Guns don't kill people ....

[dmg1969]

I'll take my chances against a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists rather than a gun, how about you?

That is entirely up to you, Spexxvet. I'll keep my guns to defend myself and my family, thank you.

One could argue that the damage could have been mitigated if the guy hadn't had a gun. The damage would have been mitigated if he'd only had a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, or his fists.

We can play this game all day. One could argue that the guy could have killed even more people if had opened the door and started chucking in molotav cocktails. The bottom line is that the theater owners had posted signs stating guns are not allowed. As a result, nobody there was carrying their own concealed weapon and could stop the guy. As for those signs, it is not illegal for you to ignore them. It is simply a matter of breaking the company's policy, not a law. If they were to find out that you were carrying a concealed (legal) handgun (which they shouldn't if it is CONCEALED), they can only ask you to leave. If you do so without arguing, etc...you are NOT breaking any laws. Criminals know that a gun free zone equates to a target rich environment.

As for the last part...are you saying that, if you own a gun and use it to kill someone (illegally of course, not self defense), you should be executed immediately? What about if I use a knife? Dead is dead, right? As for negligence, what if I hit someone with my car and kill them? Dead is dead, right? Should I be immediately executed for that as well? It's an illogical argument.

You won't change my mind and I know I won't change yours. but that's what is so great about this country.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

As for those signs, it is not illegal for you to ignore them. It is simply a matter of breaking the company's policy, not a law. If they were to find out that you were carrying a concealed (legal) handgun (which they shouldn't if it is CONCEALED), they can only ask you to leave. If you do so without arguing, etc...you are NOT breaking any laws..

Is that true? I'm not so sure. If you walk past a "no tresspassing" sign, do you get a second verbal warning before you can be arrested for tresspassing? No.

If a private property has a sign that says in effect "anyone carrying a gun is tresspassing," then why do they get a second warning? Tresspassing is about entering a private property without permission, and in the gun case, a person carrying a gun does not have permission.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

I'll take my chances against a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists rather than a gun, how about you?

That is entirely up to you, Spexxvet. I'll keep my guns to defend myself and my family, thank you.

Fine, you have your gun. Do you want to protect yourself against someone with a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists, or someone with a gun? Please don't be evasive.

[Sundae]

I am one of the lucky few who has never had to confront a criminal in my own home.
Phew. With no gun I've no doubt I would have been bludgeoned to death every weekend for years save for this fact.

Anyway.

When I first heard about the shooting in Oak Creek I said confidently to Mum, "It'll be a community issue. Sikh on Sikh, personal. Because no-one messes with Sikhs." All the Sikh men I've known (bar one very extreme exception that proved the rule) were big, burly and radiated an inner peace-man-but-don't-fuck-with-me vibe.

I was wrong. Didn't mean I was any less shocked.
I had a Sikh temple in the road behind me when I lived in Leicester.
The idea of those people being gunned down makes me feel physically sick.

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by glatt

Is that true? I'm not so sure. If you walk past a "no tresspassing" sign, do you get a second verbal warning before you can be arrested for tresspassing? No.

If a private property has a sign that says in effect "anyone carrying a gun is tresspassing," then why do they get a second warning? Tresspassing is about entering a private property without permission, and in the gun case, a person carrying a gun does not have permission.

Let me preface this by saying that I work for a law firm and do have attorneys at my disposal to ask such questions. Your trespassing example is correct. I can be arrested for coming onto your property against your No Trespassing sign. However, in the theater example, you are an invited guest. Again, you cannot be arrested for breaking their policy. They can ask you to leave an not come back. If you refused to leave (which would be stupid), you could be charged with something like disorderly conduct. Or, if you returned after being asked to leave, that could be trespassing. The attorney I asked used the example of sneaking food or drink into the theater. They have signs prohibiting it. Will you be arrested for it? No...you will be asked to leave. You cannot be trespassing if you are an invited guest.

[dmg1969]

I'm not being evasive. I will admit I would much rather defend myself against someone with anything other than a gun. But, look at any country which has banned guns...they still get them. And with our porous border? My God...guns would be flying over the border. So, you will never get rid of guns 100%...ever. Never mind the fact that no politician would ever seriously get beyond the point of election year rhetoric as far as trying to reverse the 2nd Amendment. Besides losing that election, that would be the start of another revolution.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Fine, you have your gun. Do you want to protect yourself against someone with a knife, a sword, a golf club, a baseball bat, a 2x4 with nails embedded, a vicious dog, fists, or someone with a gun? Please don't be evasive.

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by Sundae

I am one of the lucky few who has never had to confront a criminal in my own home.
Phew. With no gun I've no doubt I would have been bludgeoned to death every weekend for years save for this fact.

Anyway.

When I first heard about the shooting in Oak Creek I said confidently to Mum, "It'll be a community issue. Sikh on Sikh, personal. Because no-one messes with Sikhs." All the Sikh men I've known (bar one very extreme exception that proved the rule) were big, burly and radiated an inner peace-man-but-don't-fuck-with-me vibe.

I was wrong. Didn't mean I was any less shocked.
I had a Sikh temple in the road behind me when I lived in Leicester.
The idea of those people being gunned down makes me feel physically sick.

And I'm with you, Sundae. Someone who does something like that to other human beings is not fit to live among the rest of us humans. The same thing with the theater in Colorado.

Those of us who choose to take advantage of our 2nd Amendment right to own guns are not unfeeling, irresponsible or insane (as many anti-gun people want to you to believe) In fact, carrying a gun makes us MORE cautious and conscience of out actions. Example: I get into a shouting match with a guy in another car. He pulls over and so do I. A fight breaks out and he pulls a knife. I pull my gun and shoot him. Was I in my right to do so? Technically, yes. However, a judge would rule that, had I not pulled over, the fight would not have happened. Had the fight not happened, he would not have pulled the knife. Had he not pulled the knife, I would not have pulled my gun and shot him. I am someone who has read countless books about the legal issues associated with carrying a concealed weapon. See, we realize what a huge responsibility it is. We're not all trying to John Wayne.

[glatt]

Yeah. I'm still not convinced.

You're an invited guest when you buy your ticket and agree to the conditions of the ticket sale. The ticket probably even has legal mumbo jumbo on the back that says that by puchasing the ticket you consent to the rules. If you don't actually consent to the rules, then you aren't an invited guest.

That doesn't mean they are gonna arrest you for sneaking food in, because they don't want bad publicity.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Sundae

When I first heard about the shooting in Oak Creek I said confidently to Mum, "It'll be a community issue. Sikh on Sikh, personal. Because no-one messes with Sikhs." All the Sikh men I've known (bar one very extreme exception that proved the rule) were big, burly and radiated an inner peace-man-but-don't-fuck-with-me vibe.

I see this incident less as a gun story than a how unbelievably stupid the folks in the neo-nazi movement are story. This is apparently the story of failed education from school through Fort Bragg where he apparently hooked up with the White Power movement and was actually involved in psy-ops. Dude was on law enforcements radar because of his racist music. I am more concerned with race terrorism than guns.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

snip--

Those of us who choose to take advantage of our 2nd Amendment right to own guns are not unfeeling, irresponsible or insane (as many anti-gun people want to you to believe)

You sound like a whiny crybaby when you say things like this. Oh, waaah, they're calling me unfeeling, irresponsible, insane. If that kind of "attack" is a problem for you, there's a super easy solution--stop "taking advantage of (part of) our 2nd amendment right". Easy peasy.

Originally Posted by dmg1969

In fact, carrying a gun makes us MORE cautious and conscience of out actions.
--snip

Ahem.

Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

And I'm with you, Sundae. Someone who does something like that to other human beings is not fit to live among the rest of us humans.

Originally Posted by Griff

I see this incident less as a gun story... I am more concerned with race terrorism than guns.

Completely. I didn't come here to raise a gun issue.
Just wanted to comment on slaughter, however it was achieved.

Sadness.

[dmg1969]

You sound like a whiny crybaby when you say things like this. Oh, waaah, they're calling me unfeeling, irresponsible, insane. If that kind of "attack" is a problem for you, there's a super easy solution--stop "taking advantage of (part of) our 2nd amendment right". Easy peasy.

Nice argument. When you start resorting to name calling, it's a sign you're losing the argument.


Ahem.

Unless you're a fucking homicidal nutball like the asshole in CO and in WI. Your argument is faulty, sir. Carrying a gun does NOT make one MORE cautious and conscientious of one's actions. You may well be cautious and conscientious before and after carrying a gun, but it's not the gun that does it.

Let me ask you a question. Have you EVER carried a concealed weapon? If not, your argument is faulty because you can't speak from experience. I've been through it, so don't pretend that you know what you're talking about. I had a road rage incident where the guy was literally pounding on the steering wheel trying to get me to pull over. Why didn't I pull over, smart guy? Because I was aware of something called disparity of force as escalation of force. I did not want to put myself in the situation of possibly having to use my gun so I used evasive driving and lost the guy. So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to act like you do. You just look stupid.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

I did not want to put myself in the situation of possibly having to use my gun so I used evasive driving and lost the guy.

Then where's the fun in packing heat?

BTW, what did you do to piss him off, and did you do it because you knew, in the back of your mind, that you had a gun to back up your shit?

[dmg1969]

Now you see, Spex...there you go again ASSuming. Why do you ASSume that I purposefully did something to piss him off? Because I had a gun? If that was the case, why would I have gone out of my way to avoid the guy? Actually, he was trying to pass everyone before the two lanes narrowed to one. He did not make it in time and had to get behind me. That sent him into an uncontrolled rage. I have never seen someone act like that behind the wheel. I seriously though he was going to ram me. I'll admit, I was scared. That's why I did NOT stop...I know what would have happened.

[BigV]

Your complaints sound whiny. There's no "argument".

Am I losing my other "argument" by calling the shooters in CO and WI "fucking homicidal nutball assholes"? Just curious.

Let me ask you a question. Have you EVER carried a concealed weapon? If not, your argument is faulty because you can't speak from experience.

I have not carried a concealed weapon.

I do not concede the point that a lack of direct experience means my argument is faulty. You and I both live our lives, speak and act correctly and with confidence in a multitude of situations where we have no direct experience. It is not a deal breaker. We can debate this point, but only if you insist.

I've been through it, so don't pretend that you know what you're talking about. I had a road rage incident where the guy was literally pounding on the steering wheel trying to get me to pull over. Why didn't I pull over, smart guy? Because I was aware of something called disparity of force as escalation of force. I did not want to put myself in the situation of possibly having to use my gun so I used evasive driving and lost the guy.

What I think you're saying is that by having your gun with you, you knew there was a pretty good possibility you might have to shoot to kill if you faced off with him, and you didn't want that to happen, so you took other measures. Does that sound right? Here's my question: what the fuck does the gun have to do with anything in that situation with respect to being more cautious and conscientious? If you didn't have your gun, would you have pulled over and taken your chances? If you didn't have your gun could/would you have used evasive driving and lost the guy?

Are you less cautious and conscientious when you are not carrying your gun? That's my question.

If your answer is yes, then you fucking scare me. "I need my gun to keep me calm". JFC.

If your answer is no, then your argument is invalid. You're cautious and conscientious WITH your concealed weapon, AND you're cautious and conscientious WITHOUT your weapon. Which was my original point. It isn't the gun. (and if it is, and I think it might be for some people, heaven help us all).

So, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't try to act like you do.

There are lots of things I don't know--talking about them is part of how I learn about them. There are lots of things I know *some* stuff about, and I talk about them too. This subject falls into that category. Specifically, what makes people cautious, and what doesn't make people cautious; things that are dangerous and things that are less dangerous. So, I'm clear to speak and act in this kind of discussion, with authority. I do know what I'm talking about.

You just look stupid.

By your own logic, you're losing your argument. Unless you just think I look stupid. Which is fine, no? You sound whiny, and I look stupid. I'll make you a deal--you stop looking at me and I'll quit listening to you.