The guy walking around with a visible gun is a fucking twat. I don't care if it's your right. You're a twat.

I thought this was 'Merica! That fascist just tried to ask him his name!

if only they were all like this guy

You mean cool, calm and collected, ex-marines of 22 years?

HAH!

>> ^wolfie:

if only they were all like this guy

I don't think the guy walking around with a visible gun is a twat. I think he handled himself quite well as he was doing his job. I hope they have him training other officers.

Seemed like a classy, reasonable guy. I would want anyone walking around with a visible gun to at least be subject to some scrutiny.

Here in the UK we'd just call the cops and CO19 would be around in minutes with their guns

That is the first time I heard a cop say his/ her name w/o even asking. Respect. That is the kind of cop I would respect ... and I do! He said thanks. The office said THANKS. That's like ... like ... a black... oh.

What I think is funny is: it seems pretty clear that the guy walking around with a visible, unloaded gun and a camera was looking to be harassed, abused, etc.

Gotta love a cop with enogh brains to take the piss. I like it.

... and please lordy know that's what he's doing.

Carrot, if it's legal to carry it, why would that be a problem? That's like saying that driving the speed limit on a road with a camera is looking to be harassed or abused. Besides, the camera was probably just his phone, which most people carry anyway.

Shooting video when rights are being abused/denied is one thing; that's a safeguard and, once uploaded to YouTube, becomes a public awareness mechanism...but painting yourself as a target for the express purpose of "catching a cop in the act" is quite another; that shit's pure deceit.

Also, is it really necessary to deny presenting identification just because you can? If the cop was being a dick at the outset, I might deny presenting I.D. too but this cop was obviously cool and obviously aware of what was really going on.

Entrapment works both ways and it's a good thing this cop was one step ahead of this fucking tool.

ahh man... I wanted to see this clip...
*dead video removed by user

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by LarsaruS.

Shuac, how do you expect someone to record their right being denied after it's already happened? And what's deceitful about walking around doing something that you're allowed to do? Also, no, it's not necessary to do something because you can do it. So what? He didn't have to present his ID. He didn't.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

Shuac, how do you expect someone to record their right being denied after it's already happened? And what's deceitful about walking around doing something that you're allowed to do? Also, no, it's not necessary to do something because you can do it. So what? He didn't have to present his ID. He didn't.


I'm not objecting to the video being taken. I'm objecting to this guy's agenda. Capice?

The other point I was making was this: given the way the cop was behaving what, exactly, would be the harm in producing ID? Show me another cop acting differently, and I'll give you another answer. But THIS cop in THIS video? ...no, there's no reasonable justification to deny producing I.D. other than to be a tool and to serve his little video presentation. I can almost hear him thinking, "Gee this isn't going so well...this cop is far too calm making for a boring 4th amendment rights video...hmm, maybe if I tell him I'm not going to produce I.D. then he'll get riled up...oh, I hope I hope I hope!"

Douche canoe, pure & simple.

On a related point...where was this fellow that he didn't need to produce a Carry License which, ostensibly, would have had his name somewhere on it?

You don't know what his agenda was, so objecting to it is pointless. As for not producing his ID, he didn't have to, so he didn't. So what?

There is worrying too late. There is also worrying TOO EARLY aka PARANOIA.

I'm starting to think this guy has a mental problem, because HE DOES. Apparently he's an ex-marine, so hopefully he gets good health care soon. What a fucking waste of time that costs resources....

I don't have a gun, wouldn't open carry if I did, and wouldn't expect everyone to be cool with it BECAUSE THEY SHOULDNT BE.

This isn't the wild west. Conceal carry like a real man who doesn't need a penis extension strapped on.

If his agenda is how @shuac assumes, you have to at least give him some credit for posting the video anyway.

Not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

Jeremy is creepy

>> ^blankfist:

Not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.


I haven't logged in for probably a year or more, but after I saw this...

Look, I'm all for people's rights.

But if you can't even fathom why people would be concerned about an unknown person carrying a potentially loaded deadly weapon in their presence, one that is basically indefensible if someone decides to use it (assuming they don't miss the first time,) then you are seriously disconnected from reality.

I'm sure you're just trying to voice your gung-ho pro-gun opinion, but seriously, to say you can't even imagine a single reason why the other side thinks what they do is absurd.

>> ^BrknPhoenix:

>> ^blankfist:
Not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

I haven't logged in for probably a year or more, but after I saw this...
Look, I'm all for people's rights.
But if you can't even fathom why people would be concerned about an unknown person carrying a potentially loaded deadly weapon in their presence, one that is basically indefensible if someone decides to use it (assuming they don't miss the first time,) then you are seriously disconnected from reality.
I'm sure you're just trying to voice your gung-ho pro-gun opinion, but seriously, to say you can't even imagine a single reason why the other side thinks what they do is absurd.


Fear. Fear. I'm afraid. I'm scared. Fear. You're out of touch if you aren't afraid like me. Fear. Afraid.

That's pretty much what I just read.

>> ^blankfist:

Not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.


No? No idea? How about fear of death? I live in Canada and if me or anyone I knew saw a civilian walking around with a gun we would call the police immediately. Doesn't really matter if they have no 'ill intent', they're walking around with a weapon that can kill someone in the blink of an eye. There's no use for a gun other than killing. Like someone said earlier, this isn't the wild west, have some common sense and at the very least it should be concealed with the proper permits.

>> ^PalmliX:

>> ^blankfist:
Not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

No? No idea? How about fear of death? I live in Canada and if me or anyone I knew saw a civilian walking around with a gun we would call the police immediately. Doesn't really matter if they have no 'ill intent', they're walking around with a weapon that can kill someone in the blink of an eye. There's no use for a gun other than killing. Like someone said earlier, this isn't the wild west, have some common sense and at the very least it should be concealed with the proper permits.


I don't think this guy lives in Canada. He lives in the US and in a place where open carry is legal. Some of us don't give in to fear. Sure a gun can kill someone in a blink of an eye, but so can a car or a steak knife. Should we ban roads and steak restaurants?

Jeremy showed no signs of being paranoid or mentally ill. Saying something in all caps doesn't make it true. Just because a guy started recording an interaction with police doesn't mean that he's paranoid. For fuck's sake, all he had to do was pull his phone out of his pocket and hit a button. Maybe carrying a gun is illegal where you live. So what? It was legal where and when Jeremy was doing it. The US isn't packed full of people carrying guns like you see in movies, but still there are a lot of people who carry a gun every day without incident. No big deal.

Yeah, I don't know what the big fuss is all about. Guns make everybody safer, right? I mean, I think the evidence is in and it's that America is safer than those other pussy countries, right? Right?

Like the woman who shot at a dog and killed her husband - safer!

http://www.news.com.au/world/american-woman-better-walker-shot-at-dog-but-kills-husband-police-say/story-e6frfkyi-1226096115154

Fear. Mockery. Next will be hyperbole. I'm crossing my fingers.

Hyperbole. Would you recognise it?

If not, have a look at this thread, where you take peoples concerns about civility and equate it with race hate mass murder: http://blog.videosift.com/blankfist/We-re-ban-happy-on-the-Sift-and-it-sucks

What comes after hyperbole - one word insults?

>> ^blankfist:


I don't think this guy lives in Canada. He lives in the US and in a place where open carry is legal. Some of us don't give in to fear. Sure a gun can kill someone in a blink of an eye, but so can a car or a steak knife. Should we ban roads and steak restaurants?


Actually, I would say walking around openly carrying a gun is the DEFINITION of giving in to fear.

There's your hyperbole, what do I win?

My whole problem with the issue is that the sort of people who want to carry guns around are exactly the sort of people who shouldn't be carrying guns around.

OK, why would you want to walk around carrying an unloaded gun? It serves no purpose. If you are in a situation where you need for protection, it's already too late.

I'm not questioning the guys right, but his intention.

Upvote for the behaviour of the cop. Respect to that man. He was absolutely right to stop the guy and check him.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

Jeremy showed no signs of being paranoid or mentally ill. Saying something in all caps doesn't make it true. Just because a guy started recording an interaction with police doesn't mean that he's paranoid. For fuck's sake, all he had to do was pull his phone out of his pocket and hit a button. Maybe carrying a gun is illegal where you live. So what? It was legal where and when Jeremy was doing it. The US isn't packed full of people carrying guns like you see in movies, but still there are a lot of people who carry a gun every day without incident. No big deal.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^blankfist:
Not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

No? No idea? How about fear of death? I live in Canada and if me or anyone I knew saw a civilian walking around with a gun we would call the police immediately. Doesn't really matter if they have no 'ill intent', they're walking around with a weapon that can kill someone in the blink of an eye. There's no use for a gun other than killing. Like someone said earlier, this isn't the wild west, have some common sense and at the very least it should be concealed with the proper permits.

I don't think this guy lives in Canada. He lives in the US and in a place where open carry is legal. Some of us don't give in to fear. Sure a gun can kill someone in a blink of an eye, but so can a car or a steak knife. Should we ban roads and steak restaurants?


Yes I agree that cars are dangerous and I always try and treat activities in or around vehicles with a healthy degree of respect because of that danger. Knives can be dangerous too, again I try and be as safe as I can around them.

Never the less I have cut myself many times and have been in more than one car accident, I was even hit by a car on my bike once. Yet I still choose to use cars and knives because their primary uses make our lives much more convenient and I have decided to accept the risk, it could be argued that it's not that worth it...

A guns primary use is quick and efficient murder. They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice... I never advocated for the banning of weapons, although that may not be such a bad idea. I simply said that in the country, and more specifically the city that I live in (Toronto), if I saw a civilian walking around with a gun I would be immediately frightened and for good reason.

Yes I give in to fear on a daily basis and I'm proud of it. Fear is a very effective survival tool. Has been for millions or even billions of years. To say that preventing regular civilians from visibly carrying around loaded guns is akin to banning steak restaurants or roads is completely asinine.

Maybe you don't give into fear blankfist... Maybe when a stranger walks towards you with a gun visibly holstered you don't feel any twinge in the pit of your stomach...

Personally though, I don't think that makes you tough or brave, I think it just makes you stupid.

>> ^shuac:

Shooting video when rights are being abused/denied is one thing; that's a safeguard and, once uploaded to YouTube, becomes a public awareness mechanism...but painting yourself as a target for the express purpose of "catching a cop in the act" is quite another; that shit's pure deceit.
Also, is it really necessary to deny presenting identification just because you can? If the cop was being a dick at the outset, I might deny presenting I.D. too but this cop was obviously cool and obviously aware of what was really going on.
Entrapment works both ways and it's a good thing this cop was one step ahead of this fucking tool.


2nd that

National Justice Institute
In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm. Most murders in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns. In 2006, firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 42 percent of robbery offenses and 22 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

The statistics show that firearms are the murder and suicide implement of choice in the United States as firearms are used in 2 out of every 3 homicides and half of all suicides.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/
http://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics.php#8

Firearms made the top 10 leading causes of death list in the US.
http://www.americanfirearms.org/images/Chart__big.gif

Murders with firearms (per capita)
United States is #8 in the world

Murders with firearms (total)
United States is #4 in the world

If you had a choice would you rather be stabbed or shot?
The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.
http://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(97)00144-0/abstract
*edit: The brackets break the link so please copy and paste if you care


I am a Canadian who owns guns and I do NOT support the federal gun registry as it does nothing to prevent crime or protect citizens.
However I do support the proper licensing, secure storage, and transport of firearms. I believe that some level of gun control is required but the majority of issues can be addressed through proper firearm education.
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^blankfist:
Not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

No? No idea? How about fear of death? I live in Canada and if me or anyone I knew saw a civilian walking around with a gun we would call the police immediately. Doesn't really matter if they have no 'ill intent', they're walking around with a weapon that can kill someone in the blink of an eye. There's no use for a gun other than killing. Like someone said earlier, this isn't the wild west, have some common sense and at the very least it should be concealed with the proper permits.

I don't think this guy lives in Canada. He lives in the US and in a place where open carry is legal. Some of us don't give in to fear. Sure a gun can kill someone in a blink of an eye, but so can a car or a steak knife. Should we ban roads and steak restaurants?

Statistically speaking, you are more at risk of dying from a car wreak than murdered by a firearm.

insecure cowboy showing off

@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."

No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.

Which is why the Sift is filled with "Man With Gun Saves Victim From Attack" types stories.

Except that it isn't.

Right after the camera shut off, the other cops tased the cop on the video.

Still not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

Not sure why people are not incensed by people carrying guns.

@blankfist

Well, I don't see any reason to be against it if the person has a valid reason for carrying the weapon. For example, if you've got a crazy stalker ex-boyfriend that there's a restraining order against who you think is going to get violent, or if your job requires you to travel from place to place picking up cash and you're likely to be a target for violence, or you live in the countryside and have a good chance of stumbling upon bears/mountain lions/coyotes or whatnot, then it makes sense for you to carry.

But I don't think it's a good idea for everyone to be armed all the time... too much likelihood of accidental discharges, killings over stupid things like traffic accidents, bystanders getting injured or killed by missed shots or ricochets (particularly in urban areas) even when discharging the firearm might be considered appropriate...

The cons outweigh the pros for me. America isn't the wild west anymore. It doesn't really seem to be necessary for most people to pack heat while heading out to the supermarket. If you've got a good reason, then yeah... get your license and carry.

But, like the cop said in this vid, maybe this guy has a legal carry permit and a legitimate reason for packing... or maybe he doesn't. There's no way visually to tell, is there? Why shouldn't that make people uneasy? If he's got bad intentions he can have the weapon out of the holster and be firing rounds in less than a second. I'm not supposed to be worried about that? I'm supposed to assume that anyone who is showing a weapon in broad daylight must have a legal permit and additionally have good intentions for carrying it around? That's an awful lot of faith you're asking me to put in my fellow citizens, many of whom voted George W. Bush into office twice.

there isnt a law (at least in my state) that prevents me from pouring a 5 gallon jug of cat piss on the sidewalk in front of the police station......doesnt mean i should fucking do it just because i can to prove a retarded point tho.

as it pertains to open carry laws (which i whole heartedly support and defend) if you perceive a need for that weapon in your daily activities or if its part of your job description, then carry. If your reason to carry is just because you fucking can? you better take the persecution and name calling like a fucking champ, douche canoe

That is some major *quality policing.

As for "Jeremy", either he was out to provoke, or he wants to seem a tough guy. Either way, total douchebag.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by hpqp.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."
No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.


Explain to me how an unloaded gun will stop someone using one illegally. Show me an example where a bystander who happened to be carrying a gun prevented a crime.

>> ^blankfist:

Still not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.


Still not sure why people are carrying guns.


On a side note, not being an american, I'd like to ask a question. Does the 2nd amendment only cover firearms? Could I walk down the street with a sword, for instance?

^ Is it not something like "the right to bear arms"?

I think that if a police officer is being perfectly reasonable you should be perfectly reasonable back. Because those guys are the good eggs, they're really good, and perhaps a nugget of information - regardless of how insignificant you think it might be - you tell them will end up saving your life, or the life of someone else you know. That, and i want that nice police officer to go home with a nice warm feeling that he got on well with people and that by being a nice police officer he got cooperation from people. I want to reward that behaviour.

Everything that the pedestrian did was legal, but he was an utter asshole.

How many videos of police officers being absolutely legal but utter assholes have been up on this website and hated on by the masses? I put it to you guys that if the roles were reversed, with the cop being legally an asshole, you'd be calling the cop any number of names.

But you're absolutely right. Cops are meant to be above that, and this guy was. Tongue in cheek sarcasm is EXACTLY the sort of shit a police officer should be an expert in giving. It's far better than abusing your power. Far more powerful too.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

OK, why would you want to walk around carrying an unloaded gun? It serves no purpose. If you are in a situation where you need for protection, it's already too late.
I'm not questioning the guys right, but his intention.
Upvote for the behaviour of the cop. Respect to that man. He was absolutely right to stop the guy and check him.


It's like carrying a cell phone with no battery.

This guy was totally looking harassed and put it on youtube. Glad to see a quality officer handle it like a pro.

Damn, took me a while to get this. I feel dumb

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

I don't think the guy walking around with a visible gun is a twat. I think he handled himself quite well as he was doing his job. I hope they have him training other officers.

I am just glad there is no "right to arm bears" in the US...

@ChaosEngine:



Obvuiously an unloaded weapon is useless. The guy is an idiot. But you'd have to be a moron to think that never in the history of guns has someone that's legally carrying stopped a crime with their weapon. I read an article not more than a week ago about some guy who got caught in a mugging, but instead of handing over his wallet, he shot the crook.

The reason the officer is asking for his ID and name are because he has to file a report on the incident. He will be recording only "Jeremy" on that report. Jeremy should not give his ID or full name to the officer if he is not being arrested, or unless it servers "jeremy's interests" (for example, if he was pulled over for being in a stolen car, but the car is registered to him.. fully identifying himself may prevent him from being arrested for a crime he has not committed). There is no benefit to him fully identifying himself to the officer. There could be consequences for his identity being filed away in police records.

this video is a true testament to the knowledge and respect of law on both sides. Props to "jeremy" for excercising his rights, and to the officers for knowing his rights.




>> ^shuac:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Shuac, how do you expect someone to record their right being denied after it's already happened? And what's deceitful about walking around doing something that you're allowed to do? Also, no, it's not necessary to do something because you can do it. So what? He didn't have to present his ID. He didn't.

I'm not objecting to the video being taken. I'm objecting to this guy's agenda. Capice?
The other point I was making was this: given the way the cop was behaving what, exactly, would be the harm in producing ID? Show me another cop acting differently, and I'll give you another answer. But THIS cop in THIS video? ...no, there's no reasonable justification to deny producing I.D. other than to be a tool and to serve his little video presentation. I can almost hear him thinking, "Gee this isn't going so well...this cop is far too calm making for a boring 4th amendment rights video...hmm, maybe if I tell him I'm not going to produce I.D. then he'll get riled up...oh, I hope I hope I hope!"
Douche canoe, pure & simple.
On a related point...where was this fellow that he didn't need to produce a Carry License which, ostensibly, would have had his name somewhere on it?

"Like the woman who shot at a dog and killed her husband - safer!"

That has nothing to do with this situation.

"why would you want to walk around carrying an unloaded gun?"

Because he can. We don't need a reason to do things that are legal to do.

"A guns primary use is quick and efficient murder. They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice"

Then why do the police carry them?

Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't legal in the US.

Seems the real objection people have with other people's right to open carry is that they're afraid of that person even without provocation. Fear vs reason.

Probably even less so in that situation.

Here's another great cop:

"Why should he? because he can"

*goes to buy a 5 gallon jug, cat piss to fill it with, and heads straight for the courthouse*

again, if your only reason for doing something is because you can/nothing says you cant? youre a dumbshit. jr high is over, move the fuck on

*edit* the exception is self fellatio. i would do that all day if i could and only because i could

why should you eat your own excrement? because you can.

>> ^blankfist:

Seems the real objection people have with other people's right to open carry is that they're afraid of that person even without provocation. Fear vs reason.


no the objection i have with this individual is his reason to carry is because he's a bag of douche. although that is merely speculation

to put it another way, if this guy was just shouting "all jews and blacks should burn". he's certainly not breaking any laws that i know of anyway, and he's certainly constitutionally protected to say those things, and im sure as hell not gonna stop or otherwise discourage him from doin so.........but he's still a giant asshole for saying those things

>> ^smooman:

why should you eat your own excrement? because you can.


Why should you take the bus instead of ride your bike? Because you can.

He walked down the street legally with an item that he was legally allowed to walk down the street with. We don't know why Jeremy was walking around with his gun, and it doesn't matter. If you would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why would I give a fuck?

Because you can't shoot me in the head with your jar of cat piss.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

>> ^PalmliX:

Like someone said earlier, this isn't the wild west, have some common sense and at the very least it should be concealed with the proper permits.


So you'd feel safer if you didn't know the guy was carrying a weapon?

Guns make me a bit uneasy. My father, uncles, and grandfather hunted, but none of them has ever been part of what I would call "the gun culture", so I've never had much exposure to guns. The most dangerous weapon I've ever fired was a potato gun.

So yeah, I'd rather know that someone is carrying one in public than the alternative.

>> ^shuac:

Shooting video when rights are being abused/denied is one thing; that's a safeguard and, once uploaded to YouTube, becomes a public awareness mechanism

So you're saying you'd wait until you were struck, tazed or shot before you pulled out a camera? Interesting strategy.

>> ^shuac:

Also, is it really necessary to deny presenting identification just because you can?

Yes

http://videosift.com/video/Dont-Talk-to-Cops
http://videosift.com/video/Dont-Talk-to-Cops-Part-2

"Because you can't shoot me in the head with your jar of cat piss."
Are you saying that guns shouldn't be legal? That's a different discussion. Are you saying that open carry shouldn't be legal? That's a different discussion.

If poster had an axe to grind, he didn't get the opportunity, and he wouldn't have posted the video. This is life as it should be, and I'm not a bit surprised the conscious beings surrounded by a series of tubes couldn't recognize it.

Guns don't kill people... rappers do.

>> ^blankfist:

Seems the real objection people have with other people's right to open carry is that they're afraid of that person even without provocation. Fear vs reason.


What's unreasonable about fearing a person who publicly carries a weapon without having any obvious reason to do so (i.e. law enforcement)? Carrying a gun around in a peaceful society is provocation enough to fear them. They're visually announcing to everyone within sight, "Hey look at me! I'm willing to kill someone!" I guess I'm just a bit strange in that I find the need wherever you go to proclaim your willingness to kill people a bit alarming. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that this isn't Somalia or some other 3rd-world country in which power is the only thing respected or you need to make your own justice.

I have no problem with other people's right to open-carry if they have a valid need to do so. I have a problem with the idea that everyone should open-carry... just because we can. I think that introduces problems (already mentioned in my post above) that are most easily solved by using common sense and leaving your weapon at home unless you're headed out into a situation where you're likely to encounter trouble.

Finally, the "because you can" argument cuts both ways: if I see someone wearing a gun walk down the street I'm going to call the cops and have them check the person out to make sure they're legit--because it's legal for me to do so and because I can.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

He walked down the street legally with an item that he was legally allowed to walk down the street with. We don't know why Jeremy was walking around with his gun, and it doesn't matter. If you would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why would I give a fuck?


i couldnt tell you why you should "give a fuck" if i walk around with a jar of cat piss because there isnt any real reason you should "give a fuck". im not arguing that at all. what i am rebutting is this idea that any ridicule of this mans behavior, while it may be well within his rights, is objectionable on the sole premise that "because he fucking can".

imagine you see me walking down the street legally with a legal jar of cat piss. you dont know why i am walking around with a jar of cat piss and it doesnt matter. if i would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why should you give a fuck? but if you think im weird for it, youre a paranoid idiot.....now does that make any more sense than chiding me, or anyone else, for very reasonably thinking "jeremy" a douche pickle sandwich, given the context of the situation.

i dont really give a fuck that he was lawfully open carrying. but given the situation that unfolded and how he unnecessarily reacted to it, i am inclined to think he is a douche captain who had no real motive to open carry other than to instigate an awkward scene with the police with the hopes that he may capture video evidence of police brutality that he instigated in the first place to prove a retarded point

for all i care he can continue to act in this way as is his right. doesnt mean im not gonna stop calling him a douche for it though

>> ^SDGundamX:

What's unreasonable about fearing a person who publicly carries a weapon without having any obvious reason to do so

How come everyone is so angry.
the people in the video weren't

I'm not incensed, not in the least. But I definitely would be afraid if I saw some random dude carrying a handgun in the wide open. Why? Because I know some people who carry - and I certainly would rather they didn't carry, given how well I know them... And since it's our right to carry, it's also a responsibility. Not just to be aware of safety when we carry, but also aware of the safety issues regarding other people carrying. Just like driving, you can't assume everyone on the road is a stellar driver... If you see some creepy dude walking around with a handgun, you'd be stupid not to raise an eyebrow.

But I strongly disagree with the comments that guns are only intended to kill people, are for quick and efficient murder, or that carrying one says "I'm willing to kill someone." Those kinds of statements only reinforce what Blankfist is saying - that the entire subject is being doused in fear and hyperbole...

>> ^blankfist:

Still not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

@braindonut

Well, to be fair, I was referring to open-carrying in public with a loaded firearm that's meant for self-defense, such as a pistol. In such a case, you are clearly showing everyone around you that you have the means to kill someone and are implying the willingness to use it if necessary. It's true you could be bluffing and won't actually use the weapon even in self-defense. But you're still making the "don't fuck with me" declaration, even if you don't intend to follow through on it.

But I agree with you that it shouldn't be all "guns are bad." It's about context. If I see a guy in full camo carrying a rifle and extra ammo out into the woods during open season, I'm not going to think twice about it. But if I see the same exact guy walking into the public library in downtown Los Angeles I'm going to be concerned.

"They're visually announcing to everyone within sight, "Hey look at me! I'm willing to kill someone!""

Horseshit. You can't apply an arbitrary message to someone's actions. I've carried a gun. Do you know if I'm willing to kill someone? Hint: You do not.

"what i am rebutting is this idea that any ridicule of this mans behavior, while it may be well within his rights, is objectionable on the sole premise that "because he fucking can"."

Walking around illegally showing a weapon is cause for alarm, but where this guy lives, it's legal. Ridicule is pointless.

"I have no problem with other people's right to open-carry if they have a valid need to do so. I have a problem with the idea that everyone should open-carry... just because we can."

But that's not what this conversation is about, is it? And it's a false dichotomy.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

"They're visually announcing to everyone within sight, "Hey look at me! I'm willing to kill someone!""
Horseshit. You can't apply an arbitrary message to someone's actions. I've carried a gun. Do you know if I'm willing to kill someone? Hint: You do not.
"what i am rebutting is this idea that any ridicule of this mans behavior, while it may be well within his rights, is objectionable on the sole premise that "because he fucking can"."
Walking around illegally showing a weapon is cause for alarm, but where this guy lives, it's legal. Ridicule is pointless.
"I have no problem with other people's right to open-carry if they have a valid need to do so. I have a problem with the idea that everyone should open-carry... just because we can."
But that's not what this conversation is about, is it? And it's a false dichotomy.


oh, so you have missed my point entirely. splendid. if i may put it in different terms: if his intention of openly carrying a firearm is explicitly "because he fucking can", he is an idiot. What discernable purpose does it serve to open carry because, and only because "you fucking can" besides announcing to everyone around you, "hey, check it out, ive got a gun, badass huh?" to which i would reply, "how small is your dick? do you drive a porche? whatever, Midlifecrisisasaurus".

what i am not fucking saying is he shouldnt be allowed to.

i open carry and conceal carry from time to time depending on the situation. however, every time i do carry its for a reason other than "because i fucking can". carrying, concealed or otherwise, all the damn time isnt all that smart anyway unless your day to day routine demands it. But if the only thing compelling you to carry is simply "because you fucking can" you are a fucking idiot douche and we will point and laugh at you

Right, because I know that if I come upon a robbery, I'm going to tell the guy "Hold on a second" so I can pull out my phone to record me drawing my pistol to shoot him.
>> ^kymbos:

Which is why the Sift is filled with "Man With Gun Saves Victim From Attack" types stories.
Except that it isn't.

You'll be hard pressed to find a guy more supportive of gun-rights than myself. However, Jeremy is an idiot. Walking around with a weapon openly displayed on a public easement is just poor gun ownership. Yes, you have the right to do it. However, with that right comes the responsibility to be a wise, cautious, courteous citizen. Openly carrying around a gun is not wise, cautious, or courteous.

When in a public area, keep the weapon concealed for both your own safety and the safety of others. There are plenty of holsters that can carry a weapon in a concealed manner. Use them. My favorite is the classic boot holster. I like Tony Llamas, and cowboy boots are plenty roomy to hold a small firearm. Takes all of 1 second to draw, and when it is in the holster it is completely undetectable. I'm armed, and I'm not freaking people out by publicly brandishing a weapon. Duh.

Nowadays with the advent of Ipads and other tablet computers, the "murse" is making a dreadful comeback. Women can keep a gun in a purse easily. Men - if you don't like cowboy boots then get a murse and keep the gun in there. It's just common sense guys.

The only point Jeremy made was that he is a troll.

>> ^shuac:>> ^DrewNumberTwo:Shuac, how do you expect someone to record their right being denied after it's already happened? And what's deceitful about walking around doing something that you're allowed to do? Also, no, it's not necessary to do something because you can do it. So what? He didn't have to present his ID. He didn't.I'm not objecting to the video being taken. I'm objecting to this guy's agenda. Capice?The other point I was making was this: given the way the cop was behaving what, exactly, would be the harm in producing ID? Show me another cop acting differently, and I'll give you another answer. But THIS cop in THIS video? ...no, there's no reasonable justification to deny producing I.D. other than to be a tool and to serve his little video presentation. I can almost hear him thinking, "Gee this isn't going so well...this cop is far too calm making for a boring 4th amendment rights video...hmm, maybe if I tell him I'm not going to produce I.D. then he'll get riled up...oh, I hope I hope I hope!"Douche canoe, pure & simple.On a related point...where was this fellow that he didn't need to produce a Carry License which, ostensibly, would have had his name somewhere on it?

Consider that he is a Marine (if true). Weigh this in the circumstances... he has likely been in service and openly carried. We have no idea what he has been through. We have no idea how he views the possibility of unforeseen threats now that he is back. He may have been almost killed several times in his life, and is now choosing to lawfully do his best to ensure it doesnt happen at home.

Also note the gun was NOT loaded. There was no magazine in or a round in the chamber. This could be because he intended to instigate a confrontation with LE but did not want the gun loaded. This is RESPONSIBILITY. Note the manner in which the officer handles an gun he is NOT FAMILIAR with (he asks what is it, how to manipulate it) while pointing the muzzle at bypassing traffic and in the direction of his fellow officer.

You can discuss and doubt the general public's responsibility in this type of open carry situation, but in fact the carrier was behaving very responsibly, more so than the officer, in the storage and handling of the weapon.

This man knows how to safely handle a firearm and knows his rights (quoting statutes during the interview). Calling him a doucehwhatever is very short-sighted.

"if his intention of openly carrying a firearm is explicitly "because he fucking can", he is an idiot."

But you don't have any idea of what his intention is, do you?

"What discernable purpose does it serve to open carry"

How is that relevant?

"Openly carrying around a gun is not wise, cautious, or courteous."

Bare assertion.

Well, the last post contained all of the message I was allegedly quoting from and left out my comments, so I'll try again. In California, open carry is lawful so long as the weapon is unloaded within city limits. The same section of the CPC authorized law enforcement officers to stop persons exercising their open carry rights to determine if the gun is loaded or not. That was the law when I was a Santa Ana Reserve Police Officer. What we just witnessed in the video could have been a training scenario from the police academy: it portrayed two persons exhibiting the proper behavior in a potentially stressful situation. That is a police officer who should be a training officer. Incidentally, Oceanside, CA has a number of former (never say ex-) Marines and to them I say Semper Fi! from Doc.

"On a related point...where was this fellow that he didn't need to produce a Carry License which, ostensibly, would have had his name somewhere on it?"

Many states that allow Open carry, allow this without any type of authorization or license. Only Concealed carry requires "permission" in some of these states. see below


http://opencarry.org/maps.html

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."
No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.


Right... that doesn't change the fact that they only have one use. If your shooting someone legally to stop them from using a gun illegally, are you not still using the gun for it's singular intended purpose?

"I'm not objecting to the video being taken. I'm objecting to this guy's agenda."

Which you don't know.

"given the way the cop was behaving what, exactly, would be the harm in producing ID?"

This is similar to the argument that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. There is nothing wrong with acting within your rights. If the police want to search you, your possessions, or your house without a warrant or probable cause, then there's nothing wrong with not allowing that. The "don't talk to cops" links above clearly show why it's not a good idea to present the police with any information that you're not required to.

All opinions for or against all of the above aside, I'm just wondering about one thing. And apparently, I'm not very in-the-know about specifics of rights at all.

If so many people get beat up, tazed, shot, locked up, etc., for not cooperating with police (which sometimes means withholding ID), then how did a guy who did same just walk off carrying a loaded gun? My point is this represents a huge inconsistency in law enforcement. Piss a cop off and get beat up and arrested (spend a weekend in jail only to be released on monday morning -- one of the biggest intimidation tactics a cop has beyond physical threat), but walk down a street armed with a gun and refuse to identify yourself and... it's fine? What?

Frankly internet video has me all but believing that that no ID = arrested (or tazed or dead, on a really bad day).


Edit: Apparently you only have to identify yourself in some states. I guess this wasn't one. That and the right to carry a gun. So I assume because he did nothing 'wrong', this checks out. I guess...

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^PalmliX:
Like someone said earlier, this isn't the wild west, have some common sense and at the very least it should be concealed with the proper permits.

So you'd feel safer if you didn't know the guy was carrying a weapon?
Guns make me a bit uneasy. My father, uncles, and grandfather hunted, but none of them has ever been part of what I would call "the gun culture", so I've never had much exposure to guns. The most dangerous weapon I've ever fired was a potato gun.
So yeah, I'd rather know that someone is carrying one in public than the alternative.


Well technically I would feel safer because I wouldn't know they were carrying it. So I'd have no immediately obvious reason to fear them. Does that make it better? I suppose it depends on a lot of things.

In Canada there are permits to carry a weapon but it's basically to impossible to obtain one. Essentially the only time a civilian is allowed to OPENLY carry (never concealed) a weapon is in extreme wilderness areas where their life could be threatened by not having one.

So basically that leaves us with a situation where the only people who are allowed to carry guns in Canada are police officers. Personally I appreciate this approach more then the American one because if I saw a civilian carrying a gun I would immediately know it was illegal and would be able to defend myself properly.

"Right... that doesn't change the fact that they only have one use."

You can also shoot targets and animals, the latter for protection or food. Not that that's relevant.

"Personally I appreciate this approach more then the American one because if I saw a civilian carrying a gun I would immediately know it was illegal and would be able to defend myself properly."

Defend yourself with what? Regardless, all you're asking for is an appearance of safety instead of actual safety. How does that help you? Wouldn't it make more sense to make it illegal to carry a hidden weapon, so that you'd know instantly if anyone around you had a weapon? It wouldn't matter either way, though, because pretty much anyone who's planning to use a weapon for illegal means isn't going to display that weapon openly.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

"if his intention of openly carrying a firearm is explicitly "because he fucking can", he is an idiot."
But you don't have any idea of what his intention is, do you?
"What discernable purpose does it serve to open carry"
How is that relevant?
"Openly carrying around a gun is not wise, cautious, or courteous."
Bare assertion.


did you notice the giant if that preceded that entire sentence? jesus mary and joseph you are fucking dense arent you?

"what discernible purpose...." if i have to explain how that is relevant to the point that i am trying to make, then you are dumber than a bag of smashed assholes. fucking hell. are you being impossible on purpose just to chap my ass or are you really just so inept at following a line of thought in debate?

>> ^PalmliX:

Well technically I would feel safer because I wouldn't know they were carrying it. So I'd have no immediately obvious reason to fear them. Does that make it better? I suppose it depends on a lot of things.
In Canada there are permits to carry a weapon but it's basically to impossible to obtain one. Essentially the only time a civilian is allowed to OPENLY carry (never concealed) a weapon is in extreme wilderness areas where their life could be threatened by not having one.
So basically that leaves us with a situation where the only people who are allowed to carry guns in Canada are police officers. Personally I appreciate this approach more then the American one because if I saw a civilian carrying a gun I would immediately know it was illegal and would be able to defend myself properly.


In paragraph 1 you're arguing for an illusion of safety rather than actual safety. You might feel safer being unaware of how many guns are being carried around you, but you actually are safer if you're aware of them, because then you can respond accordingly.

Re: paragraphs 2-3...

I guess it's nice to know that the US still beats Canada on some rights, because we're not doing so well on most of them.

My problem with the collective knee jerk on display in this thread is a more general concept. The problem has been around since recorded history began but has really picked up steam in the last 10 years. It's the idea of preemptive guilt. It usually takes the form of a slippery slope argument.

Drug use is illegal because it leads to gang violence and theft.
Prostitution is illegal because it leads to abuse and slavery.
Polygamy is illegal because it leads to abuse of women.
And now there's a push to make guns illegal because they lead to murder and homicide.

Guess what? Theft, slavery, murder, manslaughter and assault are already illegal. There's no need to criminalize things that could lead to illegal activities. It's noble to want to prevent abuse and murder and such, but it's also impossible. The only society in which you can possibly prevent these crimes is a big brother scenario.

We're supposed to have freedom here in the US. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." That means not only defending freedom but accepting the risks that come with it because the only way for the government to make you safe is to take your rights away and imprison anyone who attempts anything potentially dangerous.

It's a shame when a normally pro-rights group such as Videosift can't see through their own bullshit.

If I'm shooting someone legally, it's not murder.>> ^PalmliX:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."
No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.

Right... that doesn't change the fact that they only have one use. If your shooting someone legally to stop them from using a gun illegally, are you not still using the gun for it's singular intended purpose?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

If I'm shooting someone legally, it's not murder.>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."
No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.

Right... that doesn't change the fact that they only have one use. If your shooting someone legally to stop them from using a gun illegally, are you not still using the gun for it's singular intended purpose?



furthermore, insisting that guns serve one and only one purpose really just shows your complete ignorance of these tools.

"did you notice the giant if that preceded that entire sentence?"

I sure did. My comment still stands. Since you don't know what his intentions were, you're just guessing, which makes your comment pointless and irrelevant.

"if i have to explain how that is relevant to the point that i am trying to make, then you are dumber than a bag of smashed assholes."

I might be dumber than a bag of smashed assholes, but I know an irrelevant argument when I see one. My question was rhetorical.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@ChaosEngine:
I read an article not more than a week ago about some guy who got caught in a mugging, but instead of handing over his wallet, he shot the crook.


Seriously ? what kind of fucking retard attempts to kill a man over a wallet proberaly with $40 in it and a couple of library cards ?

Sometimes I swear the US is so screwed up they don't even know which way home is.

Right, because the US is the only country in which people get killed over measly sums of money. Besides, I bet that most mugger use a gun as a means of persuasion than would actually kill.>> ^sirex:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
@ChaosEngine:
I read an article not more than a week ago about some guy who got caught in a mugging, but instead of handing over his wallet, he shot the crook.

Seriously ? what kind of fucking retard attempts to kill a man over a wallet proberaly with $40 in it and a couple of library cards ?
Sometimes I swear the US is so screwed up they don't even know which way home is.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Right, because the US is the only country in which people get killed over measly sums of money.>> ^sirex:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
@ChaosEngine:
I read an article not more than a week ago about some guy who got caught in a mugging, but instead of handing over his wallet, he shot the crook.

Seriously ? what kind of fucking retard attempts to kill a man over a wallet proberaly with $40 in it and a couple of library cards ?
Sometimes I swear the US is so screwed up they don't even know which way home is.



I wasn't disputing that US isn't the only country with retards. I was saying that this person was one of them. I'm sure criminals in every country are frequently asshats that will kill people over nothing, but i'm not so sure the citizens are. Imho, this is not the hallmark of a good society.

Of course it's not. That's why we try to focus on the things that are.

This argument is so terrible. The primary purpose of cars and steak knives is not to kill people. Yes, they CAN be used as weapons, but by and large they are not, and the benefits we get from them outweigh the risks. The assertion that the benefits of brandishing a gun in public outweigh the risks is pretty easily contested.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^blankfist:
Not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

No? No idea? How about fear of death? I live in Canada and if me or anyone I knew saw a civilian walking around with a gun we would call the police immediately. Doesn't really matter if they have no 'ill intent', they're walking around with a weapon that can kill someone in the blink of an eye. There's no use for a gun other than killing. Like someone said earlier, this isn't the wild west, have some common sense and at the very least it should be concealed with the proper permits.

I don't think this guy lives in Canada. He lives in the US and in a place where open carry is legal. Some of us don't give in to fear. Sure a gun can kill someone in a blink of an eye, but so can a car or a steak knife. Should we ban roads and steak restaurants?

It's not fair, man. So, people can walk around with guns that can kill people and not produce ID, but if I'm walking home like 2 minutes from my house and have a sip of beer and a cop asks me for my ID and I don't give it to him I end up being hauled back to the station and handcuffed to a metal grate. Fucking US of A!

>> ^shagen454:

It's not fair, man. So, people can walk around with guns that can kill people and not produce ID, but if I'm walking home like 2 minutes from my house and have a sip of beer and a cop asks me for my ID and I don't give it to him I end up being hauled back to the station and handcuffed to a metal grate. Fucking US of A!


Find a beer-container that can kill people. PROBLEM SOLVED.

Coors?

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^shagen454:
It's not fair, man. So, people can walk around with guns that can kill people and not produce ID, but if I'm walking home like 2 minutes from my house and have a sip of beer and a cop asks me for my ID and I don't give it to him I end up being hauled back to the station and handcuffed to a metal grate. Fucking US of A!

Find a beer-container that can kill people. PROBLEM SOLVED.

>> ^shagen454:

It's not fair, man. So, people can walk around with guns that can kill people and not produce ID, but if I'm walking home like 2 minutes from my house and have a sip of beer and a cop asks me for my ID and I don't give it to him I end up being hauled back to the station and handcuffed to a metal grate. Fucking US of A!


Sounds like you've got a false arrest case there. Don't make other things illegal just because someone wrongly arrested you.

What I was initially arguing against was blankfist's assertion that if we ban carrying guns in public we might as well ban cars and steak knives because those can kill people too.

I acknowledged that they are dangerous but that society accepts the risks because cars and steak knives have primary uses that aren't killing or destroying things. Where as a gun's only use is killing/destroying targets, so it's much much harder to justify carrying it around in public.

Now of course, if you're by yourself in the wilderness, this is another matter, I never advocated for the total banning of guns, in fact, in the home I totally respect an individual's right to keep firearms, but walking around the street with one is unnecessary and just provokes people in fear/fight reactions which makes no one safer.

Now, if you know of any other uses for guns, please enlighten me, otherwise stop picking at my arguments out of context.
>> ^smooman:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
If I'm shooting someone legally, it's not murder.>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."
No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.

Right... that doesn't change the fact that they only have one use. If your shooting someone legally to stop them from using a gun illegally, are you not still using the gun for it's singular intended purpose?


furthermore, insisting that guns serve one and only one purpose really just shows your complete ignorance of these tools.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

If I'm shooting someone legally, it's not murder.>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."
No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.

Right... that doesn't change the fact that they only have one use. If your shooting someone legally to stop them from using a gun illegally, are you not still using the gun for it's singular intended purpose?



You're just dodging my point... Wether or not your legally shooting someone just change the fact that as a tool, a gun only has one use.

When did I argue for the illusion of safety? I was just trying to answer honestly... Of course I would FEEL better if I didn't know someone was carrying a gun because I would have no obvious reason to fear them.

Did I say that was better then carrying it openly?

What I was arguing is that I believe I'm safer in a system where no civilians are allowed to carry guns because if I did see someone with a gun, I would immediately know they have bad intentions because they are breaking the law just to be carrying it. Thus I could take action immediately instead of having to figure out their intentions.

I find it kind of sad that you think the US 'beats' Canada on some rights because people are allowed to walk around with unloaded guns. Ya that's a great right you have there, it's really working out well for you guys.

Sorry I think I'll give up that particular right in exchange for no interception of communications without warrant, no secret military trials where me or my lawyer can't see the evidence, or no indefinite detention of foreigners etc... oh, and free healthcare.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^PalmliX:
Well technically I would feel safer because I wouldn't know they were carrying it. So I'd have no immediately obvious reason to fear them. Does that make it better? I suppose it depends on a lot of things.
In Canada there are permits to carry a weapon but it's basically to impossible to obtain one. Essentially the only time a civilian is allowed to OPENLY carry (never concealed) a weapon is in extreme wilderness areas where their life could be threatened by not having one.
So basically that leaves us with a situation where the only people who are allowed to carry guns in Canada are police officers. Personally I appreciate this approach more then the American one because if I saw a civilian carrying a gun I would immediately know it was illegal and would be able to defend myself properly.

In paragraph 1 you're arguing for an illusion of safety rather than actual safety. You might feel safer being unaware of how many guns are being carried around you, but you actually are safer if you're aware of them, because then you can respond accordingly.
Re: paragraphs 2-3...
I guess it's nice to know that the US still beats Canada on some rights, because we're not doing so well on most of them.

@PalmliX

What I was arguing is that I believe I'm safer in a system where no civilians are allowed to carry guns

I find it kind of sad that you think the US 'beats' Canada on some rights

Sorry I think I'll give up that particular right in exchange for...

>> ^PalmliX:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
If I'm shooting someone legally, it's not murder.>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."
No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.

Right... that doesn't change the fact that they only have one use. If your shooting someone legally to stop them from using a gun illegally, are you not still using the gun for it's singular intended purpose?


You're just dodging my point... Wether or not your legally shooting someone just change the fact that as a tool, a gun only has one use.


a gun can be used to open locked doors or containers. a gun can be used as a blunt tool, particularly larger firearms such as rifles and shotguns. a gun can be used as a deterrent or as a tool of intimidation (without ever aiming at anyone or discharging i might add). need i continue?

you have just been enlightened. still think guns have one and only one use?

if your statements had been that guns have only one primary use, oh absolutely, no argument there. but your insistence that guns can only be used for one, and only one thing is absurd to anyone who is even remotely familiar with these weapon systems.

it is no different than me saying that cars have one and only one use: high speed transportation. I'd be dead wrong if that was my stance on automobiles

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@ChaosEngine:

Obvuiously an unloaded weapon is useless. The guy is an idiot. But you'd have to be a moron to think that never in the history of guns has someone that's legally carrying stopped a crime with their weapon. I read an article not more than a week ago about some guy who got caught in a mugging, but instead of handing over his wallet, he shot the crook.


@MarineGunrock, I'm not saying that a legally carried gun has never stopped a crime. What I'd like to know is how often it happens and what the percentage outcome is, i.e. average joe citizen tries to intervene with a gun and ends making it worse? better? I don't have any numbers, but I can't help but feel adding an amateur with firearms into a situation only makes it worse.

As for the mugging scenario, I'd hand over my wallet. Every time. Simply not worth the risk for the sake of a few bucks. Hell, I wouldn't even wish the mugger death over that.

A lot of states require that you go through a short course to legally carry concealed. Not all, and yes, that's only to carry concealed. Still, this does mean you have at least SOME people who are trained.

As for the mugging scenario, if you had a concealed weapon and depending on where you holster it, you could say "okay, I'm reaching for my wallet and then just blast him.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
@ChaosEngine:

Obvuiously an unloaded weapon is useless. The guy is an idiot. But you'd have to be a moron to think that never in the history of guns has someone that's legally carrying stopped a crime with their weapon. I read an article not more than a week ago about some guy who got caught in a mugging, but instead of handing over his wallet, he shot the crook.

@MarineGunrock, I'm not saying that a legally carried gun has never stopped a crime. What I'd like to know is how often it happens and what the percentage outcome is, i.e. average joe citizen tries to intervene with a gun and ends making it worse? better? I don't have any numbers, but I can't help but feel adding an amateur with firearms into a situation only makes it worse.
As for the mugging scenario, I'd hand over my wallet. Every time. Simply not worth the risk for the sake of a few bucks. Hell, I wouldn't even wish the mugger death over that.

>> ^MarineGunrock:"okay, I'm reaching for my wallet and then just blast him.




lol!

>> ^MarineGunrock:

A lot of states require that you go through a short course to legally carry concealed. Not all, and yes, that's only to carry concealed. Still, this does mean you have at least SOME people who are trained.

What does a "short course" entail? An afternoon? A weekend? A week? In every domain I've been involved in, from software development to photography to martial arts, the rough consensus is that it takes 10000 hours to master a skill. I don't consider someone who has taken a "short course" trained, or even competent.
>> ^MarineGunrock:

As for the mugging scenario, if you had a concealed weapon and depending on where you holster it, you could say "okay, I'm reaching for my wallet and then just blast him.

Ok, let's assume I'm mugged by a guy with a gun. What makes you think you'll be able to draw your gun from it's concealed holster and "blast him" before he shoots you? Assuming he's already pointing a gun at you.

Besides, is human life really that cheap that you'd kill someone over your wallet? If I thought he was going to harm me in some way, that's a different story, but the death penalty for robbery seems kinda draconian to me. If someone is desperate enough to mug someone, they're probably in a pretty messed up way. I'd prefer to respond like this.

LOL he's got a gun trained on you! Of course your life is in danger! And no, 10,000 hours is ludicrous to have mastery in firearms, certainly your own if not make makes and models. And yes, I'd shoot someone should they try to steal from me. I wouldn't necessarily attempt a kill shot, but I wouldn't be remorseful if they died from it. Unlike you, I don't want to be walked on and then reward despicable behavior. >> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
A lot of states require that you go through a short course to legally carry concealed. Not all, and yes, that's only to carry concealed. Still, this does mean you have at least SOME people who are trained.
What does a "short course" entail? An afternoon? A weekend? A week? In every domain I've been involved in, from software development to photography to martial arts, the rough consensus is that it takes 10000 hours to master a skill. I don't consider someone who has taken a "short course" trained, or even competent.
>> ^MarineGunrock:
As for the mugging scenario, if you had a concealed weapon and depending on where you holster it, you could say "okay, I'm reaching for my wallet and then just blast him.
Ok, let's assume I'm mugged by a guy with a gun. What makes you think you'll be able to draw your gun from it's concealed holster and "blast him" before he shoots you? Assuming he's already pointing a gun at you.
Besides, is human life really that cheap that you'd kill someone over your wallet? If I thought he was going to harm me in some way, that's a different story, but the death penalty for robbery seems kinda draconian to me. If someone is desperate enough to mug someone, they're probably in a pretty messed up way. I'd prefer to respond like this.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

LOL he's got a gun trained on you! Of course your life is in danger! And no, 10,000 hours is ludicrous to have mastery in firearms, certainly your own if not make makes and models. And yes, I'd shoot someone should they try to steal from me. I wouldn't necessarily attempt a kill shot, but I wouldn't be remorseful if they died from it. Unlike you, I don't want to be walked on and then reward despicable behavior. >> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
A lot of states require that you go through a short course to legally carry concealed. Not all, and yes, that's only to carry concealed. Still, this does mean you have at least SOME people who are trained.
What does a "short course" entail? An afternoon? A weekend? A week? In every domain I've been involved in, from software development to photography to martial arts, the rough consensus is that it takes 10000 hours to master a skill. I don't consider someone who has taken a "short course" trained, or even competent.
>> ^MarineGunrock:
As for the mugging scenario, if you had a concealed weapon and depending on where you holster it, you could say "okay, I'm reaching for my wallet and then just blast him.
Ok, let's assume I'm mugged by a guy with a gun. What makes you think you'll be able to draw your gun from it's concealed holster and "blast him" before he shoots you? Assuming he's already pointing a gun at you.
Besides, is human life really that cheap that you'd kill someone over your wallet? If I thought he was going to harm me in some way, that's a different story, but the death penalty for robbery seems kinda draconian to me. If someone is desperate enough to mug someone, they're probably in a pretty messed up way. I'd prefer to respond like this.



Ah, I made the mistake of assuming you had a) some knowledge of the subject and b) some humanity.

a) I don't know much about firearms but I know people who do, and every single one of them has said you don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill. I'm absolutely sure that some muppet with a weekend training course is going to be able to draw, aim and hit before being shot. yeah, right.

b) I'd rather be "walked on" and walk away than take a human life over whatever few dollars I happen to have in my wallet.

Clearly, you've seen one too many hollywood movies. Enjoy living in your fantasy land.

@MarineGunrock @ChaosEngine

My dad had a concealed carry permit, kept his gun in his car but not usually on his person.

When he was in his late 70's, he was mugged in his front yard in rural Oklahoma. Was hit in the face with a length of metal pipe -- pretended to be knocked out when he wasn't.

Talking about it to me, he brought up the fact that he didn't have his gun on him. I asked him, quite seriously, if he would have used it had it been on him.

He said no.

He knew that getting smacked in the face, as horrible as it was, was not a death penalty offense.

Real life situation, not hypothetical.

Actually, it's "Do not point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. If I had a gun pointed at me, no, I probably wouldn't try and draw unless I had a shoulder harness under my coat and there was one already in the chamber, but all of this makes no difference to a situation where you could help someone else that's in trouble. >> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
LOL he's got a gun trained on you! Of course your life is in danger! And no, 10,000 hours is ludicrous to have mastery in firearms, certainly your own if not make makes and models. And yes, I'd shoot someone should they try to steal from me. I wouldn't necessarily attempt a kill shot, but I wouldn't be remorseful if they died from it. Unlike you, I don't want to be walked on and then reward despicable behavior. >> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
A lot of states require that you go through a short course to legally carry concealed. Not all, and yes, that's only to carry concealed. Still, this does mean you have at least SOME people who are trained.
What does a "short course" entail? An afternoon? A weekend? A week? In every domain I've been involved in, from software development to photography to martial arts, the rough consensus is that it takes 10000 hours to master a skill. I don't consider someone who has taken a "short course" trained, or even competent.
>> ^MarineGunrock:
As for the mugging scenario, if you had a concealed weapon and depending on where you holster it, you could say "okay, I'm reaching for my wallet and then just blast him.
Ok, let's assume I'm mugged by a guy with a gun. What makes you think you'll be able to draw your gun from it's concealed holster and "blast him" before he shoots you? Assuming he's already pointing a gun at you.
Besides, is human life really that cheap that you'd kill someone over your wallet? If I thought he was going to harm me in some way, that's a different story, but the death penalty for robbery seems kinda draconian to me. If someone is desperate enough to mug someone, they're probably in a pretty messed up way. I'd prefer to respond like this.


Ah, I made the mistake of assuming you had a) some knowledge of the subject and b) some humanity.
a) I don't know much about firearms but I know people who do, and every single one of them has said you don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill. I'm absolutely sure that some muppet with a weekend training course is going to be able to draw, aim and hit before being shot. yeah, right.
b) I'd rather be "walked on" and walk away than take a human life over whatever few dollars I happen to have in my wallet.
Clearly, you've seen one too many hollywood movies. Enjoy living in your fantasy land.

"If I thought he was going to harm me in some way, that's a different story,"

You mean like if he threatened you with a deadly weapon unless you did what he told you? Or would such a fellow strike you as the trustworthy sort that wouldn't harm you if you followed his instructions?

What really worries me is the number of gun owners who are not trained properly to use the weapon. The idea that Jeremy is a marine means he has the expert training to use the pistol. As I sit here and type these words, I can think of several places to buy a rifle or pistol. However I do not know of a range to go practice and have never seen anouncements for gun safety classes. I realize that if I owned a gun that I would not be missing these things though.

Exactly. I am so not into self help books but The Gift of Fear is an interesting read. Most of what we call fear is really anxiety based worry. True fear is a primal instinct and learning the difference cam save lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_of_Fear

>> ^blankfist:

Seems the real objection people have with other people's right to open carry is that they're afraid of that person even without provocation. Fear vs reason.

Fear of guns even in the hands of those who are paid to carry is not a bad thing. Look at the Norway shooter dressed as a cop. My best friend holding a gun makes me nervous, because it is an instrument of death. I don't need such things around my person.