready to slug the window.

At the time I owned a 9mm Browning and kept it in a zip case in the middle console of my car. I open the console, withdraw the pistol from the case and simply set it in my lap with my hand on it, the whole time staring at the guy. Out of sight from literally any other person other than us and the assclown outside. He goes on for perhaps another 5 seconds and all of a sudden, apparently sees the gun because his trap shut with what I'd like to recall was an audible "clop" and goes back to his truck. End of incident. According to the law at the time (may have changed since, I don't know) I was entirely in my right to do what I did and had he slugged the window and broken the glass that, coupled with his death threats, would have been ample enough reason. Thankfully, the presence of the gun meant he knew he wasn't going to be a big tough guy and slug an old man through a car window without consequences.

As for "highly" illegal, you, unsurprisingly, have no clue what you're talking about. The only thing remotely similar that IS illegal is if I point it at someone "without legal justification" and even if I do that, it's not "highly illegal" it's a frickin' misdemeanor...you know...like that other "highly illegal" jaywalking crime. Just so we're clear: the permit I possess is a carry permit. Not a concealed carry permit. If I like (and don't mind the hassle it will generate from law enforcement) I can carry the damn thing down the street in my hand and it's 100% legal (although not advisable).

Seriously man, just because the thought of a gun causes you to wet your pants doesn't mean every Hollywood scenario you've seen on CSI or whatnot is true.

[h4nnib4l]

farrell2k, on 16 December 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

If you did this in Georgia, what you did was likely highly illegal. It's a very serious crime. You may not brandish your weapon in any manner unless you can prove that your life is in danger, or you are stopping a felony in progress. I believe brandishing a weapon is a felony in GA.

What are you trying to say here? That Craig should have instead gotten his ass kicked? Or are you backing up his earlier statement that there are many laws that are retarded and should be changed? Just like he agreed with sloth over the fact that the use of less-than-lethal force will most likely land you in a lawsuit is retarded, the fact that using your gun to deter crime rather than just kill the perpetrator is a felony is also retarded. I, too, used a weapon to deter a home invasion by a group of guys who had become rather well known. My house was the first unsuccessful attempt, and also the last attempt of any type.

Some of you are fairly young, so I'll forgive your ignorance of real life. Others have never been in a situation where a weapon has literally saved their lives and the lives of their loved ones. I don't sit around waiting for someone to break in so I can shoot them. I actually rarely think about it, because I am prepared. I have two little children and a wife whom I love dearly, and if anyone comes into my home and threatens their well-being, I will kill them or die trying. I am a loving husband and father, and when compared to the lives of my family, everyone else on earth can fuck off. I put their safety first, and my children expect that from me because I'm their daddy.

This conversation was brought about by the tragedy in Connecticut, so I feel like a discussion of the preventability of the incident's logistics is warranted. It is absolutely horrifying to me, in a way that non-parents can't understand. Sorry, you just can't, and you're naive if you think you can. But I don't blame the guns. I blame the person who committed the crime. Increased gun restriction may have prevented it, I don't know. I'm not even going to argue that point, it won't get anywhere. But if that unarmed principle who lost her life trying to stop that fucker had been carrying and knew how to use her weapon, none of those children would have died. He fired his weapon to gain entry to the building, which is more than enough probable cause for her to have killed him. She charged him unarmed because she was going to do whatever it took to stop what was about to happen, and died for it. A few well-placed shots and the death toll would have been one. And the story wouldn't have made the mainstream media, because "one pyscho fucker almost caused a tragedy" just doesn't sell the same. Just like the story of the CCW permit holder who drew his weapon and attempted to engage the Oregon mall shooter (but didn't due to the potential for hitting innocent bystanders) never entered the media. Who knows if the shooter saw him or not? He says that the shooter did, and retreated afterward, and we are generally accepting of eyewitness testimony from people who hide during incidents, so why wouldn't we accept the report of someone who became involved? But the story was never officially reported. The deaths sell better.

[dorknexus]

Quote

Yea, comparing the mechanics of how the two work means nothing. They were created for two very different purposes. That is something you can't obfuscate away.

I don't think original intent really matters here. Consider that if people started driving their cars through thick crowds of people, nobody would really care what the original intent of the invention was. They'd be talking about how it was actually used. The vast majority of people drive their vehicles from point A to point B, and so they aren't considered weapons (even though they could easily be utilized as weapons). Even though people DO use their vehicles for the purpose of assault/murder from time to time, it doesn't happen frequently enough to register on people's give-a-fuck meters.


I guess the gentleman in the car was just trying to "transport" these people to the hospital/morgue.

A substantial majority of gun owners use their firearms for punching holes in paper, making clay pigeons explode, competing in shooting sports, etc. Some people devote their lives to shooting sports (i.e.: Olympic shooters). A smaller portion of owners use guns for hunting various game. An extreme minority of owners use firearms to kill other humans. Based on statistics of usage, firearms have been re-purposed as a hobby/sport in the US. Far, far more times than not, guns are used in ways that defy their original purpose (which is apparently strictly for killing).

Simple steps could have been taken to prevent the shooting in Connecticut. That guy should have been arrested for even attempting to purchase firearms he couldn't legally own (handguns under the age of 21). At minimum they should have arrested him for attempting to purchase firearms using a stolen ID. If his mother kept her guns locked up in a safe perhaps he would have never had access to them.

I'm all for scrutinizing who's buying which firearms, but once you're sanctioned by some blessed source to be psychologically sound and well I don't really think it matters which specific guns you own or where you carry them. I also think there should be strict regulations about having guns locked up in secure safes/vaults when they are not in use. Many accidents and slayings could be prevented each year if people just locked their guns up. I mean specifically safes and vaults because trigger locks and cable locks are jokes. Most 5+ yo's can bust those things off in under 10 minutes.

This post has been edited by dorknexus: 17 December 2012 - 01:09 AM

[Bort]

Nykc, on 14 December 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Or "He was always so quiet, kept to himself in the basement on the internetz and playing minecraft all day" 9/10 the kid was an anti-social emo degenerate who had hardly any human interaction. He obviously lacked any sort of morals or compassion!

Hey, not all anti-social degenerates lack morals or compassion. Don't lump me in with that murdering bastard.

Edit:
Ok, so jokes aside, I see a lot of people in here saying that gun control laws aren't the answer. I received this picture from a friend of mine in the US. Why does anyone need an assault rifle for personal defense? This wasn't the only gun he owned either.



Why should anyone outside of a country's defense and police forces have access to this calibre of weapon?

I also see things on TV, where you have people who own 30-40 rifles. Why does anyone need that many guns?

Limiting access to these weapons isn't taking away a person's rights. It is being sensible. Sure, by all means, keep your hand guns, and maybe one or two hunting rifles, but anything more than that is just excessive.

This post has been edited by Bort: 17 December 2012 - 05:09 AM

[depricated]

Bort, on 17 December 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Why should anyone outside of a country's defense and police forces have access to this calibre of weapon?

I also see things on TV, where you have people who own 30-40 rifles. Why does anyone need that many guns?

Limiting access to these weapons isn't taking away a person's rights. It is being sensible. Sure, by all means, keep your hand guns, and maybe one or two hunting rifles, but anything more than that is just excessive.

In all seriousness, here's why:

Quote

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
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.

Quote

The United States Declaration of Independence
. . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It was the intent of the founders to ensure that their revolution was justified. The U.S. was born in blood and fire, suffering at the hands of British rulers who had no interest in them beyond the taxes they provided. After the Boston Tea Party, Parliament implemented a ban on importing firearms and gunpowder - because a disarmed populace would be easier to control through military rule. This lead to events such as the "Powder Alarm", and eventually - directly - to the start of the American War of Revolution.

The Revolution began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, outside of Boston, when General Thomas Gage lead British troops to remove military supplies (firearms and gunpowder) from the American militias. Battle was met and war sparked.

In short: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms was the last straw. The revolution was not lead by politicians who wanted to control the people, but by people who wanted to be free. Enlightened men, yes - thinkers, scholars, academicians - but not politicians as we know them today. When they drafted the Constitution, it was their intent to ensure that a revolution such as theirs was justified. That their descendents would have the same opportunity to overthrow an unjust government, validating their revolt. Indeed, it is the very essence of non-hypocrisy - to accept that they are subject to the same scrutiny and response as they gave the British.

And that's why such weapons are necessary. Because without them, the government has an unfair advantage over its citizens, to enforce law martially. Now, don't mistake me for some doomsayer spouting "a revolution is coming cause they's after our guns!" because I'm not. The sanctity of liberty is protected by a shield of fire and blood. We don't enjoy freedom because people thought it would be nice, we enjoy what we have because people died fighting for it. It is our duty as good citizens to be prepared to defend and revolt. Disarming the populace only desecrates a core principal that the country was founded on, and prevent us from 'providing new Guards for our future security.'

I've heard there's going to be an assault rifle ban proposed today. I'll be disappointed if this passes, and not in the least shocked if it doesn't spark more violence rather than prevent it - simply looking back at history.

This post has been edited by depricated: 17 December 2012 - 06:37 AM

[BenignDesign]

depricated, on 17 December 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

The revolution was not lead by politicians who wanted to control the people, but by people who wanted to be free. Enlightened men, yes - thinkers, scholars, academicians, religious nut cases - but not politicians as we know them today.

[Bort]

depricated, on 17 December 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

In all seriousness, here's why:

Quote

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
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.

Quote

The United States Declaration of Independence
. . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I bring your attention to the second amendment... A well regulated Militia... Where is the regulation, and where is the Militia? To me it looks more like every man for himself, and screw the others. That isn't what the second amendment is talking about.

And your Declaration of Independence? Hell, if that was followed, the US would have civil war after every election. After all, the Republicans hate the Democrats, and vice versa. What's to stop some idiot gunning down a load of members of Senate/Congress claiming they were despots 'curtailing the freedoms of the American people'? This is where that thing Americans claim to love so much comes in... Democracy. You vote in a leader for your government, and trust them to make the correct decisions for your nation. If that includes restricting the ability to purchase highly powerful firearms that are pretty much only suited to use on a battlefield in order to help prevent schoolkids being massacred, then so be it. Why could that be a bad thing?

Times have changed considerably since 1775. Perhaps it is time those documents that mean so much to you are updated for the modern era?

I can understand your point about the government being better equipped than the citizens as justification for the right to bear arms, but if you stop and think about it, you'll see that it doesn't matter at all. A well trained squad of soldiers will be able to suppress eve a well armed mob - the army already has equal weapons at their disposal, if not better (Edit: just to clarify, talking about modern day here, not 1775). Again, it comes around to Democracy and trusting your government to do the right thing for your people.

You say you don't enjoy freedom because people thought it would be nice, but rather because people died for it. Look at the topic of this thread. Are innocent children's lives worth your 'freedom'? If a mother sends her kids to school one morning not knowing if they will come home safe, or if some psychopath is going to butcher them because he has a beef with one of the teachers, is that 'freedom'?

This post has been edited by Bort: 17 December 2012 - 07:39 AM

[jon.kiparsky]

Bort, on 17 December 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

You say you don't enjoy freedom because people thought it would be nice, but rather because people died for it. Look at the topic of this thread. Are innocent children's lives worth your 'freedom'? If a mother sends her kids to school one morning not knowing if they will come home safe, or if some psychopath is going to butcher them because he has a beef with one of the teachers, is that 'freedom'?

Every sacred cause needs its martyrs. Those kids died for your right to bear arms - how dare you make that sacrifice meaningless by not owning a lot of heavy artillery?

[Bort]

jon.kiparsky, on 17 December 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Every sacred cause needs its martyrs. Those kids died for your right to bear arms - how dare you make that sacrifice meaningless by not owning a lot of heavy artillery?

I'm glad you see my point.

Here is your right to bear arms!

This post has been edited by Bort: 17 December 2012 - 07:46 AM

[farrell2k]

h4nnib4l, on 17 December 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

farrell2k, on 16 December 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

If you did this in Georgia, what you did was likely highly illegal. It's a very serious crime. You may not brandish your weapon in any manner unless you can prove that your life is in danger, or you are stopping a felony in progress. I believe brandishing a weapon is a felony in GA.

What are you trying to say here? That Craig should have instead gotten his ass kicked?

You may not brandish your weapon in any manner unless you can prove that your life is in danger, or you are stopping a felony in progress.

This includes verbally informing someone that you have a gun and will use it, or lifting your jacket to flash your gun at someone.

I know it's tough, but all you had to do was READ.

jon.kiparsky, on 17 December 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Bort, on 17 December 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

You say you don't enjoy freedom because people thought it would be nice, but rather because people died for it. Look at the topic of this thread. Are innocent children's lives worth your 'freedom'? If a mother sends her kids to school one morning not knowing if they will come home safe, or if some psychopath is going to butcher them because he has a beef with one of the teachers, is that 'freedom'?

Every sacred cause needs its martyrs. Those kids died for your right to bear arms - how dare you make that sacrifice meaningless by not owning a lot of heavy artillery?

Don't forget about not sending your kids to school with hand grenades and a missile launcher. Every child has the right to protect themselves.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 17 December 2012 - 08:19 AM

[Bort]

farrell2k, on 17 December 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

You may not brandish your weapon in any manner unless you can prove that your life is in danger, or you are stopping a felony in progress.

This includes verbally informing someone that you have a gun and will use it, or lifting your jacket to flash your gun at someone.

I know it's tough, but all you had to do was READ.

Hmm, not allowed to brandish my weapon anywhere in public? Well, that's Georgia off my holiday list. I was soo looking forward to flashing people in the street too.

[CTphpnwb]

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Thank you for your on the spot legal analysis. That said, once again, you're wrong. For one, the incident happened down in Tampa, FL and it happened around 10-12 years ago. It was a road rage thing where some guy driving a commercial delivery truck literally flipped his shit in the middle of rush hour on Dale Mabry Highway (6 lane road at that point)...

Ok, I'll ask again:
How does that translate into anything meaning that a serious effort to come up with regulations to prevent/limit nut jobs from gaining access to guns is a bad thing? We have regulations that allow us to take their drivers licenses or even prevent them from getting one at all, so what makes guns special?

[BenignDesign]

Ok. I think this battle of who has the bigger cyber wiener has gone on long enough.

Thread closed.

[supersloth]

YOU GUYS HAVE BIG WIENERS?!