Retired Cop Kills Man for Texting (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Very soon we will have our first "I read this thread and it made me decide to go out and purchase another gun! Sweet!" post.

And...there goes the intelligent discussion.

Really? That same post appears in EVERYONE of these discussions. And you're blaming me for it? Nice.

Hey guys, I know I said the stupid thing, but somebody always says the stupid thing, so that doesn't make me stupid, right?

Yeah you're really contributing to the intelligent conversation here.

 

[glock]

I live in Florida. If I'm in a restaurant and armed robbers crash through the doors suddenly, I feel better knowing that several people in that restaurant eating are probably packing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that I want to sit and witness a gun fight but these good people having guns is much better than them not having guns.

So you think that these several people- scattered throughout the restaurant- are going to somehow formulate some kind of coherent game plan and take out these bad guys? Or turn the scene into a scene right out of a Quentin Tarantino flick??

Seriously.

 

[[icon]]

"You're trying to take away my gunzz!!"

You DO understand that that paranoia you're dramatizing there is actually pretty well grounded in reality. That sort of action is not without precedent.

My theory on gun ownership is: Just because a few ####### #### their pants, we all shouldn't have to wear diapers.

Part of the problem is any discussion is met with the NRA-backed warcry of "they are trying to take your guns". I totally understand the frustration of the other side.

It's why I'm not an NRA member, despite being a "gun guy". I think they are part of the problem.

I concur... I am not currently a card carrying NRA Member for that reason. I don't disagree that they're part of the problem. Unfortunately I think think part of that is they've been backed into a corner on a lot of issues so they are forced to go so far in the other direction to hold the line, so to speak. Not unlike listing a car at $25k when you want to get $22k for it.

Not condoning some of their actions. I just know that as soon as they take two steps toward center, the other side will take up the slack and try to take 3 steps. They're forced into being as irrational as the other side on some of these issues. AGAIN not justifying all their actions, just perhaps trying to identify the reasoning behind them.

 

[jwb]

"You're trying to take away my gunzz!!"

You DO understand that that paranoia you're dramatizing there is actually pretty well grounded in reality. That sort of action is not without precedent.

My theory on gun ownership is: Just because a few ####### #### their pants, we all shouldn't have to wear diapers.

Except that it's not "a few".

Roughly one in every 4000 Americans gets shot in a calendar year, and roughly as many people are killed by gunshot as by auto accident every year.

The problem is, the vast vast majority of those are people illegally obtaining and carrying weapons. Making more laws is not stopping these people from obtaining/carrying firearms.

Show me data on the 6 million law-abiding carriers in the US and lets look at some real data on what will be impacted by additional legislation.

I was just posting along the same line here... if you had a graph of gun deaths, and you had a red bar for "illegal gun deaths" and a blue bar for "legal gun deaths", the red would be far larger. Yet everyone points to the blue and says "we need to do something about that"

That's what's frustrating gun owners more than anything.

 

[spreagle]

Years later, a 1979 evaluation cited problems with his temperament. "His demeanor is generally very professional. He has, however, occasionally allowed his temper to detrimentally affect his manner of dealing with his supervisors," the evaluation states.

After his retirement, Reeves served as director of security for Busch Gardens Tampa until 2005, said spokesman Travis Claytor, who would not comment on why Reeves' employment came to an end.

A hunter who has held licenses in Georgia and Ohio, Reeves moved in 2005 to Brooksville, Florida -- in Hernando County, adjacent to the county where the theater is located -- and WFLA reports he served as president of the county Crime Stoppers program from 2006 to 2007.

With regard to his temper, I've noticed certain people seem to have instantaneous, violent, non-thinking reaction to a perceived attack, do a search on "scare prank punch" on youtube and you'll see what I mean. It's not really an anger issue, and it goes beyond a bad temper, maybe having a bad day or argument will make it more likely it will happen. Some small fright sets off a violent response and they usually attack the head. Perhaps the popcorn throwing set this guy off. Since the response is so quick as to be non-thinking these people should not own guns but I don't know how you screen them out other than through a past history of such violence.

On second thought this is probably just the "fright or flight"response, somehow people need to be able to control the instantaneous fight response to make an accurate threat assessment.

 

[timschochet]

Icon, despite the banter I appreciate a lot of your comments. Obviously we disagree on some issues, but I have to admit you're making several good points.

 

[Clifford]

I'm a CC guy, I like guns, I carry, and I'm all for that.

I live in NY - it takes a long time to get your CC permit. I'm in favor of our system nationwide. People getting guns in 20 minutes is ridiculous. Takes (roughly) 20 weeks here.

CC Permit process here in TN:

• Register for class (typically 2-4 week waiting period)

• Take 8 hour class that is ~6hrs class time and ~2hrs range time.

• Written test (50 questions pertaining to threat assessment, various legal aspects, etc) [i scored 100/100]

• Shooting test (50 rounds at varying distances) [i scored 100/100]

• Leave with certificate, set appointment to be fingerprinted.

• Go to get fingerprinted (national database) then take that paperwork, plus class paperwork to DMV.

• At DMV, pay $75ish, fill out more paperwork, apply for concealed carry card.

• Card arrives 2-4 weeks later.

No psych evals, though the process takes a good month or two depending on wait times. Psych check theoretically take place during background checks when purchasing the weapon itself. However that only identifies those who've already got documented issues... and even then many slip through the cracks due to poor reporting/records.

Seems like it would be pretty easy, if the process is already that involved, to slip in a 20-30 minute psych evaluation.

 

[[icon]]

I live in Florida. If I'm in a restaurant and armed robbers crash through the doors suddenly, I feel better knowing that several people in that restaurant eating are probably packing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that I want to sit and witness a gun fight but these good people having guns is much better than them not having guns.

So you think that these several people- scattered throughout the restaurant- are going to somehow formulate some kind of coherent game plan and take out these bad guys? Or turn the scene into a scene right out of a Quentin Tarantino flick??

Seriously.

1) the very idea that there might be people carrying inside is a deterrent to a thief.

2) Concealed carry permit holders do exactly what you're describing every day in this country. Nobody's implying that they are operating like Seal Team 6 with coordinated counter attacks... but it only takes one.

 

[[icon]]

• Register for class (typically 2-4 week waiting period)

• Take 8 hour class that is ~6hrs class time and ~2hrs range time.

• Written test (50 questions pertaining to threat assessment, various legal aspects, etc) [i scored 100/100]

• Shooting test (50 rounds at varying distances) [i scored 100/100]

• Leave with certificate, set appointment to be fingerprinted.

• Go to get fingerprinted (national database) then take that paperwork, plus class paperwork to DMV.

• At DMV, pay $75ish, fill out more paperwork, apply for concealed carry card.

• Card arrives 2-4 weeks later.

No psych evals, though the process takes a good month or two depending on wait times. Psych check theoretically take place during background checks when purchasing the weapon itself. However that only identifies those who've already got documented issues... and even then many slip through the cracks due to poor reporting/records.

Seems like it would be pretty easy, if the process is already that involved, to slip in a 20-30 minute psych evaluation.

I would not be opposed to that at all.

 

[glock]

I live in Florida. If I'm in a restaurant and armed robbers crash through the doors suddenly, I feel better knowing that several people in that restaurant eating are probably packing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that I want to sit and witness a gun fight but these good people having guns is much better than them not having guns.

So you think that these several people- scattered throughout the restaurant- are going to somehow formulate some kind of coherent game plan and take out these bad guys? Or turn the scene into a scene right out of a Quentin Tarantino flick??

Seriously.

1) the very idea that there might be people carrying inside is a deterrent to a thief.

2) Concealed carry permit holders do exactly what you're describing every day in this country. Nobody's implying that they are operating like Seal Team 6 with coordinated counter attacks... but it only takes one.

The scenario was that armed robbers burst into a restaurant. I need links to this minority of CC who are properly trained executing successful gun play on multiple perps in public places. Not breaking balls- just would like to see some.

 

[Clifford]

"You're trying to take away my gunzz!!"

You DO understand that that paranoia you're dramatizing there is actually pretty well grounded in reality. That sort of action is not without precedent.

My theory on gun ownership is: Just because a few ####### #### their pants, we all shouldn't have to wear diapers.

Except that it's not "a few".

Roughly one in every 4000 Americans gets shot in a calendar year, and roughly as many people are killed by gunshot as by auto accident every year.

The problem is, the vast vast majority of those are people illegally obtaining and carrying weapons. Making more laws is not stopping these people from obtaining/carrying firearms.

Show me data on the 6 million law-abiding carriers in the US and lets look at some real data on what will be impacted by additional legislation.

I was just posting along the same line here... if you had a graph of gun deaths, and you had a red bar for "illegal gun deaths" and a blue bar for "legal gun deaths", the red would be far larger. Yet everyone points to the blue and says "we need to do something about that"

That's what's frustrating gun owners more than anything.

Well that is the problem for me at least. I live in Birmingham, AL, and if I go to the wrong part of town or end up there somehow, it's definitely the illegal gun owners I am worried about. No doubt, and I recognize that it's a much bigger piece of the pie. No argument. And something really needs to be done about that, through law enforcement and smarter crackdowns on the illegal gun trade. Somehow it starts legal and becomes illegal so we need to find that intersection and cut it off at the source.

But that's a separate problem with a separate solution.

Being completely selfish, I am less concerned with the gangbangers than the unhinged whitey because I have a lifetime of knowing how to avoid the gangbangers. I know what areas to avoid and how to act in those areas to avoid negative attention. And still I have had very few if any problems in those areas. The unhinged whitey could pop up anywhere I normally go and hang out. And because their motivation to act is usually some ####ed up thought in their head instead of theft, they are far more unpredictable.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

"You're trying to take away my gunzz!!"

You DO understand that that paranoia you're dramatizing there is actually pretty well grounded in reality. That sort of action is not without precedent.

My theory on gun ownership is: Just because a few ####### #### their pants, we all shouldn't have to wear diapers.

Except that it's not "a few".

Roughly one in every 4000 Americans gets shot in a calendar year, and roughly as many people are killed by gunshot as by auto accident every year.

The problem is, the vast vast majority of those are people illegally obtaining and carrying weapons. Making more laws is not stopping these people from obtaining/carrying firearms.

Show me data on the 6 million law-abiding carriers in the US and lets look at some real data on what will be impacted by additional legislation.

Chart showing this (older info but likely still relevant)

 

[Clifford]

"You're trying to take away my gunzz!!"

You DO understand that that paranoia you're dramatizing there is actually pretty well grounded in reality. That sort of action is not without precedent.

My theory on gun ownership is: Just because a few ####### #### their pants, we all shouldn't have to wear diapers.

Except that it's not "a few".

Roughly one in every 4000 Americans gets shot in a calendar year, and roughly as many people are killed by gunshot as by auto accident every year.

The problem is, the vast vast majority of those are people illegally obtaining and carrying weapons. Making more laws is not stopping these people from obtaining/carrying firearms.

Show me data on the 6 million law-abiding carriers in the US and lets look at some real data on what will be impacted by additional legislation.

Chart showing this (older info but likely still relevant)

23% obtained legally, 42% undetermined (friend/fam, borrowed/given, other where we don't know how the gun was originally obtained). 39% definitely illegal.

 

[[icon]]

I live in Florida. If I'm in a restaurant and armed robbers crash through the doors suddenly, I feel better knowing that several people in that restaurant eating are probably packing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that I want to sit and witness a gun fight but these good people having guns is much better than them not having guns.

So you think that these several people- scattered throughout the restaurant- are going to somehow formulate some kind of coherent game plan and take out these bad guys? Or turn the scene into a scene right out of a Quentin Tarantino flick??

Seriously.

1) the very idea that there might be people carrying inside is a deterrent to a thief.

2) Concealed carry permit holders do exactly what you're describing every day in this country. Nobody's implying that they are operating like Seal Team 6 with coordinated counter attacks... but it only takes one.

The scenario was that armed robbers burst into a restaurant. I need links to this minority of CC who are properly trained executing successful gun play on multiple perps in public places. Not breaking balls- just would like to see some.

You're going to have to do your own legwork on that one, GB. In a robbery it's always best to just give them the money and let it pass. Nobody should be attempting to escalate that situation unless the complexion changes to the point where people are or very likely to be killed. You realize you're painting a scenario that comprises a fraction of a percent of situations like this.

More often than not, instances where a CC citizen "saves the day" (For lack of a better term) it's vs 1 or 2 guys bursting in. Most of these guys run or take their own lives as soon as they encounter resistance so it's not like you're generally inducing an OK corral situation. That said, the decision to escalate to the use of deadly force should be viewed as a last resort.

 

[The Commish]

My logic is...if you aren't willing to use it as a means of defense, it's pointless to have it. It becomes a danger the carrier introduces. The catch 22 here is it's really hard to know if you're willing to use it until you're put in the situation. I can't imagine a scenario I'd put myself in that would require me to take the life of another individual. WIth that said, I know such scenarios exist somewhere. I'm at a point right now where I believe that such a scenario is so unlikely that carrying in case it happens doesn't make sense.

Oh I agree 1000%. The decision to carry is a personal one that anyone should take pretty ####### seriously as it opens you up to tremendous physical and legal risk. Despite my cavalier comments when shticking it up, this is not a decision I took lightly. The training and range time is part of a promise to myself that If I WAS going to make that decision, I was going to do so as responsibly as possible. If Everyone who carried did that, I think we'd be much better off.

Part of my issue with legislation is that it's pretty much unenforceable. Making laws against guns might limit people like myself from carrying, but it's not going to stop the mentally ill, or those who mean to do harm. In fact, I'd argue it may embolden them (see high ratio of shootings at gun free zones). I do recognize that is my opinion and it is debatable, and I'm fine with that. However I certainly can get behind a moderate tightening of the leash (more training required, more psych checks and BETTER enforcement of existing ones) for gun ownership and carry permits. Attempts to simply wipe them off the face of the US are foolhardy at best IMO.

I tend to agree that making laws around carrying is pointless and I agree with you 100% that making more laws is pointless in that regard. However, I think there are plenty of areas that could be strengthened/grown with respect to consequences and responsibilities of carrying. I.E. Make the consequences for "incidents" much more severe. Make them on par with the responsibility of carrying in the first place. Let's be honest, Florida is a joke in this regard. Plenty of room for improvement down there.

 

[jwb]

"You're trying to take away my gunzz!!"

You DO understand that that paranoia you're dramatizing there is actually pretty well grounded in reality. That sort of action is not without precedent.

My theory on gun ownership is: Just because a few ####### #### their pants, we all shouldn't have to wear diapers.

Except that it's not "a few".

Roughly one in every 4000 Americans gets shot in a calendar year, and roughly as many people are killed by gunshot as by auto accident every year.

The problem is, the vast vast majority of those are people illegally obtaining and carrying weapons. Making more laws is not stopping these people from obtaining/carrying firearms.

Show me data on the 6 million law-abiding carriers in the US and lets look at some real data on what will be impacted by additional legislation.

Chart showing this (older info but likely still relevant)

23% obtained legally, 42% undetermined (friend/fam, borrowed/given where we don't know how the gun was originally obtained).

That would make it illegal. You can't "loan" your gun to somebody.

 

[timschochet]

Commish also makes very good points here. I have to acknowledge that getting rid of concealed carry is never gonna happen.

 

[[icon]]

Chart showing this (older info but likely still relevant)

23% obtained legally, 42% undetermined (friend/fam, borrowed/given, other where we don't know how the gun was originally obtained). 39% definitely illegal.

I think it's more accurate to say 15% purchased via channels that are "proper channels". Gun shows, pawn shops, etc don't require background checks or any such deterrents to purchase. At least not here. Meaning 85% of weapons used by federal inmates are coming in through grey or black markets.

 

[timschochet]

Icon, would you support background checks for ALL sales, including private sales?

 

[[icon]]

I tend to agree that making laws around carrying is pointless and I agree with you 100% that making more laws is pointless in that regard. However, I think there are plenty of areas that could be strengthened/grown with respect to consequences and responsibilities of carrying. I.E. Make the consequences for "incidents" much more severe. Make them on par with the responsibility of carrying in the first place. Let's be honest, Florida is a joke in this regard. Plenty of room for improvement down there.

I don't disagree. However you'd be surprised how stiff the penalties are for things like carrying while intoxicated, etc. If I go out drinking, I have to remove the magazine and remove all the rounds from the magazine and lock it down in a console. The stand your ground law could perhaps be tightened up a bit as it does produce a large grey area for justifiable homicide that might be a bit too liberal.

Ordinarily I'd prefer to err on the side of the guy trying to protect himself over the side of the aggressor/criminal, but there have been some instances of abuse I'm sure. I'm not getting into the Zimmerman/Martin thing in here as that's a whole different can of worms.

tl;dr: I agree there's room for improvement but that's as much a product of our legal system (Expensive high-profile lawyers, crappy judges) as it is a product of the legislation itself.

 

[[icon]]

Icon, would you support background checks for ALL sales, including private sales?

Aside from transfer between blood relatives or immediate family, yes. I should be able to buy my son a .22 rifle for his 16th birthday, or give my wife a carry piece without the law getting involved, IMO. But that extends back more to my libertarian / small-government mindset.

 

[eoMMan]

I live in Florida. If I'm in a restaurant and armed robbers crash through the doors suddenly, I feel better knowing that several people in that restaurant eating are probably packing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that I want to sit and witness a gun fight but these good people having guns is much better than them not having guns.

So you think that these several people- scattered throughout the restaurant- are going to somehow formulate some kind of coherent game plan and take out these bad guys? Or turn the scene into a scene right out of a Quentin Tarantino flick??

Seriously.

1) the very idea that there might be people carrying inside is a deterrent to a thief.

2) Concealed carry permit holders do exactly what you're describing every day in this country. Nobody's implying that they are operating like Seal Team 6 with coordinated counter attacks... but it only takes one.

The scenario was that armed robbers burst into a restaurant. I need links to this minority of CC who are properly trained executing successful gun play on multiple perps in public places. Not breaking balls- just would like to see some.

Seriously?

Think about. Let's say you're a robber. Wouldn't you much rather the people that you're robbing be unarmed?

And it's not like the good guys need some complex plan. It could be as simple as them pulling their guns out and telling the bad guys to get on the ground.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

"You're trying to take away my gunzz!!"

You DO understand that that paranoia you're dramatizing there is actually pretty well grounded in reality. That sort of action is not without precedent.

My theory on gun ownership is: Just because a few ####### #### their pants, we all shouldn't have to wear diapers.

Except that it's not "a few".

Roughly one in every 4000 Americans gets shot in a calendar year, and roughly as many people are killed by gunshot as by auto accident every year.

The problem is, the vast vast majority of those are people illegally obtaining and carrying weapons. Making more laws is not stopping these people from obtaining/carrying firearms.

Show me data on the 6 million law-abiding carriers in the US and lets look at some real data on what will be impacted by additional legislation.

Chart showing this (older info but likely still relevant)

Good point... but I'll wager that the number of people who are injured/killed by accident and carelessness tops the list of those intentionally shot by either group (law-abiding/illegal).

JWB's program would go a long long way toward cutting those down as well.

Also, how many people are really illegal owners? By my count there are 27 states that don't require a permit to purchase a gun, don't require gun registration and don't require a permit to own a gun.

There's a lot of room between today and "taking guns away". At the very least guns should be regulated like cars IMO (registered/mandatory training and an operator's exam/etc).

 

[Joe T]

Icon, would you support stepping outside the theater to make a text if it is an emergency?

 

[[icon]]

As an aside, Whitaker Firearms in KY has one more of the new Glock 42 (.380acp single stack, a great carry pistol) left at $399. Hard to find right now.

 

[glock]

Icon, would you support background checks for ALL sales, including private sales?

Aside from transfer between blood relatives or immediate family, yes. I should be able to buy my son a .22 rifle for his 16th birthday, or give my wife a carry piece without the law getting involved, IMO. But that extends back more to my libertarian / small-government mindset.

I'm curious why this is often Gunguys response. Who is to say that any relative or immediate family would pass a background check??

 

[[icon]]

Icon, would you support stepping outside the theater to make a text if it is an emergency?

I'm strongly anti-text in the theater. :slamsfistontable:

 

[[icon]]

Icon, would you support background checks for ALL sales, including private sales?

Aside from transfer between blood relatives or immediate family, yes. I should be able to buy my son a .22 rifle for his 16th birthday, or give my wife a carry piece without the law getting involved, IMO. But that extends back more to my libertarian / small-government mindset.

I'm curious why this is often Gunguys response. Who is to say that any relative or immediate family would pass a background check??

I think I covered that in the part you didn't bold, and explained my reasoning.

You can disagree and that's fine... but at that point I think you're stepping over dollars to pick up dimes with regards to enforcement effort.

Again, we can't enforce the laws on the books now... I think we'd be better served going after high-reward / high-impact legislation that goes after the root of the problem. While that chart shows 35% family/friend I'd wager the vast vast majority of that is friend or extended family... and much of the "immediate family" sources are likely stolen/borrowed (taking dads gun from the drawer)..etc.

 

[timschochet]

Icon, would you support stepping outside the theater to make a text if it is an emergency?

Wow. Do you truly find this to be amusing?

 

[glock]

I live in Florida. If I'm in a restaurant and armed robbers crash through the doors suddenly, I feel better knowing that several people in that restaurant eating are probably packing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that I want to sit and witness a gun fight but these good people having guns is much better than them not having guns.

So you think that these several people- scattered throughout the restaurant- are going to somehow formulate some kind of coherent game plan and take out these bad guys? Or turn the scene into a scene right out of a Quentin Tarantino flick??

Seriously.

1) the very idea that there might be people carrying inside is a deterrent to a thief.

2) Concealed carry permit holders do exactly what you're describing every day in this country. Nobody's implying that they are operating like Seal Team 6 with coordinated counter attacks... but it only takes one.

The scenario was that armed robbers burst into a restaurant. I need links to this minority of CC who are properly trained executing successful gun play on multiple perps in public places. Not breaking balls- just would like to see some.

Seriously?

Think about. Let's say you're a robber. Wouldn't you much rather the people that you're robbing be unarmed?

And it's not like the good guys need some complex plan. It could be as simple as them pulling their guns out and telling the bad guys to get on the ground.

You miss the part where I question these CC folks are trained to act in such a situation?? And you watch too many movies. I say it's more likely that the non-trained gun toting bandits react by firing in such a situation. But that's just MHO.

 

[The Commish]

I tend to agree that making laws around carrying is pointless and I agree with you 100% that making more laws is pointless in that regard. However, I think there are plenty of areas that could be strengthened/grown with respect to consequences and responsibilities of carrying. I.E. Make the consequences for "incidents" much more severe. Make them on par with the responsibility of carrying in the first place. Let's be honest, Florida is a joke in this regard. Plenty of room for improvement down there.

I don't disagree. However you'd be surprised how stiff the penalties are for things like carrying while intoxicated, etc. If I go out drinking, I have to remove the magazine and remove all the rounds from the magazine and lock it down in a console. The stand your ground law could perhaps be tightened up a bit as it does produce a large grey area for justifiable homicide that might be a bit too liberal.

Ordinarily I'd prefer to err on the side of the guy trying to protect himself over the side of the aggressor/criminal, but there have been some instances of abuse I'm sure. I'm not getting into the Zimmerman/Martin thing in here as that's a whole different can of worms.

tl;dr: I agree there's room for improvement but that's as much a product of our legal system (Expensive high-profile lawyers, crappy judges) as it is a product of the legislation itself.

In Florida's case...it's all about the legislation. There's no accounting for "who started it" or "who escalated the situation" etc....all they have to do is claim they were in fear for their lives or that they were going to sustain great bodily harm and that's pretty much it. I don't tend to look at this kind of stuff from a POV. I like to look at it from the events that transpired to make this happen and the individual's part in those events. In a crude/simplified summary...if you start it or help escalate the situation, you're part to blame. Doesn't matter if you're holding the gun or not.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

So the shooter is claiming self defense saying he was hit in the face with a foreign object. Apparently the deceased fired first and hit him with his bag of popcorn and the shooter is claiming self defense, already has an attorney.

 

[Joe T]

Icon, would you support stepping outside the theater to make a text if it is an emergency?

I'm strongly anti-text in the theater. :slamsfistontable:

Thanks for the response. Since you are the resident expert, would you agree that common courtesy is deteriorating in the U.S.A.?

 

[Clifford]

Chart showing this (older info but likely still relevant)

23% obtained legally, 42% undetermined (friend/fam, borrowed/given, other where we don't know how the gun was originally obtained). 39% definitely illegal.

I think it's more accurate to say 15% purchased via channels that are "proper channels". Gun shows, pawn shops, etc don't require background checks or any such deterrents to purchase. At least not here. Meaning 85% of weapons used by federal inmates are coming in through grey or black markets.

Would you support making these "grey" markets white markets through legislation?

 

[Joe T]

Icon, would you support stepping outside the theater to make a text if it is an emergency?

Wow. Do you truly find this to be amusing?

No. Just trying to guide the discourse here to a more important topic. We've covered gun control how many times? Maybe it would help if we revived some common courtesy. It definitely couldn't hurt.

 

[[icon]]

Would you support making these "grey" markets white markets through legislation?

I would have no problem with background checks at the gun show / pawn shop level.

 

[timschochet]

Icon, would you support stepping outside the theater to make a text if it is an emergency?

Wow. Do you truly find this to be amusing?

No. Just trying to guide the discourse here to a more important topic. We've covered gun control how many times? Maybe it would help if we revived some common courtesy. It definitely couldn't hurt.

So you believe that in the wake of a guy getting shot for texting the "more important" topic is texting?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Apparently the deceased fired first and hit him with his bag of popcorn and the shooter is claiming self defense

As John Rambo might say, "He drew first popcorn"

 

[Politician Spock]

Very soon we will have our first "I read this thread and it made me decide to go out and purchase another gun! Sweet!" post.

And...there goes the intelligent discussion.

Really? That same post appears in EVERYONE of these discussions. And you're blaming me for it? Nice.

Hey guys, I know I said the stupid thing, but somebody always says the stupid thing, so that doesn't make me stupid, right?

Yeah you're really contributing to the intelligent conversation here.

He's pointing out an example of when you don't.

 

[[icon]]

Icon, would you support stepping outside the theater to make a text if it is an emergency?

I'm strongly anti-text in the theater. :slamsfistontable:

Thanks for the response. Since you are the resident expert, would you agree that common courtesy is deteriorating in the U.S.A.?

I'm not an expert in anything of the sort

But yes, it annoys the piss out of me. I think I'm becoming an old man before my very eyes.

 

[Joe T]

Icon, would you support stepping outside the theater to make a text if it is an emergency?

Wow. Do you truly find this to be amusing?

No. Just trying to guide the discourse here to a more important topic. We've covered gun control how many times? Maybe it would help if we revived some common courtesy. It definitely couldn't hurt.

So you believe that in the wake of a guy getting shot for texting the "more important" topic is texting?

No, I believe a common courtesy discussion needs more attention than it is getting.

 

[Politician Spock]

Icon, would you support stepping outside the theater to make a text if it is an emergency?

Wow. Do you truly find this to be amusing?

No. Just trying to guide the discourse here to a more important topic. We've covered gun control how many times? Maybe it would help if we revived some common courtesy. It definitely couldn't hurt.

So you believe that in the wake of a guy getting shot for texting the "more important" topic is texting?

Given the overwhelming number of gun threads, and the underwhelming number of texting threads, yes.

Also, he didn't get shot for texting.

 

[Clifford]

Would you support making these "grey" markets white markets through legislation?

I would have no problem with background checks at the gun show / pawn shop level.

What would be great is for gun owners who are like-minded to get together and spearhead an effort to change these few areas. Part of the reason that reasonable reforms get shouted down so easily is they always come from anti-gun groups or the left which is perceived as anti-gun. Just like in this forum, the weight of you, a known GunGuy, saying you would favor these reforms has a much greater impact than the exact same message coming from me, Tim, or AppleJack.

 

[[icon]]

In Florida's case...it's all about the legislation. There's no accounting for "who started it" or "who escalated the situation" etc....all they have to do is claim they were in fear for their lives or that they were going to sustain great bodily harm and that's pretty much it. I don't tend to look at this kind of stuff from a POV. I like to look at it from the events that transpired to make this happen and the individual's part in those events. In a crude/simplified summary...if you start it or help escalate the situation, you're part to blame. Doesn't matter if you're holding the gun or not.

Yeah in TN you have to prove you believed not only that the person had intent to do lethal/serious harm, but the capacity to do so. If you're a 200lb male and a 110lb female comes at you fists flying you're going to jail for shooting her. Same scenarios but she's got a large knife you're likely okay. If you're a 110lb female and a 220lb man throws you on the ground and starts beating you, you'll likely get off. I'm okay with those circumstances.

 

[Apple Jack]

Wait, so now we have people drawing weapons in a restaurant in cases of theft? Seriously? If they're just there to steal something, do the world a favor and keep your penis extension in your pants. Please.

 

[[icon]]

What would be great is for gun owners who are like-minded to get together and spearhead an effort to change these few areas. Part of the reason that reasonable reforms get shouted down so easily is they always come from anti-gun groups or the left which is perceived as anti-gun. Just like in this forum, the weight of you, a known GunGuy, saying you would favor these reforms has a much greater impact than the exact same message coming from me, Tim, or AppleJack.

I hear that. I do.

The problem is there is the concern (at least speaking for myself) that if we give an inch, the idiots in washington and in the media will try to take a mile with this ignorant mindset. If we agree to background checks at gun shows, they will view that as momentum and fight more aggressively for more legislation. Unfortunately our system has become a game of "see how much I can get from the other guy" and not a "lets see what is best for this country and it's citizens.

It's less a paranoid "OMG THEY R COMING FOR MY GUNZ" and more a "Until those idiots know what the hell they're talking about, I refuse to deal with them". Is that the healthiest mindset. Is that the right mindset, maybe not. But it's kinda where I'm personally at.

 

[[icon]]

Wait, so now we have people drawing weapons in a restaurant in cases of theft? Seriously? If they're just there to steal something, do the world a favor and keep your penis extension in your pants. Please.

Once you learn your ABC's and can link words together to form sentences, you'll realize nobody's disagreeing with you on that topic. This has been arguably the most productive gun discussion in a long time here IMO.. I'd like to keep it that way if possible.

 

[eoMMan]

I live in Florida. If I'm in a restaurant and armed robbers crash through the doors suddenly, I feel better knowing that several people in that restaurant eating are probably packing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that I want to sit and witness a gun fight but these good people having guns is much better than them not having guns.

So you think that these several people- scattered throughout the restaurant- are going to somehow formulate some kind of coherent game plan and take out these bad guys? Or turn the scene into a scene right out of a Quentin Tarantino flick??

Seriously.

1) the very idea that there might be people carrying inside is a deterrent to a thief.

2) Concealed carry permit holders do exactly what you're describing every day in this country. Nobody's implying that they are operating like Seal Team 6 with coordinated counter attacks... but it only takes one.

The scenario was that armed robbers burst into a restaurant. I need links to this minority of CC who are properly trained executing successful gun play on multiple perps in public places. Not breaking balls- just would like to see some.

Seriously?Think about. Let's say you're a robber. Wouldn't you much rather the people that you're robbing be unarmed?

And it's not like the good guys need some complex plan. It could be as simple as them pulling their guns out and telling the bad guys to get on the ground.

You miss the part where I question these CC folks are trained to act in such a situation?? And you watch too many movies. I say it's more likely that the non-trained gun toting bandits react by firing in such a situation. But that's just MHO.

Trained? You don't really need training in the example I gave but I'm all for mandatory training when it comes to cc permits.

 

[Two Deep]

Icon, would you support stepping outside the theater to make a text if it is an emergency?

I'm strongly anti-text in the theater. :slamsfistontable:

Thanks for the response. Since you are the resident expert, would you agree that common courtesy is deteriorating in the U.S.A.?

I'm not an expert in anything of the sort

But yes, it annoys the piss out of me. I think I'm becoming an old man before my very eyes.

Put me in the annoyed category. I don't understand the mindset of how people think that whatever they have going on by cell phone should include everybody around them. If you have to make a text or call do it in private. If you are talking on your house phone would you be offended if a movie theater sized crowd full of strangers came into your house and listened or looked over your shoulder while you are sitting in your recliner while texting.

 

[Clifford]

What would be great is for gun owners who are like-minded to get together and spearhead an effort to change these few areas. Part of the reason that reasonable reforms get shouted down so easily is they always come from anti-gun groups or the left which is perceived as anti-gun. Just like in this forum, the weight of you, a known GunGuy, saying you would favor these reforms has a much greater impact than the exact same message coming from me, Tim, or AppleJack.

I hear that. I do.

The problem is there is the concern (at least speaking for myself) that if we give an inch, the idiots in washington and in the media will try to take a mile with this ignorant mindset. If we agree to background checks at gun shows, they will view that as momentum and fight more aggressively for more legislation. Unfortunately our system has become a game of "see how much I can get from the other guy" and not a "lets see what is best for this country and it's citizens.

It's less a paranoid "OMG THEY R COMING FOR MY GUNZ" and more a "Until those idiots know what the hell they're talking about, I refuse to deal with them". Is that the healthiest mindset. Is that the right mindset, maybe not. But it's kinda where I'm personally at.

But the gun lobby controls the game. Agreeing to closing loopholes wouldn't put you one step closer to anything because the gun lobby still pays both sides a lot more handsomely than anyone else.

If anything the "oppose any and all reform" stance could have the opposite effect, where the pro-gun crowd is so unreasonable that it sways public opinion to the point that it allows the exact type of over the top reforms you guys are hoping to avoid.