Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

[Veer_G]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOUGHGUY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-weight: bold">ToughGuy, it <span style="font-style: italic">just doesn't equate.</span> In most states the training for licensed carriers is <span style="font-style: italic">shit,</span> nothing more than a morning and a half an afternoon of dog and pony about what makes revolvers and semi-automatics different and what the most important aspects are of laws concerning force in the state of issue.</span> FL only requires one shot, ONE SHOT, to demonstrate range proficiency. The only reason that I'm not more adamant in my concern and disgust with the status quo is that the alternative is letting state governments be overly informed by members of the law enforcement community, some of whom might be less than nonprejudicial in their approach to helping shape practices and standards.

After hearing what you just said I find it rather obvious that you have no CCW and have not gone to a CCW class. Your a parrot who is talking about things you have read about but have no experience with. This is why it doesn't equate for you. Many police departments only require their officers to qualify with their weapons once a year. A lot of CCW people go out to the range every month, it's their hobby as well as their safeguard. The reason this thread went south is because people who don't know shit about CCW decided to talk shit rather than talking from experience.
</div></div>

First off, I've had a LTCF in my home state since 1985, when it was <span style="font-style: italic">may issue</span>, and I've had both FL and UT credentials. I'm also an NRA-certified pistol instructor, and I've carried concealed in working circumstances that would make the hair of some people here curl, if not fall right out. Cops <span style="font-style: italic">have to</span> qualify on a regular basis, and although they may not be the recreational gunnies that CCW/LTCF holders are, they have the benefit of more specific training in RETENTION (caps since you don't seem to read) and SITUATIONAL WEAPONS DEPLOYMENT, two things that would be of great help to anyone so foolhardy as to gleefully whip a firearm out in a non-static, target/non-target rich environment. And no, I don't automatically trust people with firearms just because the state says that they get to conceal them. I've seen too many idiots on the range. In fact, I'm not sure that I may not have crossed paths unknowingly with a couple people posting in here.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

It's a right, not a privilege. I don't inherently trust anyone but I don't assume the arrogant position of feeling entitled to deny those I don't trust their Constitutional rights.

You're really fat, you don't eat right by choice, you therefore don't value your health and knowingly, systematically harm yourself. That is a destructive pattern of behavior and worthy of casting you in a suspicious light because how can you be entrusted to make good decisions when a candy bar owns you? Anything can be twisted if 'trust' is the threshold. That's why the Bill of Rights was explicitly articulated - so as to fence off the bare minimum to ensure the future of the Union.

Too many of you are too damn complacent about what you have here in this country.

 

[Guy Montag]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please don't call my boss? </div></div>

I'll have her call you back.


<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NpG0hqTt2go"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NpG0hqTt2go" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[Veer_G]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a right, not a privilege. I don't inherently trust anyone but I don't assume the arrogant position of feeling entitled to deny those I don't trust their Constitutional rights.</div></div>

Let's work with that a little bit, Sparky. Let's bounce some ideas around, sort of like particles moving around from being exposed to mysterious forces — like <span style="font-style: italic">logic.</span>

First off, this:

priv·i·lege (pr v -l j, pr v l j). n. 1. a. <span style="font-weight: bold">A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.</span>

I have the right to <span style="font-style: italic">bear arms,</span> both enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as well as my State Constitution. The common understanding hereabouts is that <span style="font-style: italic">bearing arms</span> in 66 out of 67 counties in this state means that I have the right to openly carry a firearm on foot, the 67th county being a City of the First Class, which accords it certain rights of self-governance, not to include marching up and down their tree-lined thoroughfares under obvious arms, unless I enjoy a certain <span style="font-style: italic">privilege.</span> (I trust that you'll reread the definition of <span style="font-style: italic">privilege</span> and agree with me that it fits in this instance.) That privilege is, of course, what is afforded to me by my LTCF, being the ability to drive around with it and stick it under my shirt/cloak/Nehru jacket/hoodie/lab coat/anorak/etc., and thus the difference.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

I should have known better. If someone points to the moon you'll look at their finger.

You're arguing a definition and posing it as logic. Even so, whether concealed or open the discussion is about 'bearing' and whether it is predicated on trust. It is not because as you pointed out, to bear arms is a right.

 

[Veer_G]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I should have known better. If someone points to the moon you'll look at their finger.</div></div>

Your weltanschauung seems to require a bevy of interlocutors whose processing capabilities rival that of a field of cabbage in order to strengthen your arguments by comparison. Unfortunately, I'm not that facile, or, as we might say in my field, <span style="font-style: italic">en el reino de los ciegos el tuerto, Horizonte de Sucesos, no eres tú.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're arguing a definition and posing it as logic. Even so, whether concealed or open the discussion is about 'bearing' and whether it is predicated on trust. It is not because as you pointed out, to bear arms is a right. </div></div>

The definition of <span style="font-style: italic">right</span> versus <span style="font-style: italic">privilege</span> and how they are applied <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> important here, I don't have to implicitly trust others, as individuals, with firearms simply because others might say that I should in the corporate, and in expressing the fact that I specifically distrust those who haven't had training above and beyond what is typical of those states that mandate training for CCW/LTCF, I place no strain upon the quality of the Second Amendment whatsoever.

 

[desertrat1979]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

But Veer, you don't seem to get it. If you don't agree with EH or Toughguy, the you are against CCWs, the 2nd Amendment, puppies and God.

If you are choosing to CC, then it is YOUR responsibility (I know people hate that word) educate and train to become a safe handler. Never ever ever ever will I assume that a person has done so in the same respect I will not assume a firearm handed to me is empty. You are an idiot otherwise.

 

[Guy Montag]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The definition of <span style="font-style: italic">right</span> versus <span style="font-style: italic">privilege</span> and how they are applied <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> important here.... </div></div>

I understand the distinction you're trying get across Veer, and there's no question that you haven't a "right" to a firearm in virtually every State, but "rights" are not granted by the State in the truest sense of the word. I respectfully disagree on your position regarding the "strain" on the sanctity of 2nd Amendment protections. The reality that you haven't a "right" to 2nd Amendment protections is not a good thing in my view, regardless of the proficiency or training of those possessing a firearm. We don't make such restrictions on 1st Amendment protections, let alone call it a "privilege."

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I should have known better. If someone points to the moon you'll look at their finger.</div></div>

Your weltanschauung seems to require a bevy of interlocutors whose processing capabilities rival that of a field of cabbage in order to strengthen your arguments by comparison. Unfortunately, I'm not that facile, or, as we might say in my field, <span style="font-style: italic">en el reino de los ciegos el tuerto, Horizonte de Sucesos, no eres tú.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're arguing a definition and posing it as logic. Even so, whether concealed or open the discussion is about 'bearing' and whether it is predicated on trust. It is not because as you pointed out, to bear arms is a right. </div></div>

The definition of <span style="font-style: italic">right</span> versus <span style="font-style: italic">privilege</span> and how they are applied <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> important here, I don't have to implicitly trust others, as individuals, with firearms simply because others might say that I should in the corporate, and in expressing the fact that I specifically distrust those who haven't had training above and beyond what is typical of those states that mandate training for CCW/LTCF, I place no strain upon the quality of the Second Amendment whatsoever. </div></div>

I believe you've just agreed with me. I stated trust is not a requirement. You know why? Because its a right and your view of others does not change that. So, what exactly is your point?

 

[Veer_G]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The definition of <span style="font-style: italic">right</span> versus <span style="font-style: italic">privilege</span> and how they are applied <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> important here.... </div></div>

I understand the distinction you're trying get across Veer, and there's no question that you haven't a "right" to a firearm in virtually every State, but "rights" are not granted by the State in the truest sense of the word. I respectfully disagree on your position regarding the "strain" on the sanctity of 2nd Amendment protections. The reality that you haven't a "right" to 2nd Amendment protections is not a good thing in my view, regardless of the proficiency or training of those possessing a firearm. We don't make such restrictions on 1st Amendment protections, let alone call it a "privilege." </div></div>

Let's make one thing very clear here. Man's right to self-defense is derived from the Creator, something that analysts have stated that the drafters of the BoR recognized through the wording of the Second Amendment. Our right is recognized, but its expression through concealment goes above and beyond. I don't think that state licensure goes counter to the intent of 2A as an onerous infringement, but I am of the opinion that 2A should be the guiding principle in legal matters related to weapons and ownership across the land. Furthermore, I feel that those, living in states and political subdivisions of states that refuse to allow citizens, being neither felons nor adjudicated mentally defective, and having attained full legal majority, the unfettered right and comfort of personal arms, are nothing better than slaves. And as far as comparisons between the 1st and the 2nd, I have yet to see anything resulting from expression protected by 1A that could do me or others similar harm to anything resulting from a finger-in-the-trigger expression of 2A.

 

[Guy Montag]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Furthermore, I feel that those, living in states and political subdivisions of states that refuse to allow citizens, being neither felons nor adjudicated mentally defective, and having attained full legal majority, the unfettered right and comfort of personal arms, are nothing better than slaves. </div></div>

Welcome to NY State!

I'm looking for land in PA, hopefully some day I'll be unshackled.

 

[-Nick-]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If someone points to the moon you'll look at their finger. </div></div>

You would be the expert on that...

 

[Tough Guy]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOUGHGUY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-weight: bold">ToughGuy, it <span style="font-style: italic">just doesn't equate.</span> In most states the training for licensed carriers is <span style="font-style: italic">shit,</span> nothing more than a morning and a half an afternoon of dog and pony about what makes revolvers and semi-automatics different and what the most important aspects are of laws concerning force in the state of issue.</span> FL only requires one shot, ONE SHOT, to demonstrate range proficiency. The only reason that I'm not more adamant in my concern and disgust with the status quo is that the alternative is letting state governments be overly informed by members of the law enforcement community, some of whom might be less than nonprejudicial in their approach to helping shape practices and standards.

After hearing what you just said I find it rather obvious that you have no CCW and have not gone to a CCW class. Your a parrot who is talking about things you have read about but have no experience with. This is why it doesn't equate for you. Many police departments only require their officers to qualify with their weapons once a year. A lot of CCW people go out to the range every month, it's their hobby as well as their safeguard. The reason this thread went south is because people who don't know shit about CCW decided to talk shit rather than talking from experience.
</div></div>

First off, I've had a LTCF in my home state since 1985, when it was <span style="font-style: italic">may issue</span>, and I've had both FL and UT credentials. I'm also an NRA-certified pistol instructor, and I've carried concealed in working circumstances that would make the hair of some people here curl, if not fall right out. Cops <span style="font-style: italic">have to</span> qualify on a regular basis, and although they may not be the recreational gunnies that CCW/LTCF holders are, they have the benefit of more specific training in RETENTION (caps since you don't seem to read) and SITUATIONAL WEAPONS DEPLOYMENT, two things that would be of great help to anyone so foolhardy as to gleefully whip a firearm out in a non-static, target/non-target rich environment. And no, I don't automatically trust people with firearms just because the state says that they get to conceal them. I've seen too many idiots on the range. In fact, I'm not sure that I may not have crossed paths unknowingly with a couple people posting in here. </div></div>

What no military experience? Damn civilians!

 

[Veer_G]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOUGHGUY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOUGHGUY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-weight: bold">ToughGuy, it <span style="font-style: italic">just doesn't equate.</span> In most states the training for licensed carriers is <span style="font-style: italic">shit,</span> nothing more than a morning and a half an afternoon of dog and pony about what makes revolvers and semi-automatics different and what the most important aspects are of laws concerning force in the state of issue.</span> FL only requires one shot, ONE SHOT, to demonstrate range proficiency. The only reason that I'm not more adamant in my concern and disgust with the status quo is that the alternative is letting state governments be overly informed by members of the law enforcement community, some of whom might be less than nonprejudicial in their approach to helping shape practices and standards.

After hearing what you just said I find it rather obvious that you have no CCW and have not gone to a CCW class. Your a parrot who is talking about things you have read about but have no experience with. This is why it doesn't equate for you. Many police departments only require their officers to qualify with their weapons once a year. A lot of CCW people go out to the range every month, it's their hobby as well as their safeguard. The reason this thread went south is because people who don't know shit about CCW decided to talk shit rather than talking from experience.
</div></div>

First off, I've had a LTCF in my home state since 1985, when it was <span style="font-style: italic">may issue</span>, and I've had both FL and UT credentials. I'm also an NRA-certified pistol instructor, and I've carried concealed in working circumstances that would make the hair of some people here curl, if not fall right out. Cops <span style="font-style: italic">have to</span> qualify on a regular basis, and although they may not be the recreational gunnies that CCW/LTCF holders are, they have the benefit of more specific training in RETENTION (caps since you don't seem to read) and SITUATIONAL WEAPONS DEPLOYMENT, two things that would be of great help to anyone so foolhardy as to gleefully whip a firearm out in a non-static, target/non-target rich environment. And no, I don't automatically trust people with firearms just because the state says that they get to conceal them. I've seen too many idiots on the range. In fact, I'm not sure that I may not have crossed paths unknowingly with a couple people posting in here. </div></div>

What no military experience? Damn civilians! </div></div>

No, cupcake, just a couple decades in the inner city.

 

[athhud]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

Maybe I missed something (it's easy to do in the ego clusterfuck here), but what does concealed carry (privilege) have to do with trusting an individual holding a weapon?

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: athhud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe I missed something (it's easy to do in the ego clusterfuck here), but what does concealed carry (privilege) have to do with trusting an individual holding a weapon? </div></div>

Good question!

I've been thinking about this for the last couple of days and it occurred to me that a correlation exists, at least to my mind, with driving!

Specifically, anytime we drive, there are vehicles coming toward us, immediately in front, or behind, us; all moving at varying speeds with considerable risk of terrible damage, injury or death if something goes wrong.

Yet we simply can not proceed through our travels insisting on 500 feet of clearance between each vehicle and thus we zoom down 2 lane roads with oncoming traffic whizzing past us merely 3 -4 feet away!

We trust that they will not suddenly veer into us, head on. Or slam on their brakes while in front of us, or pile into our rears when we stop.

Trust. Faith.

Yet how is this trust established when virtually every other driver is a total stranger? Excluding for the sake of argument, small towns, where one may know every driver on the road; what is it that establishes in our minds the de-facto trust we have that we won't get killed or injured from the mistake or malfeasance of another driver?

Some of it is necessity: the need to push on and ignore the possibilities in order to conduct the business at hand. Some of it is a reliance on the mandated competence that is required of all drivers: passing a test and obtaining a license.

Generally, these licenses are fairly standardized from state to state and there is a basic understanding among drivers that, not unlike anxious (but sane) airline passengers: The other drivers (Pilots) also want to live!

I post this here in order to point out my own feelings of conflict with why I do not feel trust when it comes to other strangers wielding their weapons on a default bsis: Do they have a carry permit? Yes! Ok then...

No, I simply do not.

The guys who kick in doors for a living, charging into buildings in stacks with guns in immediate contact with each other, do so after intense training. Even then, bad things sometimes happen.

A stranger drawing his weapon in any public setting, absent any obvious credentials such as a police uniform, a detective's shield or the benefit of having witnessed the whole confrontation that generated his need to draw the weapon
is not going to engender a feeling of Trust in me and I carry on a daily basis. And I can't un-know that bad things sometimes happen.

For those who do not carry, or do not own guns at all, I can't find any fault in them for feeling the same way.

In fact, I can't see how any rational person could find a <span style="font-weight: bold">stranger</span> drawing a weapon and feel a sense of trust. Nor is there any rational basis to assume that a stranger drawing his weapon has a CCW, and if he does, that he had to meet some standard of competence commensurate to that required to obtain a driver's license. And we all know how incompetent many licensed drivers are!

This windy post is in no way an effort to denounce the actions of the gentleman who drew his weapon on Black Friday. Nor those who, like myself are CCW licensees. It is an effort to explain to those who find it offensive to the 2nd amendment, CCW or gun ownership to feel a sense of foreboding, caution, or even revulsion when someone with no obvious credentials or competence draws a firearm.

Like it or not most people are fearful of firearms, are ignorant as hell about how they work and equate their use by civilians with great inconsistency. Put one in the hands of a stranger and the fear factor among them goes up.

In public settings, there is no telling the panic that can ensue. The use of them has severe consequences that all people are very mindful of. Consequences that may not be remedied, mollified or undone.

We basically have to trust other drivers and the licensing requirements, or lack thereof, that enable them to operate their vehicles while we drive ours. We have no choice if we want to proceed with our lives.

We simply aren't anywhere near that level of licensing requirements for CCW holders, let alone the daily repetition, skill and experience that would generate the same level of commonplace familiarity (Trust!) with competent CCW folks that we feel when a car is flying toward us on that two lane road.

I wish we didn't always have to fear the threat of new legislation against our 2A rights but blindly trusting any and all gun wielding strangers out of some misguided hope that this will stem the Schumer-Brady-McCarthy onslaught against gun ownership is foolishness.

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: athhud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe I missed something (it's easy to do in the ego clusterfuck here), but what does concealed carry (privilege) have to do with trusting an individual holding a weapon?</div></div>

Athhud...I had decided this thread wasn't worth my time because of the usual suspects but since you have asked a relevant and important question I'll give you my two cents.

I dont believe concealed carry is a privilege. I believe it is a right. Whether the law recognizes CC as a right or a privilege matters, because if government isn't expressly told they can't touch it then they will always try to ban it, regulate it, or tax it, or some combination of those three. Government, through law enforcement, will always either limit or coerce your choices. That is its function.

If you have the right to free speech or conceal carry, then you don't need to first demonstrate that you have a need to do it, pass a test first, pay a tax, or meet some bureaucrat's standard for exercising that right.

If you DO have to do one of those things to exercise your right, then you don't really have a right, you are in fact exercising a privilege. Privileges may be, and often are, revoked by officials with badges with little to no due process.

Your question goes to the core of the Second Amendment debate, and even our understanding of freedom. There are those, many of whom are represented in this thread, who want "freedom" as long as it is safe and reasonable. They have a fundamental misunderstanding of liberty, and must believe only government can ensure that concealed carry is safe for all by enforcing standards for it. It is the exact same logical fallacy as the anti-gunners believing gun control itself makes you safer. These kinds of laws are guaranteed to reduce your liberty, and increase your taxes. You can't have it both ways. Fortunately we have plenty of facts we can use to make an enlightened citizen's decision on which viewpoint is correct. If the government cannot keep drugs out of maximum security prisons (the ultimate expression of government control), can you depend on them to provide you a safe non-drug environment without destroying your liberty?Of course not, which is why I have long advocated for the disbanding of drug enforcement through SWAT. It cannot accomplish its goal, but does destroy liberty. Apply the same logic to the gun question. Here is a hint - your safety depends much more on the judgment and discretion of your fellow citizens than government law. Government can never produce good judgment in its citizens, it can only punish bad judgment. We have proven over and over again that such punishment does nothing to improve judgment - otherwise felons would be our most upstanding citizens. You cannot make your neighbor a better citizen by passing a law anymore than driver licensing produced a nation of great drivers.

People have tried for ages here to produce government that provides for their security for all things without infringing on their liberty. It cannot be done. You want liberty, you have to accept the bad with the good. It means there will be idiots with guns. It means you will be less safe in some ways. Guess what...you will always have those threats no matter how much of your freedom and money you give to a suit or a uniform to protect you.

We have tried the more government route, and to show for it we are now broke with less liberty than we have ever had. I'm ready to try what the founder's intended: less government and more freedom. Try it - our society won't fall apart into anarchy and danger because government was never what prevented that to begin with.

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

QQ are you really saying that you feel that driving is an acceptable risk because the government has certified fellow citizens as safe drivers?

If so I have two more questions:

Why do statistics show the most unsafe drivers are those who have just passed the government test?

Does NOT having a license prevent someone from driving, or how well they do it?

The fact is, your trust is absolutely and totally irrelevant. An individual will drive, and hit you or not, independent of your trust. You said it yourself, if you choose to live your life you will drive. Trust has nothing to do with it, and I can't imagine a government law producing any level of trust for me anyway. For example, do you know what percentage of weapons the TSA catches? Are you relatively safe when you fly because of TSA or because most people are not terrorists? Again take that logic to the gun argument.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #CC0000">QQ are you really saying that you feel that driving is an acceptable risk because the government has certified fellow citizens as safe drivers? </span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Me</span> No. It was one of at least three reasons listed why I accept that I am unlikely to be smashed into every time I drive.

<span style="font-weight: bold">KY</span> <span style="color: #CC0000">If so I have two more questions:</span>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Why do statistics show the most unsafe drivers are those who have just passed the government test?</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Me</span> Because they are largely inexperienced and have only the most minimal skill levels. Like many CCW holders.

<span style="font-weight: bold">KY</span> <span style="color: #CC0000">Does NOT having a license prevent someone from driving, or how well they do it? </span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Me</span> Answered in the above post. Certainly it does not. That said, unlicensed drivers may still be qualified and they may be fairly experienced, though illegal, drivers. And there is a high probability that they too wish to avoid a collision.

How do I assign anywhere near the same degree of probability that some stranger presenting his firearm is even remotely qualified to hit what he aims at, understands the physics involved, is acting proportionately to the threat that he is reacting to, will not injure others, has even a modicum of training, a desire to live, isn't a criminal trying to escape from an arrest, isn't drunk, stoned, insane, has liability insurance and on and on.

<span style="font-weight: bold">KY</span> <span style="color: #CC0000">The fact is, your trust is absolutely and totally irrelevant. An individual will drive, and hit you or not, independent of your trust. You said it yourself, if you choose to live your life you will drive. Trust has nothing to do with it, and I can't imagine a government law producing any level of trust for me anyway. For example, do you know what percentage of weapons the TSA catches? Are you relatively safe when you fly because of TSA or because most people are not terrorists? Again take that logic to the gun argument.</span> </div></div>

I'm not sure we actually disagree. In either case, that is fine. It's a large planet!

I refuse to embrace the kool aid. The basic fact that someone presents a weapon in a public place will garner extreme scrutiny from me. Doesn't mean I'm going to shoot him but I am definitely watching his ass while I try to make my family's exit, get my large ass out of the way and then make sure he isn't another "Joker" Wannabe who is intent on drilling people for shits and giggles.

Trust is earned over a period of time, far greater than even that which may be required to produce a Carry license by the guy with the firearm. Even so, the possession of a carry permit may be overshadowed in the credibility department by the very behavior that necessitated its presentation!

Speaking of which, on a side note, I feel there are few things in the pantheon of pathetic products than the gay as fuck Concealed Carry badge that some rubes carry around.

I support concealed carry and feel it has been highly beneficial to saving many millions of people who have and have not fired their weapons. That said, there are times and places where the sight of an armed stranger pointing a weapon at another is going to engender numerous response prompts in me but none of them include trust.

 

[athhud]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

My last post was a loaded question directed at Veer.

You guys have discussed, at great length, the point that I was trying to make about 20 posts ago. I don't trust anyone on the road to not kill me with their car. I can choose to not get near a highway, or suck it the fuck up and take my chances.

You don't have to put yourself or your family in a situation where an armed citizen might scare you with their firearm. However, if you wish to interact in the general public, you have to be aware of the fact that someone may practice a right or privilege allowed by this government. If you don't like it, leave. That is the American way and until it is changed, there is no cause for bitching about it. No one forces you to stand in a Black Friday line or drive down a road. If the risk isn't worth it, don't take it.

 

[Tough Guy]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOUGHGUY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOUGHGUY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-weight: bold">ToughGuy, it <span style="font-style: italic">just doesn't equate.</span> In most states the training for licensed carriers is <span style="font-style: italic">shit,</span> nothing more than a morning and a half an afternoon of dog and pony about what makes revolvers and semi-automatics different and what the most important aspects are of laws concerning force in the state of issue.</span> FL only requires one shot, ONE SHOT, to demonstrate range proficiency. The only reason that I'm not more adamant in my concern and disgust with the status quo is that the alternative is letting state governments be overly informed by members of the law enforcement community, some of whom might be less than nonprejudicial in their approach to helping shape practices and standards.

After hearing what you just said I find it rather obvious that you have no CCW and have not gone to a CCW class. Your a parrot who is talking about things you have read about but have no experience with. This is why it doesn't equate for you. Many police departments only require their officers to qualify with their weapons once a year. A lot of CCW people go out to the range every month, it's their hobby as well as their safeguard. The reason this thread went south is because people who don't know shit about CCW decided to talk shit rather than talking from experience.
</div></div>

First off, I've had a LTCF in my home state since 1985, when it was <span style="font-style: italic">may issue</span>, and I've had both FL and UT credentials. I'm also an NRA-certified pistol instructor, and I've carried concealed in working circumstances that would make the hair of some people here curl, if not fall right out. Cops <span style="font-style: italic">have to</span> qualify on a regular basis, and although they may not be the recreational gunnies that CCW/LTCF holders are, they have the benefit of more specific training in RETENTION (caps since you don't seem to read) and SITUATIONAL WEAPONS DEPLOYMENT, two things that would be of great help to anyone so foolhardy as to gleefully whip a firearm out in a non-static, target/non-target rich environment. And no, I don't automatically trust people with firearms just because the state says that they get to conceal them. I've seen too many idiots on the range. In fact, I'm not sure that I may not have crossed paths unknowingly with a couple people posting in here. </div></div>

What no military experience? Damn civilians! </div></div>

No, cupcake, just a couple decades in the inner city. </div></div>

OH WOW! That's the place where you have to get your jungle training at Walmart. Scary stuff.

 

[Veer_G]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: athhud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My last post was a loaded question directed at Veer.

You guys have discussed, at great length, the point that I was trying to make about 20 posts ago. I don't trust anyone on the road to not kill me with their car. I can choose to not get near a highway, or suck it the fuck up and take my chances.

You don't have to put yourself or your family in a situation where an armed citizen might scare you with their firearm. However, if you wish to interact in the general public, you have to be aware of the fact that someone may practice a right or privilege allowed by this government. If you don't like it, leave. That is the American way and until it is changed, there is no cause for bitching about it. No one forces you to stand in a Black Friday line or drive down a road. If the risk isn't worth it, don't take it. </div></div>

Sorry if I missed your less-than-obvious troll.

The issue here isn't fear. The issue is that being in proximity to a completely unknown party who has just drawn a firearm in response to violent stimuli doesn't require one iota of trust on my part. Not one.

Your comparison to driving a vehicle in the company of other motorists similarly engaged on the road is weak at best. There is nothing in the continuum of acquiring a firearm, purchased or issued, carrying it, shooting it on static ranges, or even shooting it in dynamic force-on-force training that comes close to being face-to-face with someone with a weapon in their hand and possibly intent on using it in your presence.

Andy Rooney wrote a great essay all about driving and the social contract. I'm going to share it with you, just to do some good and perhaps to make myself feel a bit better about teeing off on you in a mild fashion. Here goes:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">In and of Ourselves We Trust</span>

By Andy Rooney

Last night I was driving from Harrisburg to Lewisburg, PA., a distance of about 80 miles. It was late, I was late, and if anyone asked me how fast I was driving, I’d have to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination.
At one point along an open highway, I came to a crossroads with a traffic light. I was alone on the road by now, but as I approached the light, it turned red, and I braked to a halt. I looked left, right, and behind me. Nothing. Not a car, no suggestion of headlights, but there I sat, waiting for the light to change, the only human being for at least a mile in any direction.
I started wondering why I refused to run the light. I was not afraid of being arrested, because there was obviously no cop anywhere around and there certainly would have been no danger in going through it.
Much later that night, after I’d met with a group in Lewisburg and had climbed into bed near midnight, the question of why I’d stopped for that light came back to me. I think I stopped because it’s part of a contract we all have with each other. It’s not only the law, but it’s an agreement we have, and we trust each other to honor it: We don’t go through red lights. Like most of us, I’m more apt to be restrained from doing something bad by the social convention that disapproves of it than by any law against it.
It’s amazing that we ever trust each other to do the right thing, isn’t it? And we do, too. Trust is our first inclination. We have to make a deliberate decision to mistrust someone or to be suspicious or skeptical.
It’s a darn good thing, too, because the whole structure of our society depends on mutual trust, not distrust. This whole thing we have going for us would fall apart if we didn’t trust each other most of the time. In Italy they have an awful time getting any money for the government because many people just plain don’t pay their income tax. Here, the Internal Revenue Service makes some gestures toward enforcing the law, but mostly they just have to trust that we’ll pay what we owe. There has often been talk of a tax revolt in this country, most recently among unemployed auto workers in Michigan, and our government pretty much admits that if there were a widespread tax revolt here, they wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.
We do what we say we’ll do. We show up when we say we’ll show up.
I was so proud of myself for stopping for that red light. And inasmuch as no one would ever have known what a good person I was on the road from Harrisburg to Lewisburg, I had to tell someone.</div></div>

You see, dear Thuddy, when most people find themselves gun in hand, post-punch, they're way out there beyond the understood bounds of social contracts and conventions in a cold, strange, unknown territory. Not everyone is equally capable of handling it. It's not the same as the idea that people will hopefully sit there at a steady red light in the middle of a lonely country night, nor is it anywhere close to the learned, repeated activity involved in guiding a car down the road and calmly staying within a single traffic lane, without intersecting someone else's path of travel. Drawing a firearm in public is nigh unto the edge of a cataclysmic event that happens a lot less frequently than the daily commute or the weekly trip to the Piggly-Wiggly.

I trust other drivers enough to get into my car and go from Point A to Point B, but I keep an eye on them all the same. I'll assume that they have had similar experiences to mine in learning how to drive, and I'll hope that they have insurance to cover me if their brakes fail, if they take their eyes off the road, or they're just miserable, irresponsible shits who decided to go DUIing that day. But no, I don't have any similar level of trust in the ability or mental state of someone standing there, gun in hand, nor are there the same insurance mechanisms in place, nor is there even the remote iron-clad probability that they will react in a professional and predictable fashion in keeping with laws concerning continuum of force or avoiding menace to bystanders.

So, I venture out, keys in hand, get behind the wheel, and think to myself, as I look at the other drivers, "Take it easy driving – the life you save may be mine." James Dean was right.

Happy motoring, Thuddy.

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

Ok finally some progress in the thread - and without the unnecessary vitriol.

Thanks QQ, it seemed to me as if you were implying that we should require more rigorous testing and standards for carrying, and with your clarification I see you were not, and were just explaining why a CCW doesn't mean you trust someone.

I was saying you don't really have rights if you have to ask permission for them...but may accidentally implied I trust someone just because they carry. I do not necessarily trust them, but I do acknowledge their right to do it. Looks like we are on the same page after all.

Funny how that works, this thing called a civil conversation.

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: athhud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My last post was a loaded question directed at Veer.

You guys have discussed, at great length, the point that I was trying to make about 20 posts ago. I don't trust anyone on the road to not kill me with their car. I can choose to not get near a highway, or suck it the fuck up and take my chances.

You don't have to put yourself or your family in a situation where an armed citizen might scare you with their firearm. However, if you wish to interact in the general public, you have to be aware of the fact that someone may practice a right or privilege allowed by this government. If you don't like it, leave. That is the American way and until it is changed, there is no cause for bitching about it. No one forces you to stand in a Black Friday line or drive down a road. If the risk isn't worth it, don't take it. </div></div>

Sorry if I missed your less-than-obvious troll.

The issue here isn't fear. The issue is that being in proximity to a completely unknown party who has just drawn a firearm in response to violent stimuli doesn't require one iota of trust on my part. Not one.

Your comparison to driving a vehicle in the company of other motorists similarly engaged on the road is weak at best. There is nothing in the continuum of acquiring a firearm, purchased or issued, carrying it, shooting it on static ranges, or even shooting it in dynamic force-on-force training that comes close to being face-to-face with someone with a weapon in their hand and possibly intent on using it in your presence.

Andy Rooney wrote a great essay all about driving and the social contract. I'm going to share it with you, just to do some good and perhaps to make myself feel a bit better about teeing off on you in a mild fashion. Here goes:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">In and of Ourselves We Trust</span>

By Andy Rooney

Last night I was driving from Harrisburg to Lewisburg, PA., a distance of about 80 miles. It was late, I was late, and if anyone asked me how fast I was driving, I’d have to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination.
At one point along an open highway, I came to a crossroads with a traffic light. I was alone on the road by now, but as I approached the light, it turned red, and I braked to a halt. I looked left, right, and behind me. Nothing. Not a car, no suggestion of headlights, but there I sat, waiting for the light to change, the only human being for at least a mile in any direction.
I started wondering why I refused to run the light. I was not afraid of being arrested, because there was obviously no cop anywhere around and there certainly would have been no danger in going through it.
Much later that night, after I’d met with a group in Lewisburg and had climbed into bed near midnight, the question of why I’d stopped for that light came back to me. I think I stopped because it’s part of a contract we all have with each other. It’s not only the law, but it’s an agreement we have, and we trust each other to honor it: We don’t go through red lights. Like most of us, I’m more apt to be restrained from doing something bad by the social convention that disapproves of it than by any law against it.
It’s amazing that we ever trust each other to do the right thing, isn’t it? And we do, too. Trust is our first inclination. We have to make a deliberate decision to mistrust someone or to be suspicious or skeptical.
It’s a darn good thing, too, because the whole structure of our society depends on mutual trust, not distrust. This whole thing we have going for us would fall apart if we didn’t trust each other most of the time. In Italy they have an awful time getting any money for the government because many people just plain don’t pay their income tax. Here, the Internal Revenue Service makes some gestures toward enforcing the law, but mostly they just have to trust that we’ll pay what we owe. There has often been talk of a tax revolt in this country, most recently among unemployed auto workers in Michigan, and our government pretty much admits that if there were a widespread tax revolt here, they wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.
We do what we say we’ll do. We show up when we say we’ll show up.
I was so proud of myself for stopping for that red light. And inasmuch as no one would ever have known what a good person I was on the road from Harrisburg to Lewisburg, I had to tell someone.</div></div>

You see, dear Thuddy, when most people find themselves gun in hand, post-punch, they're way out there beyond the understood bounds of social contracts and conventions in a cold, strange, unknown territory. Not everyone is equally capable of handling it. It's not the same as the idea that people will hopefully sit there at a steady red light in the middle of a lonely country night, nor is it anywhere close to the learned, repeated activity involved in guiding a car down the road and calmly staying within a single traffic lane, without intersecting someone else's path of travel. Drawing a firearm in public is nigh unto the edge of a cataclysmic event that happens a lot less frequently than the daily commute or the weekly trip to the Piggly-Wiggly.

I trust other drivers enough to get into my car and go from Point A to Point B, but I keep an eye on them all the same. I'll assume that they have had similar experiences to mine in learning how to drive, and I'll hope that they have insurance to cover me if their brakes fail, if they take their eyes off the road, or they're just miserable, irresponsible shits who decided to go DUIing that day. But no, I don't have any similar level of trust in the ability or mental state of someone standing there, gun in hand, nor are there the same insurance mechanisms in place, nor is there even the remote possibility that they will react in a professional and predictable fashion in keeping with laws concerning continuum of force or avoiding menace to bystanders.

So, I venture out, keys in hand, get behind the wheel, and think to myself, as I look at the other drivers, "Take it easy driving – the life you save may be mine." James Dean was right.

Happy motoring, Thuddy.

</div></div>

Sounds good Veer. I still believe the man had a right to do what he did....but that doesn't mean we can't scrutinize and critique his actions to see if there was a better solution. Just because we have a right to do something doesn't mean it is what we should do. I get that too.

 

[athhud]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

Veer, if you think one person stopping at a red light warrants a universal trust for all drivers then I really can't have an intelligent conversation with you. How many traffic accidents are caused by a motorist doing something they shouldn't? How many innocent bystanders are shot by accident by an inexperienced civilian? You really think the odds of a motorist betraying your trust are as low as your little story implies? I hope you feel warm and fuzzy about "teeing off". I got a chuckle.... To blow a hole in your little testament to trust, I'll run that red light every time. You can't trust me.

Edit: You didn't even address my trolling. Why did you feel the need to educate EH on the definition of privilege when he made no reference to any privilege?

 

[Veer_G]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: athhud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Veer, if you think one person stopping at a red light warrants a universal trust for all drivers then I really can't have an intelligent conversation with you. How many traffic accidents are caused by a motorist doing something they shouldn't? How many innocent bystanders are shot by accident by an inexperienced civilian? You really think the odds of a motorist betraying your trust are as low as your little story implies? I hope you feel warm and fuzzy about "teeing off". I got a chuckle.... To blow a hole in your little testament to trust, I'll run that red light every time. You can't trust me.

Edit: You didn't even address my trolling. Why did you feel the need to educate EH on the definition of privilege when he made no reference to any privilege? </div></div>

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I made no such comparison nor did I make any such logical construct. You brought up the motoring bit, and I simply played along. Lots of people die on the highway, but even more survive the daily grind to drive another day. How many have to deal with a drawn handgun in a stressful situation? And really, Thuddy, what would be the point of addressing your trolling? Others have noted it — and be careful with those red lights. Highways, like firearms, are dangerous when utilized by idiots.

<span style="font-weight: bold">E.T.A.:</span>

I do hope you yourself don't drive. Ray Charles is dead eight years and sees better than you do.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">It's a right, not a privilege.</span> I don't inherently trust anyone but I don't assume the arrogant position of feeling entitled to deny those I don't trust their Constitutional rights.</div></div>

Let's work with that a little bit, Sparky. Let's bounce some ideas around, sort of like particles moving around from being exposed to mysterious forces — like <span style="font-style: italic">logic.</span>

First off, this:

priv·i·lege (pr v -l j, pr v l j). n. 1. a. <span style="font-weight: bold">A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.</span>

I have the right to <span style="font-style: italic">bear arms,</span> both enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as well as my State Constitution. The common understanding hereabouts is that <span style="font-style: italic">bearing arms</span> in 66 out of 67 counties in this state means that I have the right to openly carry a firearm on foot, the 67th county being a City of the First Class, which accords it certain rights of self-governance, not to include marching up and down their tree-lined thoroughfares under obvious arms, unless I enjoy a certain <span style="font-style: italic">privilege.</span> (I trust that you'll reread the definition of <span style="font-style: italic">privilege</span> and agree with me that it fits in this instance.) That privilege is, of course, what is afforded to me by my LTCF, being the ability to drive around with it and stick it under my shirt/cloak/Nehru jacket/hoodie/lab coat/anorak/etc., and thus the difference.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3733397#Post3733397</div></div>

Again, a suggestion: learn to read what's actually written, not what you manage or would prefer to intuit. Enough from me. Go and play ding-and-ditch in the wake of someone else's posts.

 

[Tough Guy]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: athhud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Veer, if you think one person stopping at a red light warrants a universal trust for all drivers then I really can't have an intelligent conversation with you. How many traffic accidents are caused by a motorist doing something they shouldn't? How many innocent bystanders are shot by accident by an inexperienced civilian? You really think the odds of a motorist betraying your trust are as low as your little story implies? I hope you feel warm and fuzzy about "teeing off". I got a chuckle.... To blow a hole in your little testament to trust, I'll run that red light every time. You can't trust me.

</div></div>

I highly doubt you even understood what veer was talking about. If you didn't trust it would be because you spend all your time in a closet typing on a keyboard. How many red lights you got in your closet anyway?

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: athhud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My last post was a loaded question directed at Veer.

You guys have discussed, at great length, the point that I was trying to make about 20 posts ago. I don't trust anyone on the road to not kill me with their car. I can choose to not get near a highway, or suck it the fuck up and take my chances.

You don't have to put yourself or your family in a situation where an armed citizen might scare you with their firearm. However, if you wish to interact in the general public, you have to be aware of the fact that someone may practice a right or privilege allowed by this government. If you don't like it, leave. That is the American way and until it is changed, there is no cause for bitching about it. No one forces you to stand in a Black Friday line or drive down a road. If the risk isn't worth it, don't take it. </div></div>

Sorry if I missed your less-than-obvious troll.

The issue here isn't fear. The issue is that being in proximity to a completely unknown party who has just drawn a firearm in response to violent stimuli doesn't require one iota of trust on my part. Not one.

Your comparison to driving a vehicle in the company of other motorists similarly engaged on the road is weak at best. There is nothing in the continuum of acquiring a firearm, purchased or issued, carrying it, shooting it on static ranges, or even shooting it in dynamic force-on-force training that comes close to being face-to-face with someone with a weapon in their hand and possibly intent on using it in your presence.

Andy Rooney wrote a great essay all about driving and the social contract. I'm going to share it with you, just to do some good and perhaps to make myself feel a bit better about teeing off on you in a mild fashion. Here goes:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">In and of Ourselves We Trust</span>

By Andy Rooney

Last night I was driving from Harrisburg to Lewisburg, PA., a distance of about 80 miles. It was late, I was late, and if anyone asked me how fast I was driving, I’d have to plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination.
At one point along an open highway, I came to a crossroads with a traffic light. I was alone on the road by now, but as I approached the light, it turned red, and I braked to a halt. I looked left, right, and behind me. Nothing. Not a car, no suggestion of headlights, but there I sat, waiting for the light to change, the only human being for at least a mile in any direction.
I started wondering why I refused to run the light. I was not afraid of being arrested, because there was obviously no cop anywhere around and there certainly would have been no danger in going through it.
Much later that night, after I’d met with a group in Lewisburg and had climbed into bed near midnight, the question of why I’d stopped for that light came back to me. I think I stopped because it’s part of a contract we all have with each other. It’s not only the law, but it’s an agreement we have, and we trust each other to honor it: We don’t go through red lights. Like most of us, I’m more apt to be restrained from doing something bad by the social convention that disapproves of it than by any law against it.
It’s amazing that we ever trust each other to do the right thing, isn’t it? And we do, too. Trust is our first inclination. We have to make a deliberate decision to mistrust someone or to be suspicious or skeptical.
It’s a darn good thing, too, because the whole structure of our society depends on mutual trust, not distrust. This whole thing we have going for us would fall apart if we didn’t trust each other most of the time. In Italy they have an awful time getting any money for the government because many people just plain don’t pay their income tax. Here, the Internal Revenue Service makes some gestures toward enforcing the law, but mostly they just have to trust that we’ll pay what we owe. There has often been talk of a tax revolt in this country, most recently among unemployed auto workers in Michigan, and our government pretty much admits that if there were a widespread tax revolt here, they wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.
We do what we say we’ll do. We show up when we say we’ll show up.
I was so proud of myself for stopping for that red light. And inasmuch as no one would ever have known what a good person I was on the road from Harrisburg to Lewisburg, I had to tell someone.</div></div>

You see, dear Thuddy, when most people find themselves gun in hand, post-punch, they're way out there beyond the understood bounds of social contracts and conventions in a cold, strange, unknown territory. Not everyone is equally capable of handling it. It's not the same as the idea that people will hopefully sit there at a steady red light in the middle of a lonely country night, nor is it anywhere close to the learned, repeated activity involved in guiding a car down the road and calmly staying within a single traffic lane, without intersecting someone else's path of travel. Drawing a firearm in public is nigh unto the edge of a cataclysmic event that happens a lot less frequently than the daily commute or the weekly trip to the Piggly-Wiggly.

I trust other drivers enough to get into my car and go from Point A to Point B, but I keep an eye on them all the same. I'll assume that they have had similar experiences to mine in learning how to drive, and I'll hope that they have insurance to cover me if their brakes fail, if they take their eyes off the road, or they're just miserable, irresponsible shits who decided to go DUIing that day. But no, I don't have any similar level of trust in the ability or mental state of someone standing there, gun in hand, nor are there the same insurance mechanisms in place, nor is there even the remote possibility that they will react in a professional and predictable fashion in keeping with laws concerning continuum of force or avoiding menace to bystanders.

So, I venture out, keys in hand, get behind the wheel, and think to myself, as I look at the other drivers, "Take it easy driving – the life you save may be mine." James Dean was right.

Happy motoring, Thuddy.

</div></div>

Sounds good Veer. I still believe the man had a right to do what he did....but that doesn't mean we can't scrutinize and critique his actions to see if there was a better solution. Just because we have a right to do something doesn't mean it is what we should do. I get that too. </div></div>

We've taken a long road to state the obvious - trust is irrelevant to a right. The man had a right to defend himself, he had a right to use his firearm to protect himself from further physical harm. To suggest - as has been stated - that simply because he was in a crowd he loses those rights is wrong. He didn't fire blindly, he didn't pull on the whole crowd and according to the Sgt. on the scene didn't even point it at his assailant.

Yet, it's been suggest those those who would do as he did should be viewed with extreme prejudice in regards to being able to have firearms. We've gone from 'breaking jaws and smashing heads through walls' as a better alternative to trust issues without addressing the key point - one that the San Antonio PD saw immediately - the victim did nothing wrong.

I would be scared and worried for my family if I was amongst those shoppers but my anger would be directed to the man who threw the punch.

I understand and see the intentions of some but others - well, you can feel free to do and react however you want to being attacked, just don't think you're entitled to force me to do the same.

 

[Veer_G]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

Local follow-up on the incident:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/news_co...gns-4068393.php

 

[Slapchop]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Funny how that works, this thing called a civil conversation. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idiocy on display here far outweighs a black Friday sale, and is an embarrassment to the gun community.</div></div>

Funny indeed.

 

[Slapchop]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We've taken a long road to state the obvious - trust is irrelevant to a right. The man had a right to defend himself, he had a right to use his firearm to protect himself from further physical harm. To suggest - as has been stated - that simply because he was in a crowd he loses those rights is wrong. He didn't fire blindly, he didn't pull on the whole crowd and according to the Sgt. on the scene didn't even point it at his assailant.

Yet, it's been suggest those those who would do as he did should be viewed with extreme prejudice in regards to being able to have firearms. We've gone from 'breaking jaws and smashing heads through walls' as a better alternative to trust issues without addressing the key point - one that the San Antonio PD saw immediately - the victim did nothing wrong.

I would be scared and worried for my family if I was amongst those shoppers but my anger would be directed to the man who threw the punch.

I understand and see the intentions of some but others - well, you can feel free to do and react however you want to being attacked, just don't think you're entitled to force me to do the same. </div></div>

Two things, I can only speak for myself but I never said that the man didn't have a right to defend himself nor did I ever question the legality of what he did given where he was. From the get go, my only opinion was that given the situation and I read it, he used poor judgement and my opinion stands. Of course the usual pundits including yourself take what I say out of context and as an attack on the 2nd amendment.

Secondly, it seems as though all of a sudden you want to take as gospel, the word of a cop who wasn't at the scene at the time this went down. Who knows, perhaps he saw video of the incident and this guy really did point his weapon at no one. But it seems as though several people who where there as this was unfolding right next to them and around them say that he indeed point his weapon at his attacker and in doing so several of the shoppers as well. Thus causing them to hit the deck or run for cover. If the latter is indeed what happened, that is what I take issue with and like I said in my first post, this is why I avoid Black Friday mobs like the plague.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We've taken a long road to state the obvious - trust is irrelevant to a right. The man had a right to defend himself, he had a right to use his firearm to protect himself from further physical harm. To suggest - as has been stated - that simply because he was in a crowd he loses those rights is wrong. He didn't fire blindly, he didn't pull on the whole crowd and according to the Sgt. on the scene didn't even point it at his assailant.

Yet, it's been suggest those those who would do as he did should be viewed with extreme prejudice in regards to being able to have firearms. We've gone from 'breaking jaws and smashing heads through walls' as a better alternative to trust issues without addressing the key point - one that the San Antonio PD saw immediately - the victim did nothing wrong.

I would be scared and worried for my family if I was amongst those shoppers but my anger would be directed to the man who threw the punch.

I understand and see the intentions of some but others - well, you can feel free to do and react however you want to being attacked, just don't think you're entitled to force me to do the same. </div></div>

I stand by my clobbering suggestion. There is much to be lamented at the passing of the era of classical boxing and wrestling skills in the public arena.

While I'm aware of the possibilities that exist in "mixing it up" in fisticuffs with a stranger, it is more than passing inconsistency to ridicule a striking or grappling response to a confrontation in a crowded environment while endorsing the vastly greater force response of presenting or discharging a firearm in the very same circumstances of this discussion/subject.

Not a slight against CCW mind you, just a suggestion that a continuum often exists between being hammered into a paste by a criminal and shooting him where the accidental shooting of bystanders is highly probable.

By contrast, here is a case that occurred 25 years ago, right here in Tampa.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...GxQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9FkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5255,2847263

Hosing this bastard down, even in the crowd of shoppers trapped in the check out line, might have saved 5 lives and prevented the grievous injuring of a dozen more. But timing is everything and shooting after the gas was doused, may have ignited it.

What to do...

Sorry about the appearance of Monday Morning QB'ing but decisive aggression in the face of offensive behavior is often very constructive in diffusing far worse outcomes. As is situational awareness. And of course avoiding areas of high friction (Or nuisance) in the first place! And I'll even admit that on the measure of decisive action, the inclusion of drawing one's firearm may fit that template! Again, what to do...

My concern in the OP's case is specifically in regards to the crowd present and the possibility that several response
options were by-passed in favor of drawing his pistol.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We've taken a long road to state the obvious - trust is irrelevant to a right. The man had a right to defend himself, he had a right to use his firearm to protect himself from further physical harm. To suggest - as has been stated - that simply because he was in a crowd he loses those rights is wrong. He didn't fire blindly, he didn't pull on the whole crowd and according to the Sgt. on the scene didn't even point it at his assailant.

Yet, it's been suggest those those who would do as he did should be viewed with extreme prejudice in regards to being able to have firearms. We've gone from 'breaking jaws and smashing heads through walls' as a better alternative to trust issues without addressing the key point - one that the San Antonio PD saw immediately - the victim did nothing wrong.

I would be scared and worried for my family if I was amongst those shoppers but my anger would be directed to the man who threw the punch.

I understand and see the intentions of some but others - well, you can feel free to do and react however you want to being attacked, just don't think you're entitled to force me to do the same. </div></div>

I stand by my clobbering suggestion. There is much to be lamented at the passing of the era of classical boxing and wrestling skills in the public arena.

While I'm aware of the possibilities that exist in "mixing it up" in fisticuffs with a stranger, it is more than passing inconsistency to ridicule a striking or grappling response to a confrontation in a crowded environment while endorsing the vastly greater force response of presenting or discharging a firearm in the very same circumstances of this discussion/subject.

Not a slight against CCW mind you, just a suggestion that a continuum often exists between being hammered into a paste by a criminal and shooting him where the accidental shooting of bystanders is highly probable.

By contrast, here is a case that occurred 25 years ago, right here in Tampa.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...GxQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9FkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5255,2847263

Hosing this bastard down, even in the crowd of shoppers trapped in the check out line, might have saved 5 lives and prevented the grievous injuring of a dozen more. But timing is everything and shooting after the gas was doused, may have ignited it.

What to do...

Sorry about the appearance of Monday Morning QB'ing but decisive aggression in the face of offensive behavior is often very constructive in diffusing far worse outcomes. As is situational awareness. And of course avoiding areas of high friction (Or nuisance) in the first place! And I'll even admit that on the measure of decisive action, the inclusion of drawing one's firearm may fit that template! Again, what to do...

My concern in the OP's case is specifically in regards to the crowd present and the possibility that several response
options were by-passed in favor of drawing his pistol. </div></div>

Well, you can trade punches all you want Rocky, just don't go complaining about others on the range behaving in ways that should disallow them from owning firearms because what you're saying above is it's own brand of backward.

Slap, in threads where cops have fired their sidearms to terrible effect (missing a lot and wounding innocents) you've said we - the citizens - should vote to make cops become better at shooting or that we should shut up because we have neither the facts of the matter at hand or an ability to understand what cops go through in such high pressure situations. So, if in viewing a video and in effect, being some manner of eye witness that you discount in one scenario why the sudden respect for the views of those who are non-LEO against the view of the LEO on the scene?

Furthermore, the person interviewed in the article if I remember correctly said she was standing next to or directly behind the assailant. That would not seem to suggest the victim pointed his gun indiscriminately but because of the perspective of the woman, it would seem the gun was pointed at her. However, as I'm sure you're aware, people - eye witnesses - can see what they 'think' they're seeing and not what is actually going on - but that's a different topic. I'm interested in seeing the police report. I would have thought given your position, you'd be able to get the report a lot quicker than I would.

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Funny how that works, this thing called a civil conversation. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idiocy on display here far outweighs a black Friday sale, and is an embarrassment to the gun community.</div></div>

Funny indeed.</div></div>

If you believe my opinion of this thread was intended for you then ask yourself why.

If you are proud of your posts here, 99% of which are in the team room and are often insults, then by all means hold your head high. If you surveyed snipershide members, I'm positive the vast majority would agree with me that most of this thread is embarrassing.

Respond, or not, I don't care anymore. Either way, I'm no longer responding to childish behavior from what should be grown men who I'm certain would act differently face to face.

Those who actually contribute to the site with some amount of respect have pretty much hashed out this subject and understand each other now. I think we are done here. I know I am.

It's hard to tell if you even shoot based on your record here. It is a shame that those of us who do enjoy the sport and understand the importance of the second amendment can't have a conversation about a controversial matter without it always degenerating into a third grade insult contest between the usual suspects. Too many grown men here who are easily baited and manipulated. Maybe it is just fun to y'all I don't know. It's tiresome to me and detracts from the site. Not my site so not my responsibility, but I do wish it were different.

The floor is yours, as usual. Perhaps you all can argue over your favorite color now.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style="color: #CC0000">Well, you can trade punches all you want Rocky, just don't go complaining about others on the range behaving in ways that should disallow them from owning firearms because what you're saying above is it's own brand of backward.</span></div></div>

What? The? Hell? Are? You? Talking? About?

Honestly man, you need to lay off the lithium...

It's pussies who go right for their gun that I equate to backward. Backward or not, the world was a far better place when an insult was met with exciting new dental work.

In my small part of it, the option is still available!

 

[Slapchop]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Funny how that works, this thing called a civil conversation. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idiocy on display here far outweighs a black Friday sale, and is an embarrassment to the gun community.</div></div>

Funny indeed.</div></div>

If you believe my opinion of this thread was intended for you then ask yourself why.

If you are proud of your posts here, 99% of which are in the team room and are often insults, then by all means hold your head high. If you surveyed snipershide members, I'm positive the vast majority would agree with me that most of this thread is embarrassing.

Respond, or not, I don't care anymore. Either way, I'm no longer responding to childish behavior from what should be grown men who I'm certain would act differently face to face.

Those who actually contribute to the site with some amount of respect have pretty much hashed out this subject and understand each other now. I think we are done here. I know I am.

It's hard to tell if you even shoot based on your record here. It is a shame that those of us who do enjoy the sport and understand the importance of the second amendment can't have a conversation about a controversial matter without it always degenerating into a third grade insult contest between the usual suspects. Too many grown men here who are easily baited and manipulated. Maybe it is just fun to y'all I don't know. It's tiresome to me and detracts from the site. Not my site so not my responsibility, but I do wish it were different.

The floor is yours, as usual. Perhaps you all can argue over your favorite color now.

</div></div>

Dude you're a hypocrite and a crybaby. I could care less what you or anyone else thinks of me. The fact is that you call for civil conversation in one breath while in the other calling those who don't agree with you point of view idiots. Real civil bro. Which is it? Civil or childish, you seem to be confused on the issue.

As far as to me shooting or not, has no relevance on the subject at hand. The team room from my understanding was created for all non-shooting and off topic matters. If shooting is you're thing there are several other sub forums where you can get your rocks off. When I have a firearms related question or feel as I can help in some way, I post it in its appropriate place.

Now you said you were "done" several times when it comes to this thread yet you keep managing to "undo" yourself. I could care less how many times you post or where but don't be a hypocrite and don't attack people and expect for them to stay silent.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style="color: #CC0000">Well, you can trade punches all you want Rocky, just don't go complaining about others on the range behaving in ways that should disallow them from owning firearms because what you're saying above is it's own brand of backward.</span></div></div>

What? The? Hell? Are? You? Talking? About?

Honestly man, you need to lay off the lithium...

It's pussies who go right for their gun that I equate to backward. Backward or not, the world was a far better place when an insult was met with exciting new dental work.

In my small part of it, the option is still available!

</div></div>

Just read your earlier posts and Slap's post about entitlement to own firearms.

And who said anything about pulling a gun over an insult?

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style="color: #CC0000">Well, you can trade punches all you want Rocky, just don't go complaining about others on the range behaving in ways that should disallow them from owning firearms because what you're saying above is it's own brand of backward.</span></div></div>

What? The? Hell? Are? You? Talking? About?

Honestly man, you need to lay off the lithium...

It's pussies who go right for their gun that I equate to backward. Backward or not, the world was a far better place when an insult was met with exciting new dental work.

In my small part of it, the option is still available!

</div></div>

Just read your earlier posts and Slap's post about entitlement to own firearms.

And who said anything about pulling a gun over an insult? </div></div>

Uh huh...

 

[Tough Guy]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Local follow-up on the incident:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/news_co...gns-4068393.php

</div></div>

Good points in that story were...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Presumably, online readers “like” the Police Department's determination that Jose Alonzo Salame, a concealed handgun licensee, did not break the law by pulling the weapon.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another is state Rep. George Lavender, Republican from Texarkana, who says he plans to push for an “open carry” law when the Legislature convenes in January</div></div>

There's a way around this next quote...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, licensees in Texas may carry concealed handguns in malls, unless a mall posts a sign that prohibits them and cites a section of the penal code that makes doing so a class A misdemeanor.</div></div>

In the case of a mall being posted with signs there is a get around. The get around is you enter through any store that isn't posted (you must be able to get to that store through it's own entrance), once inside if you go through the mall you will see no 30-06 signs posted (at my mall). You are then legal inside the mall but in order to stay in compliance with the law you must exit the mall from the same entrance you came in. Malls can dictate their own rule and laws but they cannot dictate or enforce that law to any stores within that mall. You stay away from the mall entrances with signs and your good to go.

I got the feeling Moreno was lying.

 

[milo 2.0]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idiocy on display here far outweighs a black Friday sale, and is an embarrassment to the gun community.</div></div>
Seems to last a little longer too.

 

[-Nick-]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: milo-2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idiocy on display here far outweighs a black Friday sale, and is an embarrassment to the gun community.</div></div>
Seems to last a little longer too.

</div></div>

Lmao...

 

[athhud]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOUGHGUY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I highly doubt you even understood what veer was talking about. If you didn't trust it would be because you spend all your time in a closet typing on a keyboard. How many red lights you got in your closet anyway? </div></div>

Sweet pea,
I've spent more time studying cognitive reasoning than you could possibly fathom. I'm fairly confident that you are projecting your own ignorance of the content of Veer's post on me. Since I am so clueless as to what he was talking about, please explain to me exactly which concept of reason he was trying to illustrate with his little red light story. Then please do me the favor of explaining how the red light initiates a cognitive response and how that is in any way comparable to the response of fine motor skills that are required to properly manipulate a firearm. Then, please get all Houdini on me and explain how a teenage girl behind the wheel, with a cell phone in her hand, is safer than an armed citizen in Walmart.

You are somewhat in the ballpark, about me not understanding Veer's post. It is extremely hard to comprehend utter bullshit when you have somewhat of a clue to the contrary.

 

[desertrat1979]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

The follow-up had "some" additional info, a few witness statements, and I think thats about all we will be getting. I don't think the police report will be any more helpful either. Since no criminal charges are being made the report will have few details, as it is more of a formality due to the incident.

So at this point, you still can't judge whether it was a good or bad move. Some good points made by some are that not everyone meets the physical minimum to go into a fist fight. Sure, in shape, experience fighter, yeah, I can see the option to return fire with fire. But, not everyone is like that. I am still not going to jump on any bandwagon, mainly because I know next to nothing about the victim or the agressor.

Oh, and I have read this thread a couple times. I do not know where anyone posted anything against CCW. I never saw anyone state who should or shouldn't own or have access to guns. I did see a few people state they would prefer physical confrontation instead of drawing a firearm, and some condemned the victim for doing so. How satments can be twisted, processed then translated into something else is beyond me. KYPatriot, you are right, this is the internet. But when something is not true, or in the extreme longshot, that what you typed was mis-read, are you just going to remain silent?

If someone resorts to mis-quoting, or flat out lying about me or other members, making false assumptions and attacking someones character with nothing but their own agenda, it will get a warranted response. I wouldn't sit idle if it were in person, let alone on the net.

 

[athhud]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

Rat, is that you? Can't argue with any of that...

 

[Tough Guy]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: athhud</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOUGHGUY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I highly doubt you even understood what veer was talking about. If you didn't trust it would be because you spend all your time in a closet typing on a keyboard. How many red lights you got in your closet anyway? </div></div>

Sweet pea,
I've spent more time studying cognitive reasoning than you could possibly fathom. I'm fairly confident that you are projecting your own ignorance of the content of Veer's post on me. Since I am so clueless as to what he was talking about, please explain to me exactly which concept of reason he was trying to illustrate with his little red light story. Then please do me the favor of explaining how the red light initiates a cognitive response and how that is in any way comparable to the response of fine motor skills that are required to properly manipulate a firearm. Then, please get all Houdini on me and explain how a teenage girl behind the wheel, with a cell phone in her hand, is safer than an armed citizen in Walmart.

You are somewhat in the ballpark, about me not understanding Veer's post. It is extremely hard to comprehend utter bullshit when you have somewhat of a clue to the contrary. </div></div>

He was merely explaining his view of what trust is. You didn't get it. It's just that simple. Mostly I was just razzin ya.

I do worry about people like veer though... many times on gun forums I've seen people make excuses why they wouldn't defend themselves. I often wonder why those people carry. Some of them will make every excuse in the book why they shouldn't defend themselves. Many seem to be more worried about breaking a law then they are about staying alive in a situation. Me? I'd break a law in a heartbeat to stay alive. For me it's just that simple.

 

[athhud]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

We don't disagree on much of anything then. Good to know!

I did get it, but my opinion is that his opinion is wrong.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The follow-up had "some" additional info, a few witness statements, and I think thats about all we will be getting. I don't think the police report will be any more helpful either. Since no criminal charges are being made the report will have few details, as it is more of a formality due to the incident.

So at this point, you still can't judge whether it was a good or bad move. Some good points made by some are that not everyone meets the physical minimum to go into a fist fight. Sure, in shape, experience fighter, yeah, I can see the option to return fire with fire. But, not everyone is like that. I am still not going to jump on any bandwagon, mainly because I know next to nothing about the victim or the agressor.

<span style="color: #CC0000">Oh, and I have read this thread a couple times. I do not know where anyone posted anything against CCW. I never saw anyone state who should or shouldn't own or have access to guns.</span> I did see a few people state they would prefer physical confrontation instead of drawing a firearm, and some condemned the victim for doing so. How satments can be twisted, processed then translated into something else is beyond me. KYPatriot, you are right, this is the internet. But when something is not true, or in the extreme longshot, that what you typed was mis-read, are you just going to remain silent?

If someone resorts to mis-quoting, or flat out lying about me or other members, making false assumptions and attacking someones character with nothing but their own agenda, it will get a warranted response. I wouldn't sit idle if it were in person, let alone on the net. </div></div>

Then you weren't reading closely enough were you or you're just dim. Slap, QQ alone mention those things. Slap accuses me of being anti-MIL and LE just to slander and when he's called on it there's nothing. You put on your white flowing robes of Paladin of Truth but you're a hypocrite. You purposefully mis-represent the situation in your thread about what would you do and yet you say you're ready to take issue with people mis-representing the truth.

However, I will say one thing - I'm happy to see that you've recognized the reality of your untenable position earlier on this issue and have changed you tune. There's perhaps hope yet...

 

[Veer_G]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOUGHGUY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: athhud</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOUGHGUY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I highly doubt you even understood what veer was talking about. If you didn't trust it would be because you spend all your time in a closet typing on a keyboard. How many red lights you got in your closet anyway? </div></div>

Sweet pea,
I've spent more time studying cognitive reasoning than you could possibly fathom. I'm fairly confident that you are projecting your own ignorance of the content of Veer's post on me. Since I am so clueless as to what he was talking about, please explain to me exactly which concept of reason he was trying to illustrate with his little red light story. Then please do me the favor of explaining how the red light initiates a cognitive response and how that is in any way comparable to the response of fine motor skills that are required to properly manipulate a firearm. Then, please get all Houdini on me and explain how a teenage girl behind the wheel, with a cell phone in her hand, is safer than an armed citizen in Walmart.

You are somewhat in the ballpark, about me not understanding Veer's post. It is extremely hard to comprehend utter bullshit when you have somewhat of a clue to the contrary. </div></div>

He was merely explaining his view of what trust is. You didn't get it. It's just that simple. Mostly I was just razzin ya.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I do worry about people like veer though... many times on gun forums I've seen people make excuses why they wouldn't defend themselves. I often wonder why those people carry. Some of them will make every excuse in the book why they shouldn't defend themselves.</span> Many seem to be more worried about breaking a law then they are about staying alive in a situation. Me? I'd break a law in a heartbeat to stay alive. For me it's just that simple. </div></div>

You're both fucking clueless. You want me to clear this up for you with Colorforms or hand puppets?

 

[-Nick-]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #CC0000">Oh, and I have read this thread a couple times. I do not know where anyone posted anything against CCW. I never saw anyone state who should or shouldn't own or have access to guns.</span></div></div>

Then you weren't reading closely enough were you or you're just dim. Slap, QQ alone mention those things. Slap accuses me of being anti-MIL and LE just to slander and when he's called on it there's nothing. You put on your white flowing robes of Paladin of Truth but you're a hypocrite. You purposefully mis-represent the situation in your thread about what would you do and yet you say you're ready to take issue with people mis-representing the truth.

However, I will say one thing - I'm happy to see that you've recognized the reality of your untenable position earlier on this issue and have changed you tune. There's perhaps hope yet... </div></div>

Lol... You can't quote anywhere in this entire thread where that was ever said. You're doing like you ALWAYS do and trying to make implications by putting imaginary words in other peoples mouths. If anyone is misrepresenting anything it's your hypocritical ass.

<span style="font-size: 20pt">Prove your bullshit... Quote where in this thread someone, anyone, said they were against CCW or shouldn't own guns. Not the implication, but the actual statement.</span>

 

[Slapchop]

Re: Controlling the Christmas shopping bully

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Then you weren't reading closely enough were you or you're just dim. Slap, QQ alone mention those things. Slap accuses me of being anti-MIL and LE just to slander and when he's called on it there's nothing. You put on your white flowing robes of Paladin of Truth but you're a hypocrite. You purposefully mis-represent the situation in your thread about what would you do and yet you say you're ready to take issue with people mis-representing the truth.

However, I will say one thing - I'm happy to see that you've recognized the reality of your untenable position earlier on this issue and have changed you tune. There's perhaps hope yet... </div></div>

Hey dimwit, can't you generate a post that doesn't involve me? It's like I'm becoming your obsession. Anyway, please point out to me where I or anyone else for that matter said anything against carrying concealed weapons.