Pistol-Packing Soccer Mom Sues Sheriff

[Minjin]

Does anyone here actually believe that the 5 year olds even noticed the guy, and if they did, that they would care? Honestly, I think the context of a soccer game is a red herring. The whole point of carrying is to be prepared because you never know what will happen. How often do you actually need your seatbelt? Very rarely but you still put it on every day and have hopefully developed a habit of it. The same happens with carrying a weapon. You develop it into a habit so that if the times come that you need it, it wasn't one of those times that you thought you wouldn't need it. "Oh, I'm just going around the block...I won't need that"

Oh, and I'm a local to the incident in question. The only complaint I have about the suit (and I didn't see mentioned here) is that if she wins, its not government that ultimately pays, its the taxpayers.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Minjin
Does anyone here actually believe that the 5 year olds even noticed the guy, and if they did, that they would care? Honestly, I think the context of a soccer game is a red herring. The whole point of carrying is to be prepared because you never know what will happen. How often do you actually need your seatbelt? Very rarely but you still put it on every day and have hopefully developed a habit of it. The same happens with carrying a weapon. You develop it into a habit so that if the times come that you need it, it wasn't one of those times that you thought you wouldn't need it. "Oh, I'm just going around the block...I won't need that"

Oh, and I'm a local to the incident in question. The only complaint I have about the suit (and I didn't see mentioned here) is that if she wins, its not government that ultimately pays, its the taxpayers.

my kids have always noticed when people are carrying a gun. that could be due to me always carrying one tho. i doubt any 5 yr olds would care really if they saw a person carrying a weapon, unless their parents made it a big scary deal to them on a regular basis. sounds like this community is one that isnt used to seeing weapons carried on a daily basis. i remember one time in tempe i walked into a subway to get a sammich, the cashier threatened to call the cops as soon as he saw me. ducked under the counter and all, i was very confused. turns out he was fresh from california and the only time he had seen people wear a gun into the subway he worked at were robbing the place. we ended up talking for a while after that debacle, his coworker was the one that calmed him down and explained that he was overreacting. he was pretty cool with it afterward, but obviously shaken, due to the total opposite of how he had been raised.

as a regular carrier, sometimes you dont think about where you are wearing it, its part of your wardrobe/ routine for the most part. would i take it to a soccer game? probably not, but it would be right there in my truck if i needed it. besides, if i had been in the same situation, no one would have seen it regardless, since i tend to keep mine out of sight. no need to draw unnecessary attention to yourself.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: Baked
Dear stupid bitch, It's called concealed carry, not show off carry. Don't go around town acting like you're the fucking sheriff, showing off your fucking gun, and people wouldn't give you the eye.

ed zachary what i was thinking. why did she even have it visible?

i also think there is more to the story than is showing up now, but it really does suck. if that soccer game were on school grounds she could lose the license if she were in az, since thats a felony here. incidentally, if you drive from tempe to east mesa carrying a firearm in your vehicle on US60 here in the east valley, youve broken that particular law 27 times.


i still think the sheriff was a douche for the knee-jerk reaction and not taking his time to do it right, but i also think she should have been more sensitive to her situation and concealed it better. she has to know how the community feels about weapons, she may have done that to prove a point or to flaunt that she got her CCW.

AZ doesn't have a traveling exemption? Most every state made sure it was in there after the the original gun free school zone act got dumped. If it's not, it's not a big deal because it can't stand to judicial review.

ya, once youore in your car i dont think its an issue. it was just one of those facts they like to toss at ya in firearm safety class. once youre in a vehicle, as long as you have the firearm in a locking holster, it is considered inaccessible. i can keep it in the glove box, console or on my side.

as for the guy talking about wearing a jacket with shorts and sandals to conceal, if you have a decent shoulder holster, you can get away with a regular shirt. i strap mine on with a basic hawaiian shirt over a t shirt all the time. there is really no need for a firearm to be visible at all if you have a CCW here in az. anyone can carry openly.

That was me talking about the coat and such.

I carry a Taurus Millennium PT140, and I've tried various rigs for carry. So far I haven't found a shoulder setup that has any chance of adequately concealing under a light shirt...jacket maybe, but then I might as well carry on the waistband where it's more comfortable and accessible anyway. Shoulder rigs are about the least concealable in my experience, since any flutter of the outer shirt reveals the butt to a sideways onlooker. Not to mention you look ridiculous being unable to put your arms at your sides comfortably.

I suppose on the right body type, with a small enough weapon, it would be doable. Just not right for me though.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I don't disagree that everyone lost as a result of the situation. I disagree with who is at fault for that loss. It doesn't matter what people like...at all. Doesn't matter if you don't like the color blue, don't like black people, don't like guns...if it's legal, that's the way it is and you have a civic duty (and human responsibility) to deal with it. They can feel the discomfort, but they can't (or shouldn't) be able to act on it in a manner contrary to the law or community good. They can try to get the law changed...they're free to do that. But they can't (or shouldn't) raise hell needlessly.

Yes, it was worth it. She was protected, and liberty was defended. Moreover people learned that they don't have the right to let ignorant fear control the freedoms of others. It was a costly lesson, but there we are.

The only good thing that came out of this situation is showing that the law is the law and her CW permit should not have been revoked. I agree with that and I am glad it worked out that way.

However, the most intelligent and successful people in this world understand that just because you have the right to do something it does not mean that it is worth doing whenever you wish. Reputation can make or break you in this country without the law even coming into play. It was not worth sacrificing that in this case specific situation. Not at a kid's soccer game. Things would have played out for the best if she just would have either kept it out of sight or in the car. The odds of her safety actually being threaten in that situation are far too low for it being worth the consequences and if too many people decided to think and act the way she did that day I can guarantee you that the rights which you cherish so much would be threatened even more. People would be much more motivated to push for restrictions by law if they are exposed to this sort of thing more often. That is what people do when things that they do not like happen too much. That is precisely how so many of our freedoms get taken away. I personally do not want that to happen and I know for a fact that you don't. That is the reality like it or hate it.

Also, no one is obligated to deal with this sort of situation as some form of civic duty. The only thing they are obligated to do is follow the law. Everything else, including everything that they did to this woman withe exception of revoking her CW was free game. Maybe next time she should consider protecting herself from the things which are much more likely to be threatened as a result of her actions. Maybe she should consider that exercising her rights in ways that a lot people do not like too often might get those rights taken away. Again, was it really worth it? I understand that fighting for her CW to reinstated was worth it, but what about everything else?

Odds are for Las Vegas, not your life.

I 100% totally and completely disagree with everything you have said. She didn't carry because it was legal, she carried because she took responsibility for her safety. That's FAR more important that reputation, which is in fact totally and completely worthless in any meaningful way.

I've already covered the problem with concealing in certain circumstances, and leaving it in the car is generally a BAD option (it can be stolen, it isn't protecting you, people can see you put it in the car which incites a panic and may be illegal, etc). Furthermore there was no reason to since what she did is legal - the same as if she'd put on a blue blouse, or if she'd had black skin - no one has any right to complain about such things.

If people want to change the laws, go for it. Generally speaking we have enough support to at least maintain our current levels...in fact we're continuing to expand them, but it's always a struggle. I would not have a problem at all with them launching a campaign to change the law...I'd oppose it, of course, but respectfully as they would be acting correctly.

Everyone is going to suffer from this. Millions will be spent on the lawsuits. Everyone will be angry and stressed and unhappy. Maybe next time people will think about that before they go off half-cocked. Maybe next time people will consider the rights of others, and the law, before caving to fear and ignorance.

Absolutely everything she did was right. Everything. Everything they did was wrong. Everything.

IMO, you're so blind with your bias that you only see one side of things. You blame people that reacted, but I feel that the person wearing the weapon, the one that expressed her added civil responsibility should have known the conditions and acted accordingly.

Why is that so hard to understand? You're further giving carriers a bad name, imo! It's your attitude, with the "I'm right, you're all wrong", "Come make me" attitude that will render any support for carry laws mute in the legislative eye.

Let's draw a parallel.

Immediately after many civil rights successes black people began to go places they couldn't before. People were angry, and often took it out on the blacks. By your logic, the blacks should have known better and gone somewhere else. That type of thinking inhibits freedom/liberty, and continues bad social conditions.

I find that to be a rather offensive parallel. Equating the civil rights movement to the movement to allow the carrying of a weapon can in no way be equaled.

I think it's a very accurate parallel. It's an issue where the law and facts are on one side, and a large segment of public opinion is on the other - out of baseless fear and acculturation. In both cases people are trying to exercise their rights and freedoms, and other people who are against it without just cause raise holy hell and create problems for everyone involved. I think it's spot on.

But I knew this was a "freedom/liberty" type of issue for people that are on the side of the woman in this issue, but it doesn't need to be. There are ways of expressing civil disobedience. MLK knew this. Ghandi knew this. I'm merely saying that the way of moving forward an idea is NOT to throw it in the face of what you know to be your opposition. Be smarter about it. Be more respectful about it and people will get behind the cause.

I understand your point though. I am not advocating acquiescence, I'm merely suggesting a less abrasive manner of making a point. I think a story where a CCW holder uses their responsibility to neutralize a criminal situation is much more powerful than someone that brings their weapon to a 5 year old game.

People must sometimes be FORCED to accept that things are a certain way, and when they react negatively they should face punitive action. That is what more or less equalized black rights in America - you either accept it, or you go to prison.

But obviously this doesn't apply to everything. You have an opinion, I have an opinion; you certainly can't force me to agree with your position. In matters where the lives of a people are encumbered by the opinions of others, I absolutely agree that some form of concerted effort is necessary to turn the tide; however, I can in no way equate the open carrying movement to the civil rights movement.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, or theirs. They're free to be anti-gun all they want - they just shouldn't be allowed to inflict harm with that opinion. There are lawful, less harmful ways of opposing the carrying of weapons.

This woman did everything right. She acted intelligently, within her rights, and as a positive presence in the community.

And it's thinking this that will again further alienate you and people that agree with you. She was not a positive presence, and the parents of the children obviously didn't approve of her presence. Simply stating that it was positive doesn't present an argument.

That's not what makes it a positive. The facts make it a positive. Statistics make it a positive. Basic ethical debate makes it a positive. The law makes it a positive (or rather, the law is in agreement with the things that make it a positive). The opinion of the masses does NOT dictate righteousness, morality, ethics, legality, or any other such nonsense. It merely espouses their opinion. Their ignorant fear doesn't make it any less of a positive presence.

The ignorant and baseless fear of the masses reacted badly and hurt everyone as a result. THEY are to blame. It will continue to happen until we tie them down and cram it down their throats and up their ignorant asses. If they don't like it, they're free to leave, or to try and change the rights of citizens.

Once again, it's this mentality that will give people even more pause. I don't want to hear anything about force, cramming anything down my throat, etc. when it comes to weapons in public. Sorry, but I'd prefer people that carry to present a calm state of mind before I feel calm about the pervasiveness of weaponry in public.

I like to think I'm more rational than most, but most people will see this as strictly an emotional issue, statistics be damned. The manner in which your message is delivered will drastically affect the outcome, and no one wants to see it come from someone that's fitting the stereotype of a "gun nut." That's not meant to be a pejorative either.

Rather you, or they, agree is moot. It's the law. Deal with it. I spend a GREAT deal of my time and energy educating people on these issues but it seldom makes any difference. People don't want what's right, or fair, or logical, or just, or good...people just want what they want. Well, they can't have what they want. I want Nicole Kidman to sit on my face every night before bed, but it's just not in the cards. People CAN have what's right, fair, logical, just, and good. If they don't like it they can try to change the law, or they can leave. Those really are the ONLY two options they have. I'm happy to try and help them through it, but in the end I have my rights and so help me God I WILL exercise them in the most logical and useful manner available to me.

I'm sorry to be a hard ass about it, I really am. I'd much rather we all just got along. However I'm not going to sacrifice my safety or my liberty because people think they have the right to be ignorant. You live in a society, you accept it's laws, or you face penalties. I'm tired of being a leper because Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public have the IQ of a kumquat. I'm tired of suffering for THEIR shortcomings.

This won't change. America is a pugilistic, litigious society where reaction carries more weight than proaction (is that even a word?).

What will change though is public sentiment, so long as it doesn't have the appearance of a militia operating in the backwoods with an arsenal of weaponry. That's the stereotype, and like it or not the majority will put pressure on anyone that presents themselves in this way.

And yes, I know I repeated myself a lot in this post 🙂

[/quote]

I don't think we can help but repeat ourselves, because there's nothing new here. Nothing has changed. Facts are facts, laws are laws. People will just have to keep getting more and more stressed, and more and more hurt, until finally something gives and they wise up or die trying. You can't educate the ignorant. The stupid, yes, but not the ignorant.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWandsYou can't educate the ignorant. The stupid, yes, but not the ignorant.

Correction. You can't educate the willfully ignorant.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: PrinceofWandsYou can't educate the ignorant. The stupid, yes, but not the ignorant.

Correction. You can't educate the willfully ignorant.

I've always considered that inherent within ignorance. Where stupidity is the inability to gain knowledge, or the simple lack of knowledge (no fault), ignorance is the dedication to not gaining knowledge (personal choice).

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: JS80
lol i don't get all the anti-gun nutjobs. i would love for everyone around me to have CCW permits.

Not everyone that opposes open carry in public places is an anti-gun nutjob. I for one have no issues with CCW, and I strongly believe (through researching statistics) that those with CCWs are very responsible.

So, I'm all for CCW. What I'm not for is a person that feels empowered and ultimately "cool" (sorry, couldn't think of a better word) for having a weapon. I've seen some open carries around here where they brandish it like a piece of jewelry. In one particular case, at a farmer's market in the middle of Georgia suburbia was making a conscious effort to let everyone know they were carrying.

To me, it's childish and irresponsible, the complete opposite of what a CCW holder should be. I feel the woman in this example is also.

It's like having cops around you everywhere you go. Free ARMED bodyguard protection.

I'm hoping you aren't entirely serious with that comment.

Where in that piss poor journalism did it imply that she was brandishing it like a piece of jewelry? I would assume that she had it holstered on her hip. If you saw a plain clothed person that looked like your mother with a holster at her side, would you really be alarmed? Hell, I would probably assume she was a plain clothed officer.

I was semi serious about that comment.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: PrinceofWandsYou can't educate the ignorant. The stupid, yes, but not the ignorant.

Correction. You can't educate the willfully ignorant.

I've always considered that inherent within ignorance. Where stupidity is the inability to gain knowledge (no fault), ignorance is the dedication to not gaining knowledge (personal choice).

I think ignorant generally means devoid of knowledge, either knowingly or unknowingly. However, we're both saying the same thing, so who cares? I get yah 😛

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I spend a GREAT deal of my time and energy educating people on these issues but it seldom makes any difference. People don't want what's right, or fair, or logical, or just, or good... people just want what they want.

Prince you're beginning to sound very arrogant. Just because you think something is right does not make it so, just becasue something is legal does not make it good, and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they need 'education'. Make your point until you're blue in the face but be careful not to convince yourself you are somehow smarter than everyone else because you are not.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: PrinceofWandsYou can't educate the ignorant. The stupid, yes, but not the ignorant.

Correction. You can't educate the willfully ignorant.

I've always considered that inherent within ignorance. Where stupidity is the inability to gain knowledge (no fault), ignorance is the dedication to not gaining knowledge (personal choice).

I think ignorant generally means devoid of knowledge, either knowingly or unknowingly. However, we're both saying the same thing, so who cares? I get yah 😛

The actual definition is as you said, but my use is restricted to a pejorative meaning dedication to stupidity. I don't know of any words in English that adequately express the difference, so I chose to make my own distinction. 😎

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I spend a GREAT deal of my time and energy educating people on these issues but it seldom makes any difference. People don't want what's right, or fair, or logical, or just, or good... people just want what they want.

Prince you're beginning to sound very arrogant. Just because you think something is right does not make it so, just becasue something is legal does not make it good, and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they need 'education'. Make your point until you're blue in the face but be careful not to convince yourself you are somehow smarter than everyone else because you are not.

Actually, it does make you right when you present fact after fact after fact substantiating your claim and the opposition is unable to do so.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I spend a GREAT deal of my time and energy educating people on these issues but it seldom makes any difference. People don't want what's right, or fair, or logical, or just, or good... people just want what they want.

Prince you're beginning to sound very arrogant. Just because you think something is right does not make it so, just becasue something is legal does not make it good, and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they need 'education'. Make your point until you're blue in the face but be careful not to convince yourself you are somehow smarter than everyone else because you are not.

Oh no you didn't!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I spend a GREAT deal of my time and energy educating people on these issues but it seldom makes any difference. People don't want what's right, or fair, or logical, or just, or good... people just want what they want.

Prince you're beginning to sound very arrogant. Just because you think something is right does not make it so, just becasue something is legal does not make it good, and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they need 'education'. Make your point until you're blue in the face but be careful not to convince yourself you are somehow smarter than everyone else because you are not.

I didn't mean it that way. In addition to having been a self-defense instructor, and holding positions as a security trainer, for about a year I have been a Regional Director of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (though I'm not any longer), and have also been a campus leader for that organization. In addition I worked as an assistant coach for a debate team. I literally have spent my time educating people on these issues.

I agree that being legal doesn't make it right, however this goes far further. We have a historic and constitutionally supported foundation for the law. We have academic and government studies showing the positives and negatives. We can look at the facts on both sides and reach conclusions without defaulting to opinions.

I don't say they need education because we disagree, I say they need education because in my experience most people are WOEFULLY uninformed on this topic. Lots of people disagree with me on various topics, it doesn't mean they're stupid or uneducated. But in this one area, most people really are.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Actually, it does make you right when you present fact after fact after fact substantiating your claim and the opposition is unable to do so.

You *cannot* build a logically consistant proof that more guns equals less crime, or indeed the opposite of that, using the data available. It is impossible. If it *was* in fact possible then all governments would immediately implement the correct policy and crime rates would drop like a stone. This has never happened.

People are entitled to their own opinion on this.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Actually, it does make you right when you present fact after fact after fact substantiating your claim and the opposition is unable to do so.

You *cannot* build a logically consistant proof that more guns equals less crime, or indeed the opposite of that, using the data available. It is impossible. If it *was* in fact possible then all governments would immediately implement the correct policy and crime rates would drop like a stone. This has never happened.

People are entitled to their own opinion on this.

I never made that argument.

In fact, my views on gun ownership has absolutely nothing to do with crime statistics, and never will.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Actually, it does make you right when you present fact after fact after fact substantiating your claim and the opposition is unable to do so.

You *cannot* build a logically consistant proof that more guns equals less crime, or indeed the opposite of that, using the data available. It is impossible. If it *was* in fact possible then all governments would immediately implement the correct policy and crime rates would drop like a stone. This has never happened.

People are entitled to their own opinion on this.

I've never made that claim. In fact I've argued against it being used as gospel for the pro-gun movement. Fortunately, that has NOTHING to do with this situation.

People have the right to an opinion. People do not have the right to inflict harm with an unsubstantiated opinion that is in opposition to existing law, statistics, and facts. Or rather, my entire argument has been that such actions should bring reprisals.

Again, can I, out of a personal fear of black people, call the police on them and cause them distress when they're violating no law? Wouldn't those people then be right in suing? So haven't my actions in such an instance caused damage to them, myself, the police, the community, the nation, etc? Same thing exactly applies here...in fact, if anything a fear of black people is more logical and supportable than a fear of armed citizens.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Again, can I, out of a personal fear of black people, call the police on them and cause them distress when they're violating no law? Wouldn't those people then be right in suing? So haven't my actions in such an instance caused damage to them, myself, the police, the community, the nation, etc? Same thing exactly applies here...in fact, if anything a fear of black people is more logical and supportable than a fear of armed citizens.

This is a completely insane comparison, as I'm sure you are aware, so there's really no point in picking it apart properly. Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

And I'd *love* to hear how you think a fear of black people is logical and supportable even in the slightest!

If I met you and your weapons I would be, if not scared, then certainly worried. You are frequently unreasonable and quick to anger. That combined with being armed to the teeth is a very worrying proposition.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

Yeah, since people who would not otherwise do so are constantly going off and killing rooms full of people as soon as they have a gun.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Atheus
Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

Yeah, since people who would not otherwise do so are constantly going off and killing rooms full of people as soon as they have a gun.

Does it, or does it not, give them the ability to do so? It does. With no weapons involved the worst that can happen when someone gets angry is a punchup. With weapons involved the worst that can happen is everyone gets shot.

If the ability of someone to do something does not make them a threat, then why not just let North Korea have nukes? And other countries too? Shit - why not just give everyone nukes!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Again, can I, out of a personal fear of black people, call the police on them and cause them distress when they're violating no law? Wouldn't those people then be right in suing? So haven't my actions in such an instance caused damage to them, myself, the police, the community, the nation, etc? Same thing exactly applies here...in fact, if anything a fear of black people is more logical and supportable than a fear of armed citizens.

This is a completely insane comparison, as I'm sure you are aware, so there's really no point in picking it apart properly. Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

And I'd *love* to hear how you think a fear of black people is logical and supportable even in the slightest!

If I met you and your weapons I would be, if not scared, then certainly worried for myself and my family. You are frequently unreasonable and quick to anger. That combined with being armed to the teeth is a very worrying proposition.

It's a perfectly logical comparison, right down to basis of fear. Being alive gives you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim. Carrying a weapon is irrelevant, since statistically it does not occur that way. You have a fear that it does, but your fear is entirely irrational and without support.

Most criminals are black. Most firearm murders and injuries are committed by blacks. That's even though there are fewer blacks than whites, making the fear of crime from a black person even greater. It is therefore reasonable to fear a black person. ***please note, I myself do not fear blacks in any way, and fully recognize the lunacy of judging people on this basis...it's being used as an example only***

Almost no weapons are used in a crime (statistically speaking, when looking at the total number of weapons in existence). You have a greater chance to be crushed by a vending machine than to be killed by an assault rifle (outside of a battlefield). We have existed for centuries with 1/3 - 1/2 of all households having firearms, without significant negative impact. It is therefore unreasonable to fear weapons.

Then you are wholly illogical. I have carried a gun 24/7 for 14 years. I have never killed anyone. To believe I suddenly would is lunacy because you would be expecting a result contrary to overwhelming evidence. Even if it were to happen, the odds are astronomical that it would be anyone but a criminal being injured (since statistically there are almost no accidental shootings or injuries).

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Atheus
Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

Yeah, since people who would not otherwise do so are constantly going off and killing rooms full of people as soon as they have a gun.

Does it, or does it not, give them the ability to do so? It does. With no weapons involved the worst that can happen when someone gets angry is a punchup. With weapons involved the worst that can happen is everyone gets shot.

I could kill you quite easily with my bare hands. Or a knife. Or a bat. Or my drivers license. Moreover, if I suddenly wanted to kill a room of people I could go get a weapon (not my own) in minutes and do so...I don't have to carry it around with me. People do not (statistically) commit crimes with lawfully carried weapons.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Atheus
Suffice to say that simply being black (LOL) does not give you the ability to easily kill a room full of people on a whim whereas carrying weapons does...

Yeah, since people who would not otherwise do so are constantly going off and killing rooms full of people as soon as they have a gun.

Does it, or does it not, give them the ability to do so? It does. With no weapons involved the worst that can happen when someone gets angry is a punchup. With weapons involved the worst that can happen is everyone gets shot.

I could kill you quite easily with my bare hands. Or a knife. Or a bat. Or my drivers license.

1) Bullshit.

2) Statements like that only make you seem even more violent and unhinged.

Moreover, if I suddenly wanted to kill a room of people I could go get a weapon (not my own) in minutes and do so...I don't have to carry it around with me. People do not (statistically) commit crimes with lawfully carried weapons.

Not the issue. The issue is - is it logical to be scared becasue someone has a weapon and you do not? Yes it is, because it increases the chances that if there is a confrontation you will be killed, and an increased chance of death causes fear. It's perfectly logical. I don't see how you can claim it's not.

/edit:

and what about this, from my post above?

If the ability of someone to do something does not make them a threat, then why not just let North Korea have nukes? And other countries too? Shit - why not just give everyone nukes!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Not the issue. The issue is - is it logical to be scared becasue someone has a weapon and you do not? Yes it is, because it increases the chances that if there is a confrontation you will be killed, and an increased chance of death causes fear. It's perfectly logical. I don't see how you can claim it's not.

Wow. I could be wrong... I'm still running the numbers... add 1... carry the 7... yes, I think so.

You just made a logical argument why someone should carry a gun. Surely you can see it?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Atheus
Not the issue. The issue is - is it logical to be scared becasue someone has a weapon and you do not? Yes it is, because it increases the chances that if there is a confrontation you will be killed, and an increased chance of death causes fear. It's perfectly logical. I don't see how you can claim it's not.

Wow. I could be wrong... I'm still running the numbers... add 1... carry the 7... yes, I think so.

You just made a logical argument why someone should carry a gun. Surely you can see it?

It could be seen as an argment that I should *also* carry a gun, therefore becoming equal with my imaginary opponent, but that wouldn't mean there is no chance of my being killed myself - just that either of us could be killed. This is no better.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Atheus
Not the issue. The issue is - is it logical to be scared becasue someone has a weapon and you do not? Yes it is, because it increases the chances that if there is a confrontation you will be killed, and an increased chance of death causes fear. It's perfectly logical. I don't see how you can claim it's not.

Wow. I could be wrong... I'm still running the numbers... add 1... carry the 7... yes, I think so.

You just made a logical argument why someone should carry a gun. Surely you can see it?

It could be seen as an argment that I should *also* carry a gun, therefore becoming equal with my imaginary opponent, but that wouldn't mean there is no chance of my being killed myself - just that either of us could be killed. This is no better.

Of course it's no guarantee. That's given. However, your chances of survival (you being the armed civilian under attack) just went up, no doubt.