Shopper guilty in tackling of man with gun at Walmart

[GGJohn]

Tampa, Florida -- A 43-year-old man was found guilty of tackling another man who was legally carrying a firearm in a Walmart, in a case caught by surveillance video.

A jury found Michael Foster guilty of battery on Tuesday. His sentencing is scheduled for May 7.

Foster was charged after he tackled Clarence Daniels, 62, of Seffner, as he entered the Walmart on Causeway Boulevard in Brandon on Jan. 20. Daniels has a concealed carry permit, according to a release from the Council on Islamic-American Relations that represented Daniels.

Foster followed Daniels into the store, shouted, "He's got a gun," as he tackled him. Daniels said he had a permit, but Daniels continued to hold him in a chokehold.

http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2015/04/23/shopper-guilty-in-tacking-of-gunman-at-walmart/26269309/

What, Wut? I thought that those with CHL's were just itching to pull their gun and shoot someone.
Guess Clarence Daniels didn't get the memo.

This moron is lucky to be alive, Clarence Daniels would've been fully justified in defending himself.

[Politicalboi]

1. The good old west

Men still wanting to play cowboy. I hope Mr. Foster can sue WalMart for allowing this to happen by allowing nuts with guns inside their store. THEY can have a NO GUN policy on their property.

[GGJohn]

2. You're actually blaming WalMart for this asshole's actions?

WalMart has a policy of following state statutes, WalMart can't be sued because some idiot decided to violate the law on their property.

[Politicalboi]

4. So you're telling me that WalMart

Has to allow any gun nut in their store and they have no say in the matter? Employees have to put their lives in danger cause some group of people say so? Guns supersede everyone's right to not be around gun nuts 24/7. If WalMart allows guns in their stores, they should have some responsibility over peoples reactions for possible fear for their lives. Yes it is their fault, they enable this to happen. If you can't go into a WalMart without your precious gun then don't go to WalMart. Why should the rest of us be at the mercy of weekend warriors in our streets.

[GGJohn]

6. No, that's not what I'm telling you.

I said that WalMart has a policy of following state statutes, if a state allows for concealed/open carry, WalMart will follow that policy.

Weekend warriors?

[Politicalboi]

10. WalMart doesn't need to follow that policy

They could have a no gun policy in WalMart. I guess it's a big joke to you gunners that some of us don't want every asshole armed anywhere near us. We have rights too. And if WalMart gets sued enough over the many "accidents" in their stores, maybe they'll get the message. Mr. Foster has nothing to lose.

[GGJohn]

13. Mr. Foster has every thing to lose,

if he so chooses to sue, and loses, which he will, then he will be forced to pay for the legal costs to WalMart, which will run into the hundred of thousands of dollars.
WalMart has done nothing illegal, they've had this policy for years and never been successfully sued.
The idiot responsible for his conviction is Mr. Foster.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

125. "We have rights too."

People have the right to free speech. People also have the right to not listen to speech they do not agree with. They don't have the right to forcibly silence others.

[GGJohn]

126. Your sig line is so ridiculous.

You have any idea how easy it is to load your own ammo?
You have any idea how easy it is to smuggle ammo into the country?
We can't even stop the millions of tons of drugs smuggled in each year, how easy would it be to smuggle in tons upon tons of cases of ammo?

[beevul]

127. Or basic common machine tools. N/T

[tridim]

151. Wait, it's easy to smuggle ammo into the country?

Shouldn't you inform the feds about the easy smuggling methods you are aware of?

If not, why?

[friendly_iconoclast]

157. Were you under the impression that it's difficult to smuggle *anything* into this country?

If you are/were, it would go a long way to explain why gun control advocacy is the way it is...

[tridim]

159. No but I had no idea that it is currently "easy to smuggle ammo" into this country. WTF?

Not import, but "smuggle". This guy obviously knows something that the average citizen doesn't.

I would like to know how and why people are smuggling ammunition into this country, easy or not.

Is it happening at gun shows? Is it being done by dealers or by individuals? Is this smuggled ammo being sold? Is it being taxed? Where does it come from and how does it get here? Are guns easily smuggled as well? If not, why?

[friendly_iconoclast]

160. By all means, contact the Department of Homeland Security...

...if you feel you've discovered something important. Don't forget to fill us in on
how your encounter with them goes.

I am reminded once again that ideologues not only fail to recognize sarcasm, they
also don't do nuance...

Obviously, GGJohn should have said "would be", instead of "is" - and it would.

[gejohnston]

161. it is easy to smuggle cocaine and heroin in

and easy to smuggle ammo out. If it is easy to smuggle out, it is also easy to smuggle in. Or, you can just make it in clandestine factories.
Some reading:
https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/07/the-secret-online-weapons-store-that-will-sell-anyone-anything/
http://www.ic-wish.org/WiSH%20Fact%20Sheet%20Australia%20and%20Handguns.pdf
http://www.ibtimes.com/charlie-hebdo-massacre-illegal-gun-trafficking-brings-millions-weapons-eu-1779070
http://www.ibtimes.com/creative-smuggling-20-most-bizarre-attempts-smugglers-which-went-wrong-photos-700449

[yeoman6987]

9. Walmart innocent

State makes the law according to 2nd Amendment. Sorry you are incorrect.

[Politicalboi]

18. And that's INSANE!

I hope these gunners are happy. The state should supply grants for those who want to move out of these guns for everyone states.

[yeoman6987]

21. Perhaps but until a Constitutional Amendment

Changing the 2nd Amendment it is legal to carry a gun openly in some states.

[GGJohn]

25. Then you would have to move to a different country,

every state in the USA now allows for concealed carry in one form or another.

[melm00se]

132. let's do a little comparison

Look at the fastest growing states (in no particular order)

Texas
Utah
North Dakota
Colorado
Arizona
South Dakota
Wyoming
Nevada
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia

Source

Now overlay that with the Brady Campaign State Scorecard

Texas F
Utah F
North Dakota F
Colorado C
Arizona F
South Dakota F
Wyoming F
Nevada F
Virginia D
North Carolina F
South Carolina F
Georgia F

Source

see a correlation?

[gejohnston]

3. nope.

Mr. Foster committed assault. Walmart is not responsible for his crime. My question is would Foster would have done the same if Daniels was white?
Foster was also Baker Acted when he was arrested. Foster is either bat shit crazy or a racist. Either way, Daniels should call Morgan and Morgan and take his ass to the cleaners.

[Politicalboi]

5. I do know there may have been racism in his attack

But we'll never know. WalMart allows these confrontations by allowing guns into their stores. They share the blame too. Maybe they have to tell precious to stay home.

[GGJohn]

7. WalMart doesn't allow these confrontations, all WalMart does is

follow state statutes, it's that nut that tackled the legal CHL holder that's solely responsible for his actions.

[Politicalboi]

12. It's their property

They don't HAVE to abide by that statue. You're now on private property, WalMart could say No Guns.

[GGJohn]

14. That's the point I'm making,

WalMart has choosen to abide by state statutes and they follow the state law on firearms in public.
They can be sued, but they will prevail in a court of law.

[Politicalboi]

19. Even though it's their own property?

I mean, it's just guns. It's not life or death that one has to carry one in WalMart. It's just ridiculous that WalMart can't for safety reasons say no guns. Is that so bad?

[GGJohn]

29. Who are you to say it's not life or death?

There are plenty of videos and stories of concealed carriers successfully defending themselves or others with their legally carried firearms.
Google is your friend.

[gejohnston]

15. blaming the victim?

you are going with that? The no guns doesn't apply to cops, and they don't have the force of law in Florida. What if the victim was a cop? Or, the print he thought was a gun was in fact was a cell phone? Foster didn't see the gun. He saw the "print" of the holster though the jacket. He might have gotten a glimpse of the holster while the victim was getting out of the car.
Open carry has been illegal in Florida since 1893 because black migrant farm workers often open carried pistols, which caused some white people to clutch their pearls and write their state rep.

[gejohnston]

11. Foster is a racist.

and a anti gun extremist. For all Foster knew, the victim could have been an off duty cop or detective. Maybe Foster is a bong owner. I have yet to meet a bong owner that wasn't a paranoid asshole or stupid.

[Politicalboi]

16. LOL!

I don't need to take my bong to bed with me either. Is your precious tucked in at night? I don't need to take my bong with me to the bathroom WalMart, K-Mart Save Mart. You're the ones who have the paranoia. At ANY second a boogie man is going to jump out at you at WalMart, better be prepared. It's just men never getting over their childhood is how I see this shit. KAPOW!!!!!

[GGJohn]

17. Then you quite obviously know NOTHING about those of us that choose

to carry.
But carry on with your misperception of licensed firearm carriers.

[Politicalboi]

22. Us non carriers have rights too

And I'm not comfortable being around armed men. They are more of the unarmed than armed. We shouldn't have to worry about some asshole dropping their gun in WalMart just so they got their right to carry, but kills me instead. Oop's just doesn't cut it with me. It's insanity IMO. To me, responsible gun owners know where and when to carry a gun, and WalMart shouldn't be one of them.

[gejohnston]

26. you realize of course,

statistically, CCW holders are more responsible than the cops, or your local pot salesman. Your fears are not rational.

[Politicalboi]

33. I'm not defending cops

But we have to have law enforcement. I don't want to be around common assholes who can legally carry. In some states, abusers can now carry, I mean why the fuck not. It's their god given right, fuck everyone else. Why must people carry guns everywhere and risk a possible "accident" and kill an innocent person all for the stupid right to carry a deadly weapon in public?

[gejohnston]

35. federal law prohibits abusers from possessing

therefore, they can not carry. Please get some facts instead of Bloomberg and High Times.
Gun accidents are almost non existent, and even then it is negligence. BTW, those "common assholes" are still safer and better trained the the cops or your drug dealer.

[pablo_marmol]

166. Us heterosexuals have rights too.

And I'm not comfortable being around gay men.

See how stupid that sounds?

[stone space]

91. I know that you advocate murder.

Then you quite obviously know NOTHING about those of us that choose to carry.
But carry on with your misperception of licensed firearm carriers.

It's right there in your OP

This moron is lucky to be alive, Clarence Daniels would've been fully justified in defending himself.

[GGJohn]

93. Lying about what I said again?

Gee what a surprise.
It wouldn't have been murder, it would have been a homicide, and a justifiable one at that.

[stone space]

96. There's nothing justifiable about murder.

You just want to see dead bodies.

[blueridge3210]

98. And self-defense is not murder. (nt)

[GGJohn]

99. And doubling down on the lies. eom.

[pablo_marmol]

167. Wow. Not just a lie.....but a *filthy* lie.

I feel like I need to shower after reading posts from you bubba.

[blueridge3210]

94. Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Self defense is not murder. Had Daniels fired in self defense and killed his assailant his action would have been justified and, therefore, not murder.

[gejohnston]

95. that isn't murder

not advocating murder. Some younger guy attacks a 62 year old guy from behind could fit the def
Murder is a legal concept.
If Foster was just some racist out of a time warp and started pounding Mr. Daniel's head on the parking lot asphalt., and Daniels shot him, do you think Daniels should have been prosecuted?

[gejohnston]

24. Really?

then why is most gun violence drug related?
Also, arrogant and judgmental as well as paranoid and stupid.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/04/local/la-me-fort-bragg-20110904
http://www.rense.com/general43/rij.htm
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/

Boogie man? Evil exists. Sometimes good people find themselves in the wrong place, wrong time. It is a reality.
Is your pot certified violence free? Or do you get it from the same people the AFOSI told me were busted by local police for planning to bomb my home, and that of other community organizers? Or, do you care? What if your drug connection had to deal with some "employee theft" and a passer by happened to be a witness? Would he want to leave witnesses behind?
Spare me the childish bullshit moralizing, because I really don't give a flying fuck.

[Politicalboi]

36. then why is most gun violence drug related?

MONEY


Boogie man? Evil exists.

At WalMart.

And I don't give a fuck. All I care about is that you are standing in front of me when that asshole responsible gun owner drops his gun and fires. I can say you died for some asshole to carry his gun in a crowed store.

[gejohnston]

38. you really don't know anything

the chances of what you are talking about are so rare to nonexistent. However, most murders in the US are criminals, including drug dealers, killing each other.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/mexican-drug-cartel-thugs-post-atrocities-social-media-article-1.1515860

[Politicalboi]

44. I've read stories of that happening and you'll never guess where

WalMart.

That woman who had 3 kids with her and of course precious with her and the 2 year old shoots her square in the head. If anyone had to get shot, she was the one. All for the right to bring a deadly weapon in WalMart, just in case a boogie man jumps out of the isle.

And another story of a gun owner dropping their gun in WalMart and hit an innocent person in the leg. All for their rights.

Drug dealers kill for MONEY. They just happen to carry guns because guns kill. Nobody needs their guns in WalMart, church, or in crowds. Wear your gun while drive Hi Ho Silver around town. Walk the streets so everyone knows not to mess with you. But don't bring guns in the presence of, I'm going to say it, CHILDREN. Go to your local bar and compare barrel sizes, but not in WalMart.

[gejohnston]

47. do you understand that dog bites man isn't news,

but man bites dog is? Meaning, those are likely the only examples in a decade. Not bad for a country of 300 million and 80 million gun owners. Meanwhile, according to most criminologists and CDC, "common assholes" successfully defend themselves with a gun more than they are used in crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

And another story of a gun owner dropping their gun in WalMart and hit an innocent person in the leg. All for their rights.

are you against freedom of assembly since there is a slight chance it might turn into a riot.

Drug dealers kill for MONEY. They just happen to carry guns because guns kill. Nobody needs their guns in WalMart, church, or in crowds. Wear your gun while drive Hi Ho Silver around town. Walk the streets so everyone knows not to mess with you. But don't bring guns in the presence of, I'm going to say it, CHILDREN. Go to your local bar and compare barrel sizes, but not in WalMart.

for money, and sometimes for fun while doing a home invasion. BTW, you have yet to make an intelligent or valid point. That is why your side is losing the debate, and Bloomberg's plastic farmers won't even debate the issue on C Span.

[sarisataka]

27. Isn't it amazing

how quickly an unprovoked white on black assault is excused and justified?

We've heard so many posters who asserted carriers were white bigots- with pictures as "proof". It was also put forth that POC were one who had reason to carry; there were many predictions of the mass terror it would cause among said bigots.

Yet once a POC does carry and is assaulted for doing so, it is the Caucasian attacker who becomes the victim. IIRC a pro-gun control poster suggested simple assault was insufficient and that the attacker "should have broken his damn arms".

Does this mean we can discount all of the racial stereotyping as so much provocative B.S?

[gejohnston]

28. yes indeed, we can.

[Eleanors38]

109. Some DUers don't realize how they contribute to racial tension. Liberal, indeed.

[yeoman6987]

8. What? More likely the gun owner who was legal

Sue the guy who tackled him.

[sarisataka]

20. Interesting theory...

a criminal may sue a business for allowing a legal situation that motivates the crime.

Perhaps muggers could sue banks for allowing people to walk around with any amount of unregistered cash...

[Politicalboi]

23. Then maybe they need to amend the law

They allow guns in their stores on their property, they hold some responsibility. No one needs a gun in WalMart.

[sarisataka]

32. I don't follow you

What law needs amending? FL, as most states do, allow businesses to prohibit guns if they choose. Most businesses choose to allow the default, which is legal carry as proscribed in the law.

Some businesses choose to exercise the option to prohibit guns. This gives carriers the choice- disarm or shop elsewhere. You have the same option; shop only at stores that prohibit guns.

As for who needs what where, I am not so arrogant to tell people what they need or do not need. Personally I think no one needs alcohol or tobacco but I accept that they are legal products in spite of all of the harm they cause.

[Politicalboi]

39. I can't smoke my cigarette in WalMart

I don't need to smoke in WalMart, just like people don't need to carry guns in WalMart. To me, it's just common sense. WalMart should then change their policy I just don't see where it's too much to ask for. Sorry to all, I just can't imagine a world where people are okay with everyone being armed. How is that progressive? To me it's going back in time, and more guns mean more cops. More guns scare more cops, so cops upgrade to military vehicles and tactics. You guys are pushing up the anti on all of us, and we're still going to lose.

[sarisataka]

43. You can't smoke in Wal-Mart

Because it is prohibited by law; Wal-Mart has no say in the matter. You can smoke in the parking lot which is legal but Wal-Mart could choose to ban that.

I don't want everyone armed. I believe in mandatory training to include conflict avoidance and self defense law.

While I do not have stats, my experience with police is they have no issue with legal carry. People who go through the permit process are unlikely, in their eyes, to be a problem.

Even before our state became shall issue, they assumed everyone was potentially armed.

[Politicalboi]

45. It's not like that though

The guns everywhere nuttery will continue. So you're a felon, you still should have the right to a gun. Maybe they had no issue with legal carry before it became a free for all. 20 years ago I never thought we would have this epidemic of gun ownership. Guns can no longer protect us from our government. So our government is allowing it's citizens to do the killing for them.

[gejohnston]

51. still no

it has been illegal for any felons to own guns since the 1930s. It has been a federal crime that long. BTW, Canada and Germany allows nonviolent offenders to legally own guns once they do their time.

[beevul]

114. "I just don't see where it's too much to ask for."

Those doing the "asking", never do.

Particularly where and when a bias like yours is involved.

[Politicalboi]

30. And doesn't Florida have that Stand Your Ground Law?

As much as I hate that law, couldn't Mr. Foster say he felt threatened. Can't anyone who see's someone carrying a gun consider them a threat? That law alone should make WalMart change their personal policy of guns. Promise your gun, You'll be back, don't worry you'll be home before you know it. I'll buy you some new accessories, that's a good Precious.

[GGJohn]

31. Dude, you really need to learn about the SYG laws.

No, Foster couldn't claim he was standing his ground, at no time was his life threatened, he attacked Clarence Daniels who would have been well within his right to stand his ground.

[Politicalboi]

40. He sees a gun and he "feels" threatened

I thought they couldn't really define threatened, so even if you "feel" it you can defend yourself.


And I'm not a dude, but you can call me one. LOL!

[gejohnston]

41. do you know what the reasonable person standard is?

http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=1660

Since you detest SYG, have your written your state rep to introduce a duty to retreat law in California? Its SYG is more expansive than Florida's, and much older. The difference is, that it is common law.

[Politicalboi]

46. The thing I got about SYG was it

Seemed to let murders off the hook as they chased a stereo thief down the street and stabbed him and walked since they claimed SYG. And of course Zimmerman, who also attacked someone who was innocent but walked too.

[gejohnston]

49. the first was probably California

and I would have to see the actual case. Chances are, you got that wrong just like you got the Zimmerman case wrong. Three eye witnesses and forensics showed Martin was beating Zimmerman's head in the sidewalk. One of the witnesses described Martin's voice as being the initial aggressor. There was no evidence presented that showed Zimmerman attacked anyone.

SYG simply means no duty to retreat. Even if a duty to retreat, you are required only if you can do so safely. That duty disappears if you can not do so at all in complete safety.

[gejohnston]

34. most states have stand your ground, 33

to be exact. The UK has been SYG since 1967. You obviously don't know the law. How do you judge something you don't know anything about? The only problem with stand your ground law are stupid bloggers and lazy journalists too stupid and lazy to look it up and explain it. To answer your question, no. Foster was the aggressor and attacked from behind.
Here is the law.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/
Foster would have to have be in fear of immediate death or grave bodily injury, or the reasonable fear of. Attacking someone from behind while the gun was holstered and out of sight does not reach that level. In fact, his fear was so irrational that he was committed for 72 hours.

[pablo_marmol]

42. "How do you judge something you don't know anything about?"

C'mon GE --- The Controllers aren't required to know anything about the issue they're bloviating about. All they need is their moral superiority and poutrage.

[gejohnston]

37. and even if it wasn't a SYG state,

and had a duty to retreat, Daniels had no ability to safely retreat, meaning either he or his wife could have legally and morally used lethal force against Foster.

[Politicalboi]

48. I guess I just bit off more than I can chew

Just asking for a safe trip to the local store is just too much for some. I guess those that don't want guns everywhere have no rights to not be around them. USA! USA! USA! Gonna go watch Jon

[gejohnston]

50. here is a hint

don't attack people. Don't get caught between your drug dealer and his competition, or don't stiff him or her.
BTW, you are safer now than before concealed carry was liberalized. Oh, and most counties in California, you have to bribe the sheriff to get a CCW.

Yes, you bit off more than you can chew. I hope you learned something constructive.

[ileus]

57. That's what I'm asking for when I make trips to the local store.

[ManiacJoe]

52. Link to the DU thread of the Jan 20 event

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172159686

[DetlefK]

53. WTF? Tackling that guy was the perfectly logical thing to do. Seriously not kidding.

NRA-logic: There are actually so many "bad guys with a gun" walking around that everybody needs to carry a gun. This is the only way to make sure that there is always a "good guy with a gun" around to protect society from a "bad guy with a gun".

Foster had no way of telling whether Daniels was a "bad guy with a gun" or a "good guy with a gun", at least not without potentially endangering himself.

If Daniels is a "bad guy with a gun" and Foster tackles him. => positive outcome (nobody endangered, people saved)
If Daniels is a "bad guy with a gun" and Foster doesn't tackle him. => negative outcome (people endangered, nobody saved)
If Daniels is a "good guy with a gun" and Foster tackles him. => neutral outcome (nobody endangered, nobody saved)
If Daniels is a "good guy with a gun" and Foster doesn't tackle him. => positive outcome (nobody endangered, people saved)

Let's see:
"Tackling" adds up to "positive"+"neutral"
"Not tackling" adds up to "positive"+"negative"

Conclusion:
If you don't know whether somebody is a "good guy with a gun" or a "bad guy with a gun", treat him like a "bad guy with a gun". Better be safe than sorry.

[Shamash]

54. Interestingly enough

Your logic works equally well for New York City's "stop and frisk" and Arizona's "papers please" laws, so I presume you are a supporter of both of those as well?

If young black male is a "bad guy with a gun" and police randomly stop and frisk him. => positive outcome (nobody endangered, people saved)
If young black male is a "bad guy with a gun" and police do not randomly stop and frisk him. => negative outcome (people endangered, nobody saved)
If young black male is a "good guy with a gun" and police randomly stop and frisk him. => neutral outcome (nobody endangered, nobody saved)
If young black male is a "good guy with a gun" and police do not randomly stop and frisk him. => positive outcome (nobody endangered, people saved)

DetlefK Conclusion:
Since you don't know whether a random black male has a concealed weapon, support laws that allow the police to randomly pull him aside and search him. Better be safe than sorry.

[DetlefK]

56. Your logic is flawless and I agree: "Stop&Frisk" is a great idea. Here's another one:

If caucasian person is a "bad guy with a gun" and police randomly stop and frisk him. => positive outcome (nobody endangered, people saved)
If caucasian person is a "bad guy with a gun" and police do not randomly stop and frisk him. => negative outcome (people endangered, nobody saved)
If caucasian person is a "good guy with a gun" and police randomly stop and frisk him. => neutral outcome (nobody endangered, nobody saved)
If caucasian person is a "good guy with a gun" and police do not randomly stop and frisk him. => positive outcome (nobody endangered, people saved)


Conclusion:
We should not only stop&frisk black people. We should also stop&frisk white people. And Asians. And men. And women. And children. And dogs. And whales. And crows. And monkeys. And semi-sentient computers.


My, now that I think of it, what do gun-owning Blacks, gun-owning white people, gun-owning Asians, gun-owning men, gun-owning women, gun-owning children, gun-owning dogs, gun-owning whales, gun-owning crows, gun-owning monkeys and gun-owning semi-sentient computers have in common that would make them all fit a pattern of being a potential threat?



Just a tiny question to finish this: If it takes a "good guy with a gun" to be safe, why are people safe in those countries where "good guys with guns" don't exist?

[Shamash]

58. So...

If you think that the police being able to randomly stop and frisk people or do other things like ask for proof of American citizenship is a good idea, why exactly did you decide to become a liberal?

My, now that I think of it, what do gun-owning Blacks, gun-owning white people, gun-owning Asians, gun-owning men, gun-owning women, gun-owning children, gun-owning dogs, gun-owning whales, gun-owning crows, gun-owning monkeys and gun-owning semi-sentient computers have in common that would make them all fit a pattern of being a potential threat?

I wouldn't know. Since more than 99.9% of gun owners are not and never will be a threat to anyone, it is mathematically certain that gun ownership is not the answer to your question.

Just a tiny question to finish this: If it takes a "good guy with a gun" to be safe, why are people safe in those countries where "good guys with guns" don't exist?

Remind me again of the murder rate in Mexico (with very strict gun laws) and the United States. Better yet, remind me of the murder rate in El Paso (US) and Juarez (Mexico), one city with an international border down the middle. I know which side of that line I would feel safer on.

This is not Gun Control Reform Activism. We actually know the difference between "posturing" and "a sound argument" and will readily point out the differences to people. If you want to be applauded for having a ideologically blinkered, logic-free stance on the issue, go make your comments at GCRA. Flamin lib (who has accumulated a total of 9 comments on his last 10 GCRA posts) would certainly appreciate the ego-boo. But if you wish to comment here, rest assured that people will treat you like exactly the sort of person you are.

[DetlefK]

62. Nice.

This thread is about someone not being able to tell a criminal from a law-abiding citizen. But ok, I'll stay at "stop&frisk" for a while. The problem I see with stop&frisk is that it was used as a tool for discrimination, class-warfare and selective law-enforcement. I don't remember Wall Street bankers getting stopped&frisked and asked for their tax-documents.

Since 999 out of 1000 gun-owners are not and will never be a threat to anyone, why do 999 people need guns at all? Only 1 out of 1000 people are the problem! And taking care of problematic people with guns is the job of law-enforcement.

And Mexico is an especially bad example, with being ruled by drug-cartels and stuff.

For example:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/en/firearms/region/germany
Population about 80 million. 7.2 million registered civilian firearms, estimated 17 million unregistered civilian firearms.
In total 30.3 firearms per 100 people.
In 2012 there were 1.01 gun-deaths (homicides+accidents) per 100,000 population.
In 2011 there were 0.8 homicides per 100,000 people.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
US has a population of about 300 million people. 270,000 to 310,000 million civilian firearms.
In total 101 firearms per 100 people.
In 2011 there were 10.3 gun-deaths (homicides+accidents) per 100,000 population.
In 2011 there were 5.1 homicides per 100,000 people.


The US has 3 times the number of guns per capita than Germany. And it has 10 times the number of gun-deaths per capita, but only 5 times the number of homicides per capita.
This means that a different crime-rate, "bad guys", isn't the only reason for the discrepance in gun-deaths, otherwise the rate between homicides and gun-deaths would stay constant. There has to be an amplifying factor that exists in the US but not in Germany or there has to be a decreasing factor that doesn't exist in the US but in Germany.

[Shamash]

70. Try this

You don't get to cherry-pick your countries. Your statement was "why are people safe in those countries where "good guys with guns" don't exist?", not "why are people safe in those countries where "good guys with guns" don't exist and their crime rate agrees with my already-decided conclusions on the subject?" The highest firearm murder rates in the world occur in nations with strict firearm laws. Waving your hands dismissively and saying "those countries don't count" will not get much mileage here.

You seem to have already decided that gun availability is the factor, and so you discount any and every factor other than that. For instance, shooting is the 3rd most popular sport in the Czech Republic, which means that in US terms it would be more popular than basketball. The firearm murder rate in the Czech Republic is .12 per 100,000 people (2010), while in Germany it is .2 per 100,000 (also 2010). While in the United States it is sadly 2.83 (2012) (link). And the Czech Republic does allow concealed carry and high-capacity semi-autos and all that sort of thing.

Similarly, the overall murder rate in Vermont is about the same as that in the UK, despite there being a thirty-fold higher percentage of gun owners in Vermont and Vermont having permit-less concealed carry. And Vermont has lower rates for non-murder violent crimes.

Things like this kind of make it hard to argue that simple availability of firearms is the problem. That is, if one is looking at the issue objectively and trying to come to a decision based on the data, rather than coming to a decision first and then frantically trying to find data to support it afterwards.

The vast majority of gun owners are not the problem in the United States when it comes to firearm violence. So if you actually care about reducing the violence, then you should support measures that are more likely to work against the people who are the problem. Like this measure. And interestingly enough, if you did so, most of the RKBA people here would probably be in agreement with you.

Try it sometime and see.

[Eleanors38]

107. How to tell the difference: Is someone threatening you? All clear? nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

111. Re: 2011 US homicide rate

See table 2:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

The 2011 "Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms" rate (per 100,000) was 3.6. My calculator shows 5.1 - 3.6 is 1.5. Therefore the US non-gun homicide rate is about double the OVERALL homicide rate in Germany.

Conclusion: people in the US are more murderous than people in Germany. This is not due to guns.

[blueridge3210]

59. Foster is convicted of a crime and faces jail time

for tackling a "good guy with a gun" and this is a neutral outcome? Really?

No, this is not NRA logic. You really need to put away the NRA boogey man and face reality. Foster screwed up by making an unprovoked attack on Daniels.

[DetlefK]

60. Legal, moral and logical are not the same.

Daniels looked like a "bad guy with a gun", Foster reacted. Turns out he was wrong.

[blueridge3210]

61. How did Daniels look like a "bad guy with a gun"?

No, Foster's reaction was not logical. Had it been, he could have articulated self defense under a reasonable person standard.

[DetlefK]

63. Most excellent question.

How do you tell a "good guy with a gun" (I fell so safe.) from a "bad guy with a gun" (Oh, shit.)?

[blueridge3210]

64. The bad guy with a gun

will be doing bad things with the gun. The good guy will be in compliance with the law. Pretty simple really. Tackling a guy who is just waking through the store is still not logical; hence the conviction and potential jail time.

[DetlefK]

65. That's like saying a good stock will rise, a bad stock will fall.

But I would like to know if it's a good stock or a bad stock BEFORE it either rises or falls.

[blueridge3210]

68. How do we tell a legitimate shopper

from a shoplifter? Maybe we should just tackle anyone who doesn't look "right"?

How do we tell someone at the pharmacy who has a legitimate need for pain meds from a pill junkie? Maybe we should tackle anyone who looks "hinky".

How do we tell the responsible drinker at the package store from a drunk who's about to cause mayhem on the roads? Maybe we should tackle anyone who looks like an alcoholic.

Everyone would like to know these things beforehand; unfortunately it's not possible.

[Shamash]

71. Of course it's possible

Just ask a conservative, control freak or authoritarian (not necessarily the same thing). They know exactly who all the bad guys are ahead of time. It's us bleeding-heart liberals and our pathetic attachment to "rights" and "civil liberties" who are clueless about it.

[blueridge3210]

72. So it would appear. (nt)

[DetlefK]

79. Agreed, we can't. But the consequences of our failures make the difference.

If we are wrong about the shoplifter, we lose a few dollars.
If we are wrong about the junkie, an irresponsible person will hurt itself.
If we are wrong about the alcoholic, people get hurt.
If we are wrong about the gun-owner, people die.


We have to weigh our actions not only against the probability of the consequences but also against the severity of the consequences.

[blueridge3210]

80. So, then you advocate tackling anyone

you see in a public area who is carrying a firearm?

[DetlefK]

83. Let's say...

1. If I were in the US I would be extra careful and call the police any time someone with a gun behaved suspicous and I would be VERY liberal with "suspicious".

2. The ubiquity of guns is one reason why I would be extremely hesitant to move to the US, even if I got a very generous job-offer there. (That and ending up someplace that is governed by Republicans. Seriously: Reading about Republicans is my guilty-pleasure. It's like watching a grotesque soap-opera. The only difference is that you guys have to live in it and I do not.)

[blueridge3210]

84. Keep calling on "suspicious"

and you will be labeled a crank and ignored. Probably best you chose to reside elsewhere; freedom appears to be a problem for you.

[DetlefK]

85. Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.

And vice versa.

[blueridge3210]

88. It's not a zero sum game.

Both freedoms can exist side by side; my freedom to legally carry a weapon in no way infringes on your freedoms.

[DetlefK]

89. It does infringe.

It does infringe on my freedom to go about my life without constantly juggling probabilities whether a situation will turn lethal or not.
Can you imagine that? The freedom to never be worried about violent death?

[blueridge3210]

92. How do you manage to get through life at all?

You must be terrified at going out in public; the chance of being struck by lightning, involved in an automobile accident, slip and fall injury must be overwhelming.

Here's the thing; you have no "right" to go through life without making choices about potential threats and risks that accompany everyday life. The vast majority of lawful firearm owners pose no threat to anyone around them; you're irrational fear of a virtually non-existent threat does not override my very real rights.

[DetlefK]

100. Oh, I worry about a lot.

I just never had to worry about getting killed.
Getting mugged? The odds of getting killed are virtually non-existent.
A brawl? The odds of someone pulling out a gun to settle this are virtually non-existent.
Encountering a crazy person all by myself? The odds of that person owning a gun are virtually non-existent.
And I like it that way.




And you tried the same argument as somebody else in this thread: If the vast majority of gun-owners aren't a threat, what are gun-owners defending themselves against?
If 99.9% of gun-owners pose no threat to you, why would specifically you need a gun in the first place?

[blueridge3210]

102. "If 99.9% of gun-owners pose no threat to you"

Because there are many ways to assault someone without a firearm.

Again your irrational fear of lawful firearm owners does not override my rights.

[Shamash]

103. If 99.9% of gun-owners pose no threat to you, why would you need a gun in the first place?

First, some of them (like myself) are hunters, a category of gun owners which you were apparently unaware of the existence of. They may not be doing concealed carry, but they are gun owners, a group which as a whole you seem to have a problem with. Though to be fair, your main problem seems to be coming up with a rational reason to have a problem with them. If you eventually work your way through that, then you can expand on it and explain how those reasons are liberal ones.

Second, some of them are folks like Diane Feinstein, who had a concealed carry permit for a while because she was concerned about threats on her life. You know, since some people are smaller and weaker than others yet still cling to the regressive notion that they should have a right to an adequate level of self-defense against an attacker who is more powerful by benefit of strength or superior numbers, and feels that self-defense technologies which have YouTube videos of people ignoring them (pepper spray and tasers) are just not up to the task.

Third, please explain why your determination of "need" is sufficient grounds to prevent me from owning or doing something. I hear conservatives saying that homosexuals do not "need" to get married, or that no woman "needs" to have an abortion. Drunk driving kills a lot of people. Does anyone "need" to consume an alcoholic beverage? Or does your logic not apply when other people use it? (aka the "guns are ‘different’, therefore I can be an asshat" defense).

Fourth, about your odds. The CDC says that the number of defensive guns uses per year is more than the number of violent criminal assaults. And that the average outcome for the person using the gun is better than the outcome for any other defensive strategy.

Last, about 1 in 20 adults in the United States has a concealed carry permit. Are you living in fear of them on a daily basis? Because they are there. They're all around you. All the time. Which brings us back to the subject line of my comment. I'm not worried about that 99.9% of gun owners. I'm less likely to be victimized by one of them than by the rest of the population.

edit: I see from another comment that you are not in the US. How would you feel about moving to Vermont, a state with unlimited concealed carry, a murder rate about that of the UK and lower rape, assault and robbery rates than the UK?

[beevul]

116. Good grief.

"It does infringe on my freedom to go about my life without constantly juggling probabilities whether a situation will turn lethal or not."


Welcome to life.


Life IS a constant juggle of probabilities whether a situation will turn lethal or not.

Every time you walk down the stairs. Every time you take a shower. Every time you ride a bike, drive a car, or interact with other vehicles on the road. Every time you light up the propane grill. Every time you mow the lawn. Every time you interact with modern electricity. Every time you light the furnace. Every step you take when hiking in the woods. Every time you treat an injury or decline to. Every time you interact with another human being or animal. In most situations you probably don't even realize you're doing it, but you're most definitely doing it.


As arguments go, the one you make is not particularly compelling.

[DonP]

119. Where do they get this; "I have a right to not be afraid" idea? Did I miss a SCOTUS decision?

I've seen his off and on for years.

"My imaginary right to feel safe trumps your actual enumerated constitutional rights, so stop whatever you're doing that I don't like."

But IIRC, this isn't the first "European Constitutional Scholar" we've had as a visitor. I wonder if he moved to Germany from Italy?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

120. re: "The freedom to never be worried about violent death"

An interesting question you bring up.

Have a link: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/

[friendly_iconoclast]

122. "I wonder if he moved to Germany from Italy?"

Or from Oregon:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117279271#post6

[DonP]

123. "Baldr Odinson" strikes again?

Bringing all his inimitable gun control wisdom and leadership to bear on the subject.

They need someone like him in Castle Bansalot. (Of course they need anybody there for some kind of vague credibility.)

[friendly_iconoclast]

124. All that pompous self-importance would play well there...

...at least until they get into another one of their inter-Jacobin faction fights.

[DetlefK]

128. Last post here.

I don't know where this reply would fit best, so I just put it here.



I believe that the community exists because humans living together is not a zero-sum game but creates synergy.
When joining a community, a human gives up freedoms but gets the security and resources a community of humans provides. The net-result is positive to the individual human.
It is my opinion, that one of those freedoms given up is the freedom to dispense lethality at personal discretion.
It is my opinion, that the freedom to dispense lethality at personal discretion is replaced with the role of the community to regulate and authorize lethality. You no longer have the personal authority to make the decision whether to kill somebody or not. The authority to make that decision does not lie with you personally, but with the community as a whole.
This is why I'm against freely dispensing tools which sole purpose is lethality against humans.
I have no problem with hunting-rifles, because lethality against humans is neither the intended purpose nor the main application.
I have no problems with sharpened sticks, rocks, knives because, while they are lethal, reaching lethality with these tools requires more effort and more luck on the side of the perpetrator, up to the point where the victim has a realistic chance at survival even if unarmed.
I have no problem with weaponization as a means of self-defense, provided said weapon doesn't provide an autonomy to the wielder that excludes the community from his decisions about lethality.



I am not against self-defense. I am against lethal weapons for self-defense because they can be abused most easily as tools of lethal offense. And that's why the problem of a "bad guy with a gun" hiding in the midst of "good guys with a gun" cannot be solved with more guns. If you add more lethal weapons to a population, you automatically create more "bad guys with a lethal weapon".
If a "good guy with a gun" kills a "bad guy with a gun", he will in general do so after the "bad guy with a gun" has already killed someone.
"Good guys with guns" prevent an escalation, but for the victim that has already been shot there is no difference. Dead is dead.

"Good guys with guns" are a stop-gap measure, not a solution to gun-violence.
"Bad guys with guns" and their victims are the price you pay for having the freedom to own a gun.
I am willing to trade my personal freedom to own a gun against a level of security within the community that makes personally owning a gun unnecessary. You obviously value personal freedom as more important than security.

[GGJohn]

129. Sorry, but that's BS.

You can have both personal freedom and security.
Both go hand in hand.

[DetlefK]

130. "That's BS." Excellent refute.

[GGJohn]

131. That's all the refuting needed.

You may want to give up your freedom to the best tool for self defense, but the majority of Americans would vehemently disagree with you.
Self defense is a human right and having the most effective tool available just makes sense.

[DetlefK]

133. Insisting that something makes sense does not mean that it makes sense.

1. The most effective tool for defense is also the most effective tool for offense in our case. That means that you insist on giving other people the option to kill you. Does that make you more secure?


2. Let's assume that you are right. Let's assume that everybody should have the best weapon there is available for self-defense.
People use guns.
Then people start wearing bullet-proof vests to defend themselves against guns.
Then people start using armour-piercing rounds to defend themselves against bulletproof vests.
Then people start using better armour to defend themselves against armour-piercing rounds.
Then people start using toxic gas to defend themselves against this advanced armour.
Then people start using gas-masks to defend themselves against toxic gas.
...

When is the point reached where you can defend yourself successfully against a bad guy?

[GGJohn]

134. All those scenario's you've laid out?

How many times has that happened?

[DetlefK]

139. Are you familiar with the concepts of "logic" and "rationality"?

"If this happens then that happens."
You go from one hypothetical situation to the next hypothetical situation. That is logic.

You start with a real situation in present reality. From there you work your way through hypothetical events using logical decisions until you reach a conclusion. Then you apply that conclusion to your decision-making in the present reality. That is rationality.
In other words: You think about all the things that could be and pick those that you like. And then you behave in a way that makes them come true.

And the best part is: Using this method you can think about things that haven't even happened yet! Isn't that great?

[GGJohn]

140. I'll ask you again.

in all the scenario's you laid out, how often has that come to pass in regards to lethal self defense?
When and if it does come to pass frequently, then I'll give a shit, but until then, a gun is still the second best tool for self defense, the first being that grey matter between your ears.

[DetlefK]

141. I am seriously doubting your mental capacity right now. (Not kidding.)

It may come as a surprise to you, but things can happen in the future, despite not having happened before in the past.

That is why we have to take hypothetical situations into account.
For example: Your retirement. You are thinking about your retirement even though you have never before entered retirement. That's a hypothetical situation, see? We are talking about something that has not happened but will happen.



Now, let's assume you are a bad guy with a gun and you know that there will be good guys with a gun around.
Will you put on a bullet-proof vest? Yes, of course you will.
If bad guys start wearing bullet-proof vests to defend themselves against good guys, then good guys will also start wearing bullet-proof vests.

So, there will be bad guys who know they will encounter good guys with bullet-proof vests.
Will the bad guys use armour-piercing bullets? Yes, of course they will.
If bad guys start using armour-piercing bullets to defend themselves against good guys, then good guys will also start using armour-piercing bullets.

Step 3: There will be bad guys who know they will encounter good guys with armour-piercing bullets.
Will they put on advanced armour that can fend of armour-piercing bullets? Of course they will.
If bad guys start using advanced armour to defend themselves against good guys, then good guys will also start using advanced armour.

Step 4: There will be bad guys who know they will encounter good guys with advanced armour.
Will they use an even stronger weapon that can defeat this advanced armour? Of course they will.
If bad guys start using that even stronger weapon to defend themselves against good guys, then good guys will also start using that even stronger weapon.

This chain of conclusions can be extended ad infinitum. Which is exactly the problem I was talking about a few posts back before I had to explain to you stuff like "think about things before they happen".

[GGJohn]

142. All of which hasn't happened has it?

You can lay out all the scenario's you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that a gun is the second best tool for self defense and I and millions of other Americans will never give up our personal freedom to an effective tool for that self defense.

Questioning my mental capacity? Good bye.

[DetlefK]

143. You, Sir, are a pigeon.

When somebody plays chess with a pigeon, it doesn't matter how good he is. The pigeon will kick over the pieces, take a shit on the board and then strut around as if it won.

You, Sir, are that pigeon.

[Shamash]

149. You, Sir, are a moron

Firearms in their modern form have been available in the United States for over a century. And this includes magazine-fed semi-autos in both pistol and rifle form. Firearms as a generally dangerous and commonly available item have been around for the entire history of the United States, from the moment the first settlers landed here. We did after all, win our independence with them, so presumably they were usefully lethal.

In your multiple-step scenario, after 300 years, we have partially reached step 1. Step 2? No police officer in the history of the United States has been killed because an armor-piercing bullet was used to defeat their body armor.

But to be fair, you might be right. Since it has taken 300 years and we are still on step 1, get back to me in the year 2900 and we'll see if I need to concede the point to you on the other three steps.

[DetlefK]

163. 300 years?

It took 300 years to get from A to B, therefore it will take 300 years to get from B to C.
It took 100 years to get from analog landline telephones to digital landline telephones, therefore it will take 100 years to get from digital landline to digital wireless?
It took 2000 years from Heron's ball to steam-engines, therefore it will take 2000 years from steam-engines to combustion-engines?
It took 50 years from finding radioactivity to building nuclear reactors, therefore it will take 50 years from fission-reactors to fusion-reactors?





Every time a good guy gets a gun, a bad guy gets a gun. That's not peace. You are waging a Cold War against your fellow citizens. You may be comfortable with the concept of peace enforced at the barrel of a gun, I am not.

[sarisataka]

145. Your scenario is not logic

It is a slippery slope fallacy.

Let me illustrate with a different one:
A few reasonable gun control laws will lead to greater restrictions then bans. After that it will be full prohibition of private gun ownership and confiscation.

Is this logic and reason as well?

"If this happens then that happens."
You go from one hypothetical situation to the next hypothetical situation. That is logic.

[DetlefK]

164. So... Which one of my steps was wrong?

When will the arms-race stop?
When will people say "I own the best available weapon and the bad guy owns the best available weapon and I'm totally fine with that. I won't even think about getting something better than what the bad guy uses?"

[friendly_iconoclast]

165. Your steps presume that the level of violence would increase along with the # of weapons

Instead, (at least in the United States over the past 20 years) crime rates have gone down

You needn't take my word for it; the FBI has been compiling statistics and makes them
available for all to see at:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s

Please also note that, in those same twenty years that are covered by detailed
CITUS reports the number of firearms owned by Americans increased markedly.

If we are to accept your 'steps' as historically inevitable, would not crime also similarly
decrease in the future? The trend is there for you to examine- if you wish

Since your "arms-race" theory hasn't been borne out by historical evidence,
your objection to the ownership of guns by civilians appears to be a cultural one.

[sarisataka]

168. Would you be offended

If I said all of them?

[sarisataka]

90. My family has

an 18 year old girl who has resided in the cemetery for thr last fifteen years because of an alcoholic who has been out of jail for nine years.

So based on probability and severity of consequences should I be attacking everyone I see buying or drinking alcohol?

P.S. I known people injured by junkies while they were high or trying to get money to buy a fix. Is it therefore open season on anyone who "looks like" a junkie?

[blueridge3210]

97. It certainly appears so.

Based on the comments in this thread.

[beevul]

115. Would you like to know, before people speak, whether they'll incite a riot too?

Pfft.

[Eleanors38]

110. I got it! I got it! He was black! uh, I mean, I hear that all the time here in DU...

Do you think that was what was going through the mind of the attacker? Is there even the most remote possibility?

Is it even possible that the atacked citizen feared for his life?



I mean, before the attack?







Could that be the reason he legally armed himself?

And voila.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

86. re: "looked like a bad guy..."

The meme of racists.

[hack89]

73. He looked like a "black guy with a gun" - there, fixed it for you. nt

[tularetom]

106. He looked like a bad guy with a gun because he was a black man

Why is this so difficult for you to understand.

A bigot sees an African American man in a store with a (perfectly legal and permitted) firearm and immediately jumps to the conclusion that "that n-word is going to rob the store and/or shoot somebody".

And here you are defending the bigot.

[GGJohn]

66. WTF? Tackling that guy was the perfectly logical thing to do. Seriously not kidding.

Apparently the law didn't think so, neither did the jury, now Foster is convicted of battery, will get hit with a big fine, possible jail time and Daniels could very well sue him and win.

How fucking logical was that?

[DetlefK]

67. Legal isn't the same as logical, otherwise Wall Street banksters would be in jail.

Checkmate.

[GGJohn]

69. How logical is it to tackle someone minding their own business?

You do know that Mr. Daniels could have drawn his gun and shot Mr. Foster and it would have been ruled as justified?
You do know that Mr. Daniels can be sued out of existence by Mr. Foster because of the crime?
There was no logic involved here, but I'll bet there was some racism involved on the part of Mr. Foster.

As far as the banksters, I would agree that they should be in jail.
Checkmate.

[DetlefK]

76. Again...

There is no way to tell a bad guy with a gun from a good guy with a gun before the violence starts.

Foster errs on the one side and the worst outcome is jail.

Foster errs on the other side and people die.

Choose.

[blueridge3210]

77. Foster could have been legally shot in self defense.

That is much worse that going to jail.

[GGJohn]

78. I would choose minding my own damn business if there is no threat.

Which in this case there wasn't.
But I'll bet there was racism involved in Mr. Foster's decision to tackle Mr. Daniels and place him in a choke hold.

[DonP]

87. And the gun owners are supposed to be the vigilantes?

Foster may well spend time in jail, pay court costs and maybe a hefty fine and be sued civilly by the man he attacked.

I'm sure you'll be getting out your checkbook to show your support for his actions, right? The Klan must have a "Go Fund Me" sight for Foster up by now.

Don't know Florida law, but that may be enough of a felony to disqualify Foster from owning guns. I like that idea.

Same as I'd prefer people that believe in attacking black men because "you think" they might be dangerous shouldn't be allowed near a gun either.

They are either too stupid or too bigoted.

[Eleanors38]

112. HA! Vigilantism: It's not just for gun-owners.

[beevul]

121. "There is no way to tell a bad guy with a gun from a good guy with a gun before the violence..."

There is no way to tell a bad guy with a gun from a good guy with a gun before the violence starts.

A person pushing a shopping cart around peaceably going about their business, may be a sign.

[hack89]

74. Attacking people for doing perfectly legal things may be logical to you

but logic also tells you what the legal outcome will be.

[GGJohn]

75. I think you replied to the wrong person. eom.

[hack89]

81. You are right - my coffee powered sarcasm detector is low on fuel. nt

[GGJohn]

82. No problem.

Just getting ready to go out and do battle with our cattle.

[oneshooter]

117. "do battle with our cattle."

Don't let them win, you'll never hear the end of it.

[blueridge3210]

118. Charge the with a "Mooooving" violation?

[Shamash]

55. Politicalboi is clueless

His entire argument is premised on what WalMart should or should not have done as a matter of policy. The point he is missing is that the WalMart was merely the place where it happened. It could just as easily have been in a public parking lot, where no law would have restricted Daniels' ability to legally carry.

The blame for an attack rests on the attacker.

[stone space]

144. How many more Walmart customers must die before Walmart does something?

His entire argument is premised on what WalMart should or should not have done as a matter of policy.

[sarisataka]

146. But this is not about someone's death

it is a bout a risk to a person committing assault.

So the correct question is 'how much responsibility does a business have to insure a criminal has a safe working environment?'

[blueridge3210]

147. How many Wal Mart customers died in this incident?

[stone space]

150. Clarence Daniels didn't follow the OP's advice.

How many Wal Mart customers died in this incident?

If it were up to the OP, this would be just another dead Walmart customer.

[blueridge3210]

155. More lies.

[bravenak]

101. I'm glad he has been convicted for the assault.

And I'm glad he was dealing with a cool person who kept his head and did not fire upon his person.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

105. ^^^ +100 ^^^

Bravo for that cool head.

"Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

[Eleanors38]

108. White guy convicted of attacking Islamist -- Defended on DU. lord.

[Gothmog]

113. This is the appropriate outcome

[stone space]

135. Regarding your alert of April 29th, 2015

krispos42

Regarding your alert of April 29th, 2015

Mail Message

Hi stone space,

I think the post is okay in that justified self defence is not murder. And since it can be argued (strongly, in my opinion) that surprise violent assaults can be met with defensive deadly force, this thread falls within the bounds of the Group.

If the original post called for deadly force outside "clear and present danger", such as finding out where the attacker lives and shooting him from ambush, that would of course be out of bounds for both the Group and DU in general.

Regards,
Krispos42, Group Host

[GGJohn]

136. Yeah? So what?

Am I supposed to feel betrayed?
I'm glad that Krispos42 left it, that way everyone can see for themselves how irrational you really are.
I feel for your alleged students if your attitude here is the same in the alleged classroom.

[NaturalHigh]

137. Good call.

[NaturalHigh]

138. Michael Foster gets the Jughead Award for this one.

Hopefully he's learned a lesson.

For all those people who are convinced that gun owners are just praying for an opportunity to yell "yeehaw!" and shoot somebody, consider that this moron, who physically attacked a person legally carrying a firearm, is still upright and breathing.

[stone space]

148. That some here on DU want him dead?

Hopefully he's learned a lesson.

[NaturalHigh]

152. Nobody wants him dead. Get a grip.

That's the problem with the gun control crowd - hyperbole instead of facts.

[stone space]

153. Making excuses for murdering him.

Yeah, I'd say that some here want him dead.

Some of the same folks here who support Zimmerman.

[NaturalHigh]

154. OK dude, have it your way.

[friendly_iconoclast]

158. "Yeah, I'd say that some here want him dead." Name one, then

I strongly suspect your response will be either A) silence, or B)




...because you're bullshitting us and we all know it.

[GGJohn]

162. Now I know for a fact that you're no teacher,

teacher's are supposed to possess common sense, something you've yet to do here.

[sarisataka]

156. The pro-GC position?

we have a right to protect ourselves against gun toting idiots.
he should have broken his damn arms....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172159686