WP,pg1: Guns Worn in Open Legal, but Alarm Va. (packing heat at Starbucks)

[DeepModem Mom]

Guns Worn In Open Legal, But Alarm Va.
'Exercising Right' Called 'Unreasonable' by Some
By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 15, 2004; Page A01


On July 2, Fairfax County police received a 911 call from a Champps restaurant in Reston. Six men are seated at a table, the caller said. They're all armed.

Dispatchers quickly sent four officers to the scene. The officers were "extremely polite" and were hoping that some of the men were in law enforcement, said Sgt. Richard Perez, a spokesman for the police department. None was.

The men told the officers "they were just exercising their rights as citizens of the commonwealth," Perez said.

Turns out, packing a pistol in public is perfectly legal in Virginia. And three times in the last month, including at Champps on Sunset Hills Road, residents have been spotted out and about in the county, with guns strapped to their hips, exercising that right.

In the first episode, at a Starbucks, Fairfax police wrongly confiscated weapons from two college students and charged them with a misdemeanor. Police realized their mistake, returned the guns and tore up the charges the next day. Police commanders have since issued a reminder to officers that "open carry" is the law of the land in the Old Dominion.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, an organization of thousands of Virginia gun owners, said members were involved in all three police encounters. But he said there was no coordinated campaign to start packing heat publicly....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50416-2004Jul14.html

[ClintonTyree]

1. No coordinated plan..............

my ass. These yahoos want to test the limits and set an example for all gun loving freaks in the State. I'll never set foot in Virginia again knowing this.

[Jack_DeLeon]

2. Test what limits?

The limits in Virginia are that they can openly carry a weapon so how are they testing the limits by following the law?

[ClintonTyree]

18. The limits...........

of good taste and sanity. There is NO reason why any civilian has to carry a weapon openly. Is it just to flaunt their "God given right" to bear arms, or as another poster opined to compensate for a lack of sexual adequecy? Can you give me ONE good reason why anyone would want to carry a weapon openly?

[DBoon]

29. There are legitimate reasons

but flaunting the law by carrying small arms in public places where one has no expectation of danger makes a mockery of the right to bear arms.

Guns are not a fashion item. Guns are not even a political statement (they are not a bumper sticker). Guns are intended for hunting or self-protection in dangerous circumstances.

Someone in a high risk occupation in a dangerous location has a reason to carry a gun (liquor store owner in high-crime neighborhood, etc.). Carrying weapons "because I can" makes a mockery of their legitimate use, and trivializes their intended lethal use.

[Bo]

192. I think they will become a fashion statement.

[DoNotRefill]

46. well, if they didn't require a permit to carry concealed....

people wouldn't have to carry openly if they don't want to have to get a permit to exercise a constitutionally protected right, would they?

It's none of the government's business if I carry a concealed weapon. I went ahead and got the permit, despite objecting to it, because I didn't want to get hassled like these guys got hassled for open carry.

[worksux]

190. I have a couple of questions

as you can see I joined DU pretty recently. When I did, I hoped and want to ask about
1. does anybody here read the NYTimes, more specifically, the Sunday edition?
2. If so, has anybody seen in the SU NYTimes Magazine an article called I believe, "On Ethics"-it's a question and answer format short where somebody would write in something like the topic of the WP article and ask if it's right. The author would answer.

I don't have a PhD in anything, but it does seem like common sense to me that unless these men were doing something like carrying loose diamonds, I can't understand why they felt the need to go into a coffee shop and wear guns. I don't get it.

I dunno. Maybe I said too much. It's an open forum, let's discuss.
Cheers,
Kathryn

[DoNotRefill]

193. It's a constitutionally protected right just like voting and abortion....

there's no "need" based test for it.

[worksux]

194. you guys need to see The Awful Truth by Michael Moore

in season 2 ,1st show, the second half is "Pistol Pete"-just see it if you can...

[JayS]

196. I'm sure it is unbiased. :) n/t

n/t

[LiberalFighter]

65. I wonder how it is a god given right???

I don't recall anything in the bible mentioning guns. Nor do I recall that god stated that man had a right to possess any type of weapons. Yes, soldiers fought under the protection of god but does not automatically default to a right.

/Not being critical of DumpGump just focusing on the "god given right" statement that many use to support their belief/

[JayS]

69. It is part of the inalienable rights argument. n/t

n/t

[Elginoid]

198. not only that-

how can something made by men be considered a "god-given" right?

marijuana is a god-given right, not guns.

[FeebMaster]

202. Are cocaine, heroin, morphine, and methamphetamines

god-given rights too or just marijuana?

[DoNotRefill]

204. I'd vote a big "Yes!" on morphine....

and all other opiates.... ;)

[FeebMaster]

206. Well then I would think guns would be a god given right as well

Didn't god give us the iron and aluminum we use to make them? ;) That might leave Glocks and a few others in a bit of a pickle.

[DoNotRefill]

207. But didn't God make dinosaurs?

which turned into petroleum, which is the basis for polymer frames? :evilgrin:

[FeebMaster]

209. Good point.

Thank God for the dinosaurs. :D

[ilovenicepeople]

214. Just Marijuana

Marijuana is a plant,cocaine,heroin,and morphine are derived from plants by MAN.Methamphetamine is a chemical made by MAN.So if GOD made the plants and animals then I would guess that the WEED would be the only one on the GOD-GIVING list(but thats just my weird sense of logic) HOWDY :hi:

[DoNotRefill]

216. How about Khat then?

or just chewing coca leaves or opium buds?

[DoNotRefill]

203. the right to effective self-defense...

is a basic human right. "god-given"? Well, I don't know about that....but basic human right? Yup...

[smiley_glad_hands]

35. Openly carrying Weapons is perfectly legal in Virginia--has been for years

It's the law---period. In fact, you can go before a judge pretty easily and get a concealed weapons permit.

[leanings]

39. Speaking for gun loving freak yahoo Virginians everywhere,

I can't say I have any objections to your decision.

[DoNotRefill]

44. Don't let the door hit your ass....

on the way out.

Don't like our laws? Don't come here. Simple enough.

[theHandpuppet]

107. You can hear the same litany...

... from some Virginians who defend some of the most gay-hating laws in the nation. Funny how Virginia's notions of "freedom" and "rights" can be so selective.

Don't come here? No prob!

[DoNotRefill]

170. As opposed to West Virginia....

which some people claim has NO homosexuals? ;)

[colonel odis]

3. why don't they just wear a sign that says

"overcompensating for my short penis." it's much safer.

[Ruffhowse]

5. Exactly, I'm sick of gun nuts trying to make up for low testosterone

levels by prancing around their "big boy" guns. Pathetic losers.

[ronabop]

7. How about:

"I'm a bodyguard for doctors of an abortion clinic, and I dropped by to get a coffee."
or:
"I'm a competitive shooter, I'd like to buy a coffee without leaving a weapon in my car to possibly be stolen"
or:
"I was raped recently, and he told me he'd come after me if I went to the police. I carry this for my own protection, because they haven't caught him yet."

Not all people who carry weapons are "gun nuts" with testosterone issues. Some people carry weapons specifically *because* of the threat posed of gun nuts with testosterone issues.

-Bop
edit: spelling

[Ruffhowse]

8. It's been my experience that the most adamant gun freedom advocates...

....are the type I described in my previous post. They truly seem to need to compensate for something lacking in themselves by an unnatural fascination with deadly weapons. Not all gun owners are like this, there are many that are responsible and well grounded, but the ones that are, really frighten me and I don't feel safe around them when they are armed to kill.

[biftonnorton]

33. Your Discomfort Is More About You Than Them

Holstered guns make you nervous? I worry only about the ones being held and pointed in my direction. You're choosing to have your knees knocking for no good reason. It's your choice-- don't make rules limiting the rest of us just because of your phobias.

[northzax]

38. actually, yeah they do

I work in a liquor store some nights, and it's real fun to have someone walk in carrying a gun.

you know where else it's legal to carry a gun? Banks. now that's a real good plan, don't you think?

[biftonnorton]

64. I like to see guards with holstered guns in banks

makes me feel safer. Make all the laws you want-- criminals are not going to follow them, and it's likely criminals would not be carrying their weapon in a holster, since it destroys their advantage of surprise. Open carry for non-LEO is an interesting and quaint concept, reminiscent of old West movies. I wouldn't do it myself, but I'm not going to try to get it taken off the books based on phobias. Like many things, if you don't like it, don't do it. In the meantime, let those who want to carry do it. Why do they have to justify it to you if they're not hurting you in any way?

[northzax]

75. I don't have a choice

There is a qualitive difference between an armed guard, someone in uniform hired by the place of business carrying a weapon and anyone else walking around with one. I am not a resident of Virgina, hence I cannot carry a weapon around with me, but I have to work here and deal with it. Sure, it's rare to see some weirdo walking around like he's Clint Eastwood, but the rest of us have to deal with it. HAve you ever approached someone carrying a gun in a public place and asked them to leave?

Last week one of my associates asked a patron to leave (he was disturbing the peace) and was hit by him. You want her to have to walk up to someone carrying a GUN and ask them to leave? gee, that sounds safe.

By the way, 99.9 percent of people who own guns are responsible, balanced citizens who would politely agree to leave if a business person asked them to. The fact is, I can take the chance that someone will punch me, I cannot take the chance that someone will shoot me. It's that simple.

[biftonnorton]

85. You Should Call A Cop

if a patron is that rowdy or if you feel threatened and they'll take care of the patron quite well. Either that or your boss should provide security. Just b/c you don't see a gun doesn't mean the person is not armed.

[northzax]

112. I should not have to shell out 100,000/year for security

simply so that you can carry a gun.

[DoNotRefill]

114. Right. Instead, you should get therapy....

so that the presence of a holstered weapon doesn't make you freak out.

Tell us, do you freak out when a cop wearing a holstered sidearm comes into your store? If not, then why not?

Fear of weaponry is a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity.

[northzax]

125. right. therapy. that's what I need.

actually, what I need is the address of your office, so I can walk in and start insulting your secretary with a gun on my hip.

in fact, can I have the address of your children's school, so I can walk in, with a gun casually strapped to my hip, and start asking questions about them? you don't mind, do you?

The local drug dealer in my neighborhood was shot on the corner near my apartment last week. I guess he shouldn't have been afraid of people carrying guns, either, huh? or maybe he should have had a gun to protect himself (oh, he did? and he still got shot? bad luck)

and no, I'm not afraid of a cop with a gun on his/her hip. of course, there is a reasonable suspicion that he's not going to knock the place over, and that there is a good reason for him to have it. an out of uniform cop? no, I wouldn't be happy about it.

If I see a soldier (not an uncommon sight in DC) with an assault rifle, I have no big issues. If I see a random person on the street with an assault rifle, it's a little disturbing.

fear of weaponry is a normal response to anyone who has witnessed violence. handguns have one purpose only, the killing of human beings. (sure, there are target pistols or whatever, but 99% are designed to kill humans) the only reason to wear one strapped to your hip is to tell people "I can kill you if I want to" it's why the police have them, right? so they can use deadly force if they need to? well anyone else carrying one is implying the same threat to everyone else. and it's immature to have some trepidation around someone who feels compelled to make that statement?

Remember, you are saying "I can kill you if I want to." who's immature now?

[DoNotRefill]

129. So....you're a better psychologist than Freud?

"Remember, you are saying "I can kill you if I want to." who's immature now?"

because that's who said that "fear of weaponry is a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity." Personally, I don't carry unconcealed. My handgun is concealed, because I don't want to get hassled by cops about it. As for the "I can kill you if I want to", that's not what I'm saying by carrying. What I'm saying is much more along the lines of "hi". you don't know by looking at me if I'm carrying, and the ONLY way you'll find out if I am is if you or somebody else does something bad enough for me to decide that it's legally justifiable to shoot them.

You live in DC, right? Would you care to wager which area has a higher homicide rate, DC, Virginia, or Maryland? Would you care to wager which location has the less restrictive gun control laws?

I'll save you the effort of looking the numbers up. DC by far has the most restrictive gun control laws. Virginia has the least restrictive gun control laws. Maryland is in the middle. DC by far has the highest homicide rate, which is many times higher than either Virginia's 9the lowest) or Maryland's (again, in the middle) homicide rate. So, since the places with the strictet gun control laws (a handgun ban in DC) has the most handgun crime. How can that be? Don't people in DC know it's illegal?

[WildClarySage]

182. no offense

but freud's theories are a bit outdated. psychotherapy has fallen out of favor with most counselors and psychologists in favor of more straightforward practices.

[northzax]

199. gee, and here I thought Freud had pretty much been discredited

in the 60's. oh well, maybe I need to read up more.

Of course DC has higher homicide rates, but the gun control statutes have nothing to do with that, The guy on my block who was killed with week was carrying a gun, everyone knew he carried a gun, I'm a white guy and I saw it. So obviously that did not deter people from shooting him.

Crime is much more a function of education, economics and opportunity than it is gun control and you know it. but since you want to make the arguement, let's look at this (I'll let you look up the statistics) please compare the homicide rates of the United States and Australia

[JayS]

200. "Crime is much more a function of..."

I agree with you on this statement. This is also one reason why I do not care in the least for politicians that push the common brand of gun control. When they do this, they show that they either do not care about the issues enough to not take the easy way out or they have no clue at all about the issues. Either way, they don't need to be in office.

[DoNotRefill]

201. Freud discredited?

That's pretty funny. :) Is that "discredited" as in Bellesiles "discredited", or "discredited" in that some therapists disagree with some of his positions?

If Freud was "discredited", there are an AWFUL lot of Freudian therapists out there who are still licensed to practice, and are still doing so. If you ask an adherent to Jung or Adler or Skinner (not OUR Skinner) if Freud is "discredited", they may, or may NOT, say yes. Still, Freud is a "biggie" in the world of psychology, and I've yet to hear of a SINGLE psychology program, ANYWHERE in the western world, that doesn't still teach Freud.

Let's compare the homicide rates between Australia and the US, as you requested. The Us has far more homicides total than Australia. The US has far more homicides that involve guns than Australia does. And the US has far more homicides that do NOT involve guns than Australia does. What conclusions can we reach from these facts? The ONLY conclusion we can reach is that the US is far more violent GENERALLY than Australia. Guns, no guns, it simply doesn't matter. If it WERE the guns that caused the US to be more violent, then the US and Australia non-gun homicide rates should be in alignment, but they emphatically are not. If every person in Australia was issued a handgun by the government, and there were NO guns in the US, the US would STILL have a higher homicide rate than Australia.

[biftonnorton]

118. Well, Security Costs

But it's not so *I* can carry a gun, it's so you'll have a security guard at your business for your and your employees' protection.

Apparently you cannot post a sign forbidding open carry. That's truly a bite.

If you're not allowed to forbid open carry in your store then it makes sense to either be armed yourself or hire a guard. Or move to someplace that shares your values. Didn't you know about open carry when you opened your business?

[DoNotRefill]

126. except, of course...

for the armed robbers who see the "no gun" signs, and know that the people there are guaranteed to be unarmed victims waiting to get robbed.... But hey! youy will not have to worry about the NON-criminals having guns!!! That's a plus, right?

[LiberalFighter]

71. Don't forget in texas it is legal to carry into churches

[Jack_DeLeon]

160. Thats for concealed carry though...

sadly we do not allow open carry of handguns in Texas.

The only way to carry a handgun is concealed, and the only way to carry concealed is to get a concealed handgun liscense.

It really screws over poorer people though since you have to pay for the classes and you have to pay atleast $70 for the liscense.

[primavera]

45. So then...

...if I were to come into your home with a balloon filled with anthrax and proceeded to juggle with it in front of your children, then any discomfort you might experience would be purely your problem, not mine? Good, glad we cleared that up. I'll be right over. :nuke:

[biftonnorton]

56. No one's juggling guns-- they're holstered

Just like cops' guns. You scared around them, too? You don't need to be scared unless they're unholstered and pointed at something. Safe gun handling is... well, safe. And that involves following basic safety rules, like not pointing the gun at anything you don't want shot! If you want to juggle a balloon filled with something toxic, you may be insane and are probably breaking a law against such behavior. Meanwhile, I'll safely handle my firearm and guard against loons like you with your balloons of mass destruction coming into my house trying to juggle. Heh.

[primavera]

67. Ah, but if it's holestered all the time...

...then why do you need with you? I'll grant you this much, if you would like to carry around with you a weapon hermetically sealed in a lock box for which you don't have the key, then that's cool, no harm there. The tricky bit is that it takes less than a second for you to unsnap that holster, take out that weapon, and conclude that the delivery guy bringing you Valentine's Day balloons from your sweetheart is a dangerous loon armed with balloons of mass destruction against whom you need to guard yourself. Don't laugh: statistics show that it is far, far more likely that you will much such an error and shoot an innocent person than that you will in fact protect your home from a bona fide dangerous intruder. Makes me glad I'm not a balloon delivery man, and even happier that I don't live in Virginia.

[biftonnorton]

76. You Didn't Answer The Question

about if you are scared of cops' guns in holsters. As far as the rest of your reply, one of the safety rules for firearms is knowing what your target is and what's behind it. Fortunately, cops often have more training than "civilians" with their firearms and that can inspire confidence. A person adequately trained, such as a cop, is far less likely to make those firearm handling mistakes you mention and shoot the balloon man. I advocate a permit system where people who carry (open or concealed) must have documented proof of safety education and frequent range qualification. The only guns I'm scared of are A)those pointed at me B)those in the hand of an untrained person. As for needing a firearm with you, it's for personal defense in situations where your life is in danger or you are facing imminent bodily harm. I know a rape victim who carries one and wishes she had had one when her two attackers were slapping her around before the rape. Knowing the statistics about "who she was more likely to shoot" didn't help her a bit. She's a responsible gun owner now and she should not be deprived of her weapon unless she breaks a law related to the weapon.

[primavera]

87. Oh, sorry

To answer your question, yes, armed cops alarm me as well and for the same reasons: ask IAD how many accidental shootings occur in which police officers shoot some kid holding a water pistol that looked real enough at the time. Admitted, a police officer is less likely to make such a mistake than a couple of drunks in a bar are, but "less likely" is not the same as "guaranteed never to happen" which is the only acceptable standard in my book.

This is the main reason I oppose the death penalty as well: its irrevocability. Thanks to new DNA evidence, it now turns out that half of the inmates on Illinois' death row could not possibly have committed the crimes for which they were convicted and sentenced. Yet we in this country were evidently quite ready to see them fry. We were wrong. How many other instances of wrongful punishment exist that we simply haven't discovered yet? 10%? 20%? 50%? How many innocents are you willing to sacrifice in order to have the death penalty?

The same anxiety is what makes me a staunch proponent of tighter gun control laws. If you accidentally shoot the milkman thinking he's a burglar - and statistics bear out that it's not 10 or 20 or even 50% of shootings that fall into that accidental category, but a whole closer to 90% - what are you going to do? Say "Sorry, my bad, tough luck on your widow and orphans"? Then there's nothing you can do, the poor guy's dead, there's no way of redressing that mistake in judgement on your part.

As for your friend the rape victim, truly my heart goes out to her, but, to be honest, I would have to say that she is one of the last people who should be armed, as, having undergone such a traumatic ordeal, her judgement is going to be even more prejudicial than the average person's. I don't mean to single her out, it's 100% natural that she would be, god knows if I had undergone such a terrifying experience, I'm sure I would be jumpy as hell too. But for that very reason, the construction worker who wolf whistles at her as she's walking down the street is much more likely to be perceived as a threat by her than he would be perceived by someone who had not been raped. Her threshold for evaluating what constitutes a bona fide threat of imminent bodily harm is going to be ten times lower than yours or mine. And while the construction worker may be a chauvinist pig who deserves to have a cup of ice water poured down the front of his pants, it's unlikely he's actually a rapist who deserves to be shot and killed.

[JayS]

93. Are you saying that 90% of shootings are accidents? n/t

n/t

[primavera]

122. Hmmm, point taken

I am being rather sloppy in my definitions, in that I'm not really bothering to define "accidental." I'm reminded of a couple of patients we treated in the trauma unit in which I worked. They were two friends who had gotten into a jealous dispute over a woman, had gotten rip-roaringly drunk, pulled out their guns and shot each other. Mercifully, they were both totally trashed at the time, so could barely even see straight, much less shoot straight, so they both miraculously escaped killing each other, despite having fired at and hit each other several times each. When they woke up in our unit, they were furious that the police wouldn't allow them to convalesce in the same room together, they being such good friends after all. I guess this is the sort of "accident" which I witnessed so often. At the time, in the heat of the moment, the combattants may well have intended to do each other harm, indeed, that almost certainly was their intent, so perhaps accident is not the right word to describe it. Yet it was plain that, upon more sober reflection, neither one of them would have made the conscious decision to shoot the other and, had they not been exercising their right to bear arms, neither of them would have wound up under guard in a hospital room awaiting prison sentences.

And, yes, I firmly believe that the vast majority of gun-related deaths and injuries boil down to such misunderstandings, accidents, or panicked responses. And what could be more natural? If I were all alone at home on a dark and stormy night and heard some mysterious noise, like someone maybe entering my home, I'd probably be as tense and nervous as a cat on speed. Hell, if I was armed, I'd probably shoot up half the neighborhood I'd be so scared. That's only too human and understandable. Yet, unfortunately, because I was exercising my right to bear arms, I just took out the neighbor who was only coming over to borrow a cup of sugar.

My point is, nobody uses guns when they're feeling calm, cool, and collected. Instead, they use them when they're drunk, they're pissed off, or they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that their life is endangered, at which times their bloodstream is carrying about 99% pure adrenaline and all of that blood has flowed away from their brain towards the center of their body anyway. In other words, totally diminished capacity. Now, this is the person you want to be heavily armed and deciding whether you constitute a threat? Well, I hope you rest in peace. Me, I'd rather not have to worry about some trigger-happy paranoiac blowing me away because s/he thinks I'm the boogey-man.

[JayS]

151. I would bet that you would have many interesting stories...

...to tell. :)

I'm sure that a good many unjustified shootings are a result of misunderstandings, accidents, and panicked responses. Throw in our old friend Substance Abuse and you have pretty much covered all bases. Add in that segment of our society that cannot handle anger, have a misguided sense of pride, and/or place little value on human life and we have run the gamut on a deep sociological problem we have in this country. As to working on this problem, few are interested; it is much easier to blame objects. I would like to see this focus change, but I doubt it will.

I would worry about anyone that did not get "charged up" when facing with a situation in which deadly force might be used. It just goes with the territory. I will say that the vast majority of "sober" people, when in this situation, will use reasonable judgment in their actions. If someone just up and kills the milkman then that person was not in full possession of his/her facilities to being with, or the milk was sour. :)

[biftonnorton]

103. I Understand

Thanks for the answer. I understand your position and the reasoning behind it. Personally, I'm not as scared by holstered guns, but I do keep an eye on the wearer and make judgments based on their behavior. I liked the part in your post about the importance of something being "guaranteed never to happen." Many people feel that being able to avoid being carjacked, robbed, assaulted, raped, etc., is not "guaranteed never to happen," and they want to carry because they know that there aren't guarantees on that end of the issue, either. Many want to disarm them pre-emptively for fear they'd commit a crime using their weapon, and therefore assuring they'd be defenseless during one of the attacks that is not "guaranteed never to happen." I don't want to disarm them until there's a good reason, and opinions vary on that. Differing opinions are ok with me.


I'm not familiar with the 90% stat you mentioned. What's the source on that?

[DoNotRefill]

80. actually, the "43X" statistic...

is comprised almost entirely of suicides. Of course, guns don't cause suicides, any more than spoons cause people to be fat.

You got a problem with the right to die? If not, why bring it up?

[IA_Seth]

89. Spoons Cause Fat

I love that!

Everyone gets so excited about guns. I am pretty far left on most things, but I was raised in a hunting family, became an avid shooter and don't feel like guns are any more dangerous than a guy with a bat, a hammer, a can of gas and a lighter, or a freakin car for God's sake.

GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. Ignorant people who refuse to learn gun safety before they decide to pick up a gun kill people. Criminals kill people. Guns are not the culprit, they are a tool!

Look at it this way: Bush didn't actually push the button that sent the bombs into residential areas in Iraq killing innocents, the soldiers did. Does that make the soldiers bad? No. They were used as a TOOL by an idiot. The IDIOT is the one to be worried about, not the tool.

[biftonnorton]

90. Good Catch DNR

Those stats, and I can't remember the source now, dammit, counted suicides the same as homicides. Stats like that also ignore the fact, thru no fault of the researcher, that people who draw their weapon against a criminal who is then is frightened away usually don't report it, thus positive news about guns doesn't get recorded. Even when guns are used to help out, like in the Appalachian Law School incident where students with guns subdued the shooter, only a few news outlets chose to mention the "good guys'" guns. When it comes to talking with assault and rape victims, I've found that the only stats that matter are the ones in which they themselves are counted. If people carrying guns commit a crime-- bust 'em. Till then, let them have the freedom to choose so long as they're not hurting anybody. I mean, carrying is not like abortion, which STOPS A BEATING HEART. <---- Just kidding, folks. Sorry for the bad joke.

[DoNotRefill]

96. the source for those stats is Kellermann....

and he carefully notes in his endnotes the composition of that statistic. Unfortunately, lax scholarship often causes people to quote the "43X" statistic without realizing (deliberately, acccidentally, who can say?) that it's almost entirely suicide.

[Ruffhowse]

169. Yeah, you advocate a wonderfully Utopian society, where...

...everyone carries around instant death weapons. Nice place to live, real enlightened.

[DoNotRefill]

49. A fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity--Freud

[Nalgenelover Snort]

215. I can't believe you're STILL using Freud to back up your stance.

Freud's only real contribution to society was that he helped society begin to see mental illness as a treatable disease.

He was a mysogynist and obsessed with sex. I mean, come on.. penis envy?! No therapist believes in that bullshit anymore. Psychoanalysis is total crap and hardly even used any more (most doctors favor the "chemical imbalance" approach). It's been proven that psychoanalysis has a 10% success rate. Moreover, Frued nearly killed one of his patients and then blamed it on her. Hardly a credible man.


It's not your stance I object to-- I can see the comfort I might have in owning a gun, in case the Bush administration tries to make this a police state :)-- it's your arguments based on bullshit, completely discredited theories from a sick man. Using those same theories, I could argue that an obsession with guns is due to insecurity about one's penis size, as several people have already insinuated on this thread.

[ilovenicepeople]

217. No fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual maturity?

Just wondering, PLEASE DONT SHOOT ME! :hi:

[colonel odis]

9. no, not all people who carry weapons are gun nuts.

but, imho, guys who strut around starbucks wearing their guns on their hips for all to see have a problem. a very tiny little problem.

if you understand and appreciate guns, then i don't imagine you go around with it in public view. you have more respect for the gun than that. would a competitive shooter who doesn't want his gun stolen from his car wear the gun into starbucks? or bring the case inside?

stores can also decide whether to allow in customers who openly wear guns. best bet is to ask people like that either to leave their guns outside or leave the store. gee, just like in the civilized old west.

an armed society is a dangerous society.

[ronabop]

15. Interesting points...

Another take on the broad brush...

"guys who strut around starbucks wearing their guns on their hips for all to see have a problem. a very tiny little problem."

Yes, some police officers don't leave their guns in the car, or locked up in a case. :)

As far as allowing customers who wear guns, there are shops in AZ with posted no-firearms rules. Police included.

-Bop

[colonel odis]

58. to narrow the brush a bit

1 - imho means in my humble opinion. and it is, in fact, my opinion that if you strut around starbucks with your little .38 on for all the world to see, then you probably have a short dick. if you hitch up your britches barney fife-style, taking care to let everyone see your 9mm, then you probably have a shorter dick. (perhaps a 9mm indeed) i would guess a toupee, too. but as i said, that's just my opinion. doesn't have anything to do with you. i don't know you.

2 - you were talking about competitive shooters. what does that have to do wtih police officers who, duh, wear their guns holstered and on their hips. it's part of their uniform and their job, even if the gun nut/ira/short dicked crowd has managed to ensure that our police officers face inferior firepower on the street.

3 - there are also buildings in kentucky that don't allow in firearms. and your point is .....?

[LiberalFighter]

72. I was wondering if VA prohibits firearms in establishments

that post no-firearms allowed.

Businesses should have that right. On duty officers of course should be exempt.

[DoNotRefill]

77. yes....under VA law, property owners can prohibit guns on their property.

they generally don't, because it opens them up to legal liability if something happens, and it irritates a lot of customers, who tend to spend a lot of money.

[northzax]

84. and there are very restrictive rules on what the sign can be like

imagine, you have to post a sign with one inch lettering, visible from outside the entrance that cites the code and letter of the law. You can't put up a sign that says "no guns" it has to be a formal sign.

strange.

[Romulus]

88. wrong - that's Ohio and Texas

NOT Virginia.

[northzax]

41. not in Virginia

you can carry anywhere except on Federal Property. You cannot ban firearms from any public location, church, school parking lot, bank, office building or police station. You can actually carry a gun into the State House, THROUGH THE METAL DETECTOR, if it goes off, you say, "oh, it's my gun" and they let you through.

what a joke.

I think maybe I'll start wearing a screwdriver on my hip, or maybe a wrench. I keep hearing that guns are tools, but you never see other tools (except on professionals, of course)

[DoNotRefill]

50. northzax, you misunderstand the law.

I'll not waste my time correcting you, since there's no point in being rational with the rabidly ignorant.

[primavera]

54. What a surprise

A gun advocate declining to offer a reasoned, rational, substantiated response to an alternative point of view, and instead hurling dismissive invective and insults. Gosh, I've never seen that before! :eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

59. I've learned not to try and train cats...

it makes you bleed and irritates the cat.

Virginia's law is very specific as to where CCW is not allowed. North obviously doesn't care what the law says (based upon the nature of north's post). So why should I try to educate North? If North chooses to be ignorant, that's North's right, and far be it from me to try and force education upon North.

[northzax]

83. no, my good friend, it is you who misunderstand

there is a difference between the CCL law and the law permitting people to carry unconcealed weapons.

You need a permit to carry a concealed weapon Va. Code 18.2-308 in case you wanted to read up.

You do NOT need a permit to carry an unconcealed weapon in a city of fewer than 60,000 people.

You are specifically banned from carrying a weapon into an air terminal: § 18.2-287.01. Carrying weapon in air carrier airport terminal.

You are specifically banned from carrying a weapon into a courthouse: § 18.2-283.1. Carrying weapon into courthouse.


You are specifically banned from carrying a weapon into a place of worship (unless you have a good reason to, of course, it doesn't say what a good reason is) § 18.2-283. Carrying dangerous weapon to place of religious worship.

c'est la tout. There is minimal restriction on Schools (again, you simply need a 'good and sufficient reason"). There is no restriction on public buildings (and if you don't believe the story about the Virginia state house, try it.)

god, I hate it when people cite the actual law instead of throwing around insults. geez

[LiberalFighter]

70. There isn't a need to openly display the weapon...

it could and should be consider intimidating to so.

So I guess someone is going to steal the gun from a vehicle knowing that it is hidden away in the glove box or other concealed place.

If you are a competitive shooter then it is not a weapon but an equipment used in a sport. It is not likely to be carried on your person and most likely kept in a case.

I suppose the woman has it in her hand all the time instead of her purse or halter under her jacket or other wearing apparel.

[Cicero]

99. And I'm sick of hoplophobes projecting their own inadequacies

when they accuse lawful gun owners of wanting to make up for not having a "big stick", as it were.

(See, that kind of argument can be turned right back around on you. "Methinks thou doth protest too much" and all that.)

And what would you say to the growing number of women who own guns? That they suffer from penis envy? Please.

:crazy:

Later,

[DoNotRefill]

48. You claim they have short penises....cite, please.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity"--Siggy Freud

[Cicero]

97. Gawd, always the sexual argument from the hoplophobes

Why is it I always hear the "overcompensation" argument coming from those who are on the anti-gun side? Can anyone say "projection"?

Later,

[JayS]

101. Wasn't there a Wild West character called Hoplophobe Cassidy?

[biftonnorton]

105. Well, "Dick" Cheney

was on the cover of 1st Freedom not too long ago. I took my copy directly to the dumpster when I saw ol' Deferment Dick on the cover, BTW. I think they gave him a rifle, too. "Here, Dick, have a long gun."


I have a gun b/c I am overcompensating for not having a big powerful computer.

[ronabop]

4. Hm... what's the fuss?

I was born and raised in AZ, and seeing a private citizen with a gun is pretty, well, not worth noticing. They aren't allowed in bars (duh.) or schools (duh.), but it's not like someone at starbucks is gonna have a few too many lattes and start waving the thing around.

-Bop

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. Better ban guns from coffee shops like they do from bars...

cause the caffine will throw thier aim off. :P

[flobee1kenobi]

11. has society...

degenerated to the point where you have to constantly keep yourself armed? NO!All this has managed to do is make law enforcement even MORE nervous than they already were. Its to the point where they can't even give a simple speeding ticket without one hand on their gun. If you absolutely must have it for protection, then I aggree.To wear guns just because you can, just makes the situation worse.Just because I have the right to freedom of assembly does'nt mean I take a group of 30 with me wherever I go!

[DeepModem Mom]

19. Good points, flobee1kenobi -- welcome to DU!

[DoNotRefill]

51. actually, most cops I know....

LIKE the CCW laws. When they make a traffic stop, the CCW status of the vehicle's owner comes up, so they know if the person has a permit or not. People with permits are far less likely to engage in criminal behavior than the populace at large. Cops around here use CCW as a sorting tool.

[Jack_DeLeon]

157. So you are against people who use the thier right to peacably assemble?

Yeah that will go over real well here.

[demnan]

10. In Virginia

toting a gun is legal but oral sex is not?

Go figure.

[underpants]

20. Yes .........................and ..........................Yes

Exactly.

[MadHound]

12. Good for these folks

I would rather have people pack out in the open, than be a chickshit with it and go the concealed carry route. Then at least you know who to be wary of and who to avoid.

[saigon68]

13. Lot of fuss over nothing

Its not a couple of overweight NRA members who are dangerous-

Its a couple of "Enforcers" from a Crack Gang carrying concealed machetes, stun guns or stolen 9 MM whatevers to use on low level dealers who haven't turned their "Take" for the week.

Especially if the said, "Enforcers" decide the nice house on the corner-- needs "ventilating" as they "drive by"

[MountainLaurel]

43. Funny you mention that

Northern Virginia is currently dealing with an upswing in gang activity -- and it'll be perfectly legal for gang members to walk about town with their weapons openly displayed. All the more reason for disengaged kids to join up -- to show their power to the world.

I'm SO looking forward to that possibility. :eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

52. actually, most gang members are prohibited by law from owning guns.

so if they go the "open carry" route, they'll go to jail.


why is it that I've NEVER seen a gang member engaged in open carry?

[MountainLaurel]

110. Good point, but

Is there some sort of official gang member card that I'm not aware of, that provides official identification? Or is this a matter of figuring it out after they take the opportunity to scare a couple of murder witnesses into not testifying by showing up at a community event packing heat?

[DoNotRefill]

131. there are restrictions....

based upon age and criminal status. You can't own a gun if you're under a certain age, you can't own a gun if you're a convicted criminal, you can't own a gun if you smoke pot, et cetera. How many gang members do you know who are a) over 21, b) not a criminal, and c) don't do drugs? Is there some kind of "old straight-edge gang" around causing problems that I don't know about?

[Amarant]

142. Uhhh

And how exactly do you prove a person is a gang member in order to prosecute them? What - do the cops in your state stop everyone carrying a weapon and ask if they are a gang member and to provide solid evidence to that effect?

Believe it or not MOST criminals are NOT gang members. So all of those criminals (who have not yet been caught) can go around openly showing their guns.

[DoNotRefill]

164. You don't prove that they're a gang member to prosecute them...

you prosecute them for the crimes they commit as a gang member.

Gang membership is generally seen as being indicative of criminal activity, not a criminal activity in and of itself.

Somehow, I'm not too concerned about gang members who are over 21 (and therefore legally can get a handgun) but who haven't been convicted of a crime. It's the people who have lost their rights due to a criminal conviction that I'm concerned about.

[Solon]

14. Do the stores have options there...

we have CCW in my state, thanks to the Repubs in Jefferson City overriding a referendum. To be honest, it is damn near impossible, even with the permit, to go anywhere with a gun concealed on you. ALL government buildings, and ALL stores and shops in my area has that NO GUNS sign out front, so what the hell is the permit good for? You can still have the gun in your car without it, but it is damned near impossible to go indoors except at shooting ranges and your home.

Do they have something simular in Virginia, like can the owner of the Starbucks tell them to leave, or he calls the police, that type of thing? Any NO GUN signs?

[flobee1kenobi]

16. yes

I work at a local middleschool in Ohio and we just finished putting up the NO WEAPONS signs on every entrance. If I heard correctly it is also understood that you don't carry weapons into a church therefor, no sign is needed.

[Solon]

17. You want to know what's messed up...

I could count all the places, in a county of at least 100,000 people, that allows concealed guns on ONE hand. 2 sporting goods stores, and 3 shooting ranges, that's IT.

[LizW]

22. Not messed up

just a matter of balancing everyone's rights. If I own a store, I can decide who to serve and who not to. Your right to carry doesn't override that, and you have the right to shop at other businesses that allow you to carry your gun inside. It all balances out.

[smiley_glad_hands]

36. Exactly

[JayS]

30. We had that sort of posting thing here for a bit but I rarely see...

...it anymore. Businesses may post signs prohibiting handguns on their premises based on criminal trespass laws but you mainly see this on places that sell booze.


Here is what the posted sign (Texas) must say:

If you want to prohibit license holders from carrying concealed
handguns on your property, state law requires you to post a sign that
says: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of
license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun." The sign must
be written in both English and Spanish in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height, and must be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

[DoNotRefill]

53. yes, property owners can ban guns from their property....

they generally don't, because it opens them up to increased liability in the case of somebody being attacked, and makes them targets for criminals who are scared of running into an armed victim. Also, people who carry tend to be pretty sensible....if they see a sign that says "no ccw", rather than being indignant about it, they simply take their business someplace else.

A "NO GUNS ALLOWED" sign is an invitation to be robbed.

[Solon]

197. As far as I am aware of...

putting the sign up REDUCES liability because, all stores I have worked in say that if you are being robbed, even at gunpoint, do NOT Resist. Having armed citizens in the store at the time increases the risks that a gunfight will break out, and the risk of injury and death are greatly increased. I'm not saying that CCW carriers are irresponsible, but I, personally, would not guns in my store that I am not aware of. Who knows how a criminal will react when faced with that situation. Plus the fact that the amount of CCW carriers are negligible in this area, it hasn't made a dent in the commonplace robberies of convenient stores.

[Jack_DeLeon]

163. I think most any stores has the right...

to ask someone to leave.

If they dont then they are trespassing and you can call the police to remove them.

[Guaranteed]

21. I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter, but these people

are ridiculous.

We live in a CIVILIZED SOCIETY. LEAVE YOUR GODDAMNED GUN AT HOME.

[Columbia]

177. In a civilized society...

You shouldn't worry about other law-abiding folks having guns, because we're all civilized anyway, right?

And in an uncivilized society, well, we would probably need something to protect ourselves from the not so civilized among us, correct?

[Guaranteed]

187. Guns aren't safe when people are carrying them.

Guns are safe locked away at home with the action open, away from the bullets.

Guns are NOT safe loaded and ready to go on the hip of some trigger-happy clown walking down the street.

When you carry a gun in public you endanger everyone around you. When you carry a gun in public, YOU are the problem. Leave the gun at HOME.

[DoNotRefill]

188. So cops are inherently not safe?

after all, they carry guns in public....

I've got far more firearms training and knowledge than your average patrol cop. Why is my carrying a firearm LESS safe than a cop carrying a firearm?

[Guaranteed]

191. We've already had this conversation.

Cops are TRAINED, and it's their JOB. They understand the tremendous responsibility of carrying a gun in public, and they understand the consequences if they should hurt someone with their gun. They're not playing vigilante- they're actual police.

SOMEONE has to play the peacekeeping role in our society, so someone has to be armed. But having everyone armed is dangerous, and totally uncalled for.

And I don't care how much training YOU personally have. We're talking about a general rule, here, allowing ANYBODY to carry a gun around. You want some crack addict carrying a gun? How about the mentally retarded, packing in public?

LEAVE...THE...GUN...AT...HOME. Unless, of course, you're looking to shoot somebody.

[DoNotRefill]

195. NO.

"LEAVE...THE...GUN...AT...HOME."

And Fuck You very much for trying to tell me where, when, and how I can exercise my constitutionally protected rights, in accordance with the law. Frankly, it's none of your goddamned business, just as it's none of the RWer's goddamned business where and when a woman has an abortion.

You throw out crack addicts and the mentally retarded carrying guns. It's illegal, nation-wide, for somebody who is addicted to an illegal substance (like crack) to possess a gun, much less carry one in public. If a person is mentally retarded to the point that they've been adjudicated mentally defective (which happens when they have a legal guardian appointed for them by the courts or when they become wards of the state) , they are also prohibited, nation-wide, from possessing a gun.

If I didn't carry a gun already, I'd start, based upon this conversation, JUST TO PISS YOU OFF. HOW DARE YOU try and tell people that they can't exercise their civil liberties!!!

[THUNDER HANDS]

23. anyone find it kinda odd

that you can openly display guns in the state directly next to where the President and about 500+ representatives are?

Oh well, its not like there's much logic with guns anyway.

Tell me, what can a gun do that a stun gun or mace can't?

[WildClarySage]

24. blow a hole

in a child's head. like my neighbor's cousin's boy.

[DoNotRefill]

55. Ummm...

actually stop somebody on PCP?

[primavera]

61. Kill your friends and family

I worked for a couple of years in the surgical trauma unit of Harborview hospital, Seattle's main trauma center, and we got a lot of gun shot wounds. Interestingly, they were almost always friends who had gotten into a disagreement over something, or a domestic squabble that had gotten out of hand, or children injured playing with guns left around by careless parents, or people coming home at night and being mistaken for a burglar. It was almost never a rapist being shot by his intended victim, or an armed robber being shot by someone defending his or her home, in fact, come to think of it, I don't recall a single case like that in the two years I worked there. Hmmm, isn't that interesting.

[biftonnorton]

66. Not A Good Sample-- Convenience Sample

but OK for forming your opinion. Ask a rape or assault victim who carries why she has her gun, and you'd get a different opinion based on *her* "convenience sample." You'd take away her right to carry based on your experience? That's contemptible.

[primavera]

79. "Convenience sample"?

Not sure what you mean by that term, but since Harborview is the primary trauma center for the Pacific Northwest and handles most of the gun shot wounds and serious trauma cases from all over the region and from as far away as Alaska, I'd have to say that it was a representative sample, so, if that's what you meant, then yeah, I guess it is convenient.

[biftonnorton]

81. It's considered biased

Definition

A convenience sample chooses the individuals that are easiest to reach or sampling that is done easy. Convenience sampling does not represent the entire population so it is considered bias.

Source

Alaska. Now there's a scary state for anyone to possess firearms in. Whoops. Sorry. That's prejudice.

I know your opinion on guns is well-informed by your experience, and it makes perfect sense to me. I'm saying it's not right for you to try to control everyone's rights based on your opinion. We've had different experiences than you, and some of us are very glad we can have the option of self-defense with firearms. If it's legal to carry openly and the people doing so aren't committing crimes using their guns, what's the big deal?

[primavera]

91. Okay, fair enough

You got me, I can't say that I've personally witnessed every gun shot wound in the country, so I guess my opinions are biased based upon my less than omnipresent experience. So, what evidence leads you to conclude that guns are safe? Where you live, are the only people who ever get shot the "bad guys"? No kids ever get accidentally shot? No marital spats ever escalate to homicide when one in a fit of fury reaches for the revolver in the bedside table? Nobody ever gets drunk and accidentally shoots a friend or an innocent bystander? Just the baddies get shot, huh? Cool. Well, yeah, if that were the case, I guess I'd have to re-think my views on guns.

[JayS]

100. It would depend on how you want to define "bad guy" mostly.

Would bad guy include gang member/drug dealer A shooting gang member/drug dealer B or vice versa? We have lots and lots of that here. We have our share of accidental shootings also, but mainly in the poorer areas, so this news is towards the back of the newspaper down by the Food section. We also have domestic situations turn violent and this often includes guns. One common theme in these cases though is "alcohol was involved." One friend of mine that was on the police force here used to joke about getting a stamp that said that so his reports would go faster. Reports are done on a computer now so I guess you can just use macros.

[biftonnorton]

109. Everybody Uses Their Own "Convenience Sample"

to form their opinions. My experiences are different from yours, so I have a different opinion. My main point is it's not good practice to disarm others, who haven't harmed any innocents, on the basis of our knowing that some use guns to commit crimes. Taking guns out of the holsters of innocent people is a misguided pre-emptive strike that does nothing to prevent criminals from breaking the law.


The violent crime rate actually goes down when people have the right to carry-- one state that bothered to monitor the situation was Florida, and I'm not sure who else is in that study. England's gun ban isn't doing anything to slow the explosion of violent crime in that country. Studies are showing that gun bans don't slow crime, so why disarm people and make them easy victims for the criminals, who, of course, don't care about gun laws? I understand the risk of firearms, but stats show that 5 gallon buckets kill more todlers than guns do. There are risks in everything, and the key is to take some personal responsibility. If you don't want a gun around, don't get one. If you got one, stay well-trained and store it safely. I'm grateful I live in a place where I'm allowed to make the choice.

[primavera]

128. So how many eggs are you willing to break to make that omelette?

You say violent crime goes down when people are armed. I find it implausible, but, okay, for the sake of argument, I'll go along with it. What about the rates of accidental gun-related deaths and injuries that accompany people being armed to the teeth? That figure, I know for a fact goes up hugely the more guns there are in circulation. Okay, so, you've reduced the violent crime rate by x%, but you've increased the number of kids who haul off and shoot little Jimmy for pulling their hair at recess by y%. How large a figure does "y" need to be for it to outweigh the benefits of "x"? If ten innocent people die so that you can prevent ten violent crimes, is that okay? How about 20? Is it still okay then?

[DoNotRefill]

134. really?

"What about the rates of accidental gun-related deaths and injuries that accompany people being armed to the teeth? That figure, I know for a fact goes up hugely the more guns there are in circulation."

Cite, please?

I think you'll find that there are a record number of guns in the US currently, and that as the number of guns has gone up, the number of accidental shooting has gone down. I believe they started keeping track of this around 1910, and accidental shootings are at an all-time low. For the last year I recall seeing figures for, there were FEWER than 800 fireams deaths NATION-WIDE, and that INCLUDES questionable cases where it might have been suicide but was ruled accidental to save the family's feelings. This is out of a population of almost 300 million. Do the math. Doctors kill FAR more people every year through sloppy handwriting than are killed annually by firearms accidents.

[primavera]

144. Right, 800 more than necessary

But of course, I'm overlooking your logic that the more guns there are, the less accidents are likely to occur (I don't suppose you'd care to offer a cite for that would you? No, I didn't think so.) and thus conversely that the fewer guns there are, the more likely there are to be accidents. By which "logic," if there were no guns at all on the planet, people would be dropping right and left from accidents from non-existent guns. Um, yeah, that makes perfect sense.

[DoNotRefill]

165. considering that more children drown each year....

in 5 gallon pickle buckets than the total number of people who are accidentally killed with firearms, I can't help but wonder when you're going to start advocating 5 gallon bucket bans.

[biftonnorton]

139. Yes, It's Just Like Other Freedoms

More cars=more innocent people getting hurt, for instance. I believe in erring on the side that allows individual freedom. The freedom we're talking about bears on the right to self-defense and having power of choice. People who use their freedom irresponsibly and hurt someone should lose the freedoms and/or be fined/jailed. I know you mean well and don't want any gun accidents happening, and feel that by getting rid of guns there'd be no gun accidents-- and that of course is correct. But don't disarm everyone because others are careless-- you wouldn't take everyone's cars away because some drive drunk or because of accidents in general.

[primavera]

147. Actually, not "just like other freedoms"

Gun advocates always love to trot out the car analogy, but it's an absurdly inapplicable example. If the majority of the time people climbed into automobiles, somebody died or was seriously injured, I suspect we would have misgivings about cars as well, and appropriately so. But, of course, that is not the case. The vast, overwhelming majority of the time people use cars, some prodcutive purpose is served in which nobody is killed or injured. As a percentage of overall utility, the rate of accidental injuries is very small. Since guns have no utility other than to kill, the proportion of instances in which they result in needless death or injury far outweighs whatever benefit they might offer.

But you side-stepped my question: how many innocent deaths are acceptable? You said two innocent deaths to every one legitimate case of self-defense is acceptable in your eyes. Care to go for three? Four? A hundred? At what point does the cost exceed the benefit? Or are you so absolutist as to believe that no matter how many have to suffer for your right to bear arms, it's always justified?

[DoNotRefill]

166. so, the majority of times people pick up guns, people die?

that's strange. I picked up a gun today, and nobody died. Same deal yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that...

There are less than 800 accidental firearms deaths annually in the US. How many lives do guns SAVE? And how many people are you willing to kill by banning law-abiding gun owners from defending themselves? Keep in mind, the number of legal defensive gun uses in the US varies depending on who you ask....annual estimates range from a low of 70,000 (postulated by gun control advocates) to a high of 2,500,000 (Kleck, IIRC).

Even Kellermann, a notoriously anti-gun researcher, admits that your chances of surviving an attack unharmed are exponentially greater if you meet the attack with a gun. He's on record as saying that if his wife were to be attacked, he'd want her to have a .38 to defend herself with.

In case you're wondering, according to the USDOJ under Clinton, your odds of being injured in an attack are over 50% greater if you offer no resistance than if you resist with a gun, and over 150% greater if you resist without a weapon or any weapon other than a gun rather than resist with a gun.

So once again, I have to ask....how many people are you willing to kill in your attempt to strip people of their constitutionally protected civil rights?

[NickB79]

175. I was just gonna say, my gun should have killed hundreds by now

Since I shot my .22 almost daily from age 12 to 18, and still shoot most weekends (I'm 24 now).

Do you know how many rounds of JUST .22LR alone is sold in this country every year? Over 3 BILLION (no, that is not a typo). Hundreds of millions of rifle, shotgun and handgun rounds are also sold annually. That means that close to 4 billion rounds of ammo are sold and shot annually in the US. Homicides in the US have dropped to some of the lowest levels since the 1970's, with ~10,000 people murdered per year by someone using a firearm. Just to err on the side of caution, lets include those who are killed by police and armed citizens acting in self-defense (~3000, if I remember correctly). Lets go even further and include suicides using firearms (guestimating at 10,000 here, correct me if I'm wrong). That's 23,000 people dying annually from all gunshot wounds. Since most suicides only involve one round fired, lets say that averages out the multiple rounds fired in other instances and say two rounds are fired per death. Run all that through the calculator, and for every round fired to murder someone, 87,000 rounds are fired that don't murder someone. Where does this "majority of times people pick up guns, people die" thing come from???

As the line goes: "If guns kill people, all of mine are defective."

[FeebMaster]

180. 4 billion is nothing.

We talked about this down in a dungeon a while ago. It's easily over 10 billion rounds a year based on what the government is pulling in with the 11% excise tax on ammunition. That doesn't even include reloads since the excise tax is on assembled ammunition only and not the separate components.

Apparently the gun control crowd decided that rounds fired during target practice don't count, only rounds that murdered or wounded someone, basically giving a 100% rate for bullets fired to someone being killed or injured.

[primavera]

154. Another thought

By the way, I should thank you for a stimulating discussion before I rail on you more. As much as I disagree with your point of view, I do sincerely appreciate your courteous and thoughtful responses. Welcome to DU! :hi:

That said, I am actually going to rail at you a bit more here. Another question which comes to mind is the propriety of responding with lethal force to non-lethal threats. For instance, if you're a mugger and try to hold me up and I shoot and kill you in retaliation, I think I'm right in believing that most gun advocates and maybe even the law as well, would support that as a justifiable use of deadly force. Stop me if I'm wrong on that, okay? But let's look at that for a minute. If you were to be arrested for having mugged me, would you get the death sentence? Of course not, the punishment would be grossly disproportionate to the crime. Oh yeah, you'd go to jail, and appropriately so, but we wouldn't sentence you to death for stealing $20 from me. But very, very few crimes rise to the level of the death penalty in this country, not even such egregious crimes as rape and assault. So what makes it an acceptable expression of self-defense for me to shoot and kill you, without you ever having the opportunity for a fair trial and hearing of your side of the story, for an offense that would probably only get you two years in prison?

This is yet another nagging worry that I have about guns. Gun advocates like to talk about legitimate cases of self-defense as the benefit of free access to guns. But how much do we really know about those cases of legitimate self defense? Once I've killed you, you aren't around anymore to correct any misperceptions. Maybe I just thought you were threatening my life, when in fact, you were only coming up to ask me for a cigarette. But it was late at night, I was alone and scared in a bad neighborhood, so I understood that your intention was violent. I shoot you, you're dead, and the case is closed as legitimate self-defense. But how do we really know what happened? Maybe you were trying to kill me, then again, maybe you weren't. Since you're dead and thus no longer around to testify on your own behalf, we'll never know, will we? Just how sure are you that "legitimate self-defense" is in fact always "legitimate self-defense"?

[DoNotRefill]

167. It depends.

"For instance, if you're a mugger and try to hold me up and I shoot and kill you in retaliation, I think I'm right in believing that most gun advocates and maybe even the law as well, would support that as a justifiable use of deadly force."

If the mugger is unarmed, and you're armed, it's generally NOT seen as a justifiable use of lethal force, unless there are some indicia that there's a threat to the victim's life. With the exception of Texas, you CANNOT use lethal force to defend property.

Now if the mugger has a gun, it IS generally legal to shoot them. That's because they no longer just pose a threat to your property, they now pose a threat to your life.

"So what makes it an acceptable expression of self-defense for me to shoot and kill you, without you ever having the opportunity for a fair trial and hearing of your side of the story, for an offense that would probably only get you two years in prison?"

Because the lethal use of force isn't there for punishment, which is what prison is there for. Lethal force by a private citizen is used to protect LIFE, the life of the victim. And if you REALLY don't think a woman should be able to shoot a person trying to forcibly rape her, I pity you.

[biftonnorton]

185. Try To Determine Threat Level

In the case of your being outside and approached by someone, you have every right to demand that the person keep a safe distance, and if they don't, you can assume that something's amiss. At that point you should be prepared to move off or use a level of force that is legal and you are comfortable with. Some people recommend saying, "Stop! What do you want?" loudly enough to alert witnesses or others who could help you and to clearly inform the person you are well aware of them and are assertively setting a boundary. In this situation, for any level of force to be justified, the person would have to ignore your command to stop, which might put you in reasonable fear for life/limb, or he'd present a weapon, which is certainly a no-brainer for putting you in fear for your life/limb.


You are justified using deadly force (which can even be hands/feet if you are trained in martial arts) only if there is a threat which a reasonable person would believe would put you in fear of death or serious injury. There are good laws regulating use of force and permit holders are taught them and tested on them. It's just as criminal to injure someone who meant no harm as it is to harm someone while committing another crime, and like other laws, we all need to follow them. You cannot legally meet a non-lethal threat with lethal force, and any responsible member of society who uses their freedom of choice to avail themselves of lethal force training understands that and takes these questions very seriously. For them, it is literally a life and death matter and is not approached theoretically or lightly.


For me, if I'm robbed by one person who has no weapon, I might not comply or might give them a little ca$h and tell them to scram. But if they have a weapon, they've made a choice which endangers my life and maybe the lives of my family, and then he and I are getting off on the wrong foot in our conversation, big time. Keeping physical distance is the best way to avoid having to either make the choice about defense or to be forced to be powerless in the face of a threat. Let' be careful out there.

[pinniped]

25. Why stop at the open-carry of puny handguns?

The exercisers should openly tote uncased rifles down the streets as well.

Make sure it's something easily recognizable such as an AR-15/Sporter or AK-47S/AKM etc. It may have to be unloaded in some instances but at least make sure there's a 30-rd mag sticking out of it. That way people calling 911 will be able to provide greater details.

I'm sure it's legal in many states so the participants will be well within their "rights". But one must be prepared to encounter groups of SWAT dudes and APCs at every turn. Hell, horiuchi might even be there to greet you.

All surviving participants will have their own news story in the local rag.

Disclaimer- Please check all state and local firearms laws before partaking in this "exercise".

[saigon68]

47. horiuchi --- wtf

Haven't hear that "Patriot's" name, in some time now </sarcasm>

[LiberalFighter]

74. I would think it dangerous in pick up trucks with gun racks

considering that anytime I have seen a rifle in the rack it was pointed towards the driver side. Could it fire accidently if loaded?

[biftonnorton]

98. Misconceptions

"considering that anytime I have seen a rifle in the rack it was pointed towards the driver side. Could it fire accidently if loaded?"


No. There've been very few documented cases of firearms "going off" by themselves. Sometimes someone will hide one in an oven, then a high temp can make the ammo cook off and fire down the barrel just as if fired by a trigger pull.


If you want to feel safer around guns, a good thing to do is to get a friend who shoots and ask them to take you to the range to fire some .22 caliber and learn about how safe guns are in the hands of a responsible person with 2 neurons to rub together. Don't let them set you up with a Glock brand pistol, b/c there's no real safety (IMO) on them. Many an officer has shot him/herself accidentally while handling the Glock less carefully than they need to be handled. I've taught a few people some basic stuff and am amazed at the misconceptions they come in with and am impressed with how much more relaxed they feel about having guns near them after they learn a few things. Before one has experience with guns, the weapons do seem creepy and dangerous. Afterwards, they're not seen as creepy, but if they weren't dangerous, why the heck have them for defense? .22 caliber is a respectable target shooting caliber and you might find a new and relatively cheap hobby this way!

[JayS]

102. Yup, a 22 is a good start. When I am teaching someone about...

...firearms I start them out with a 22 rifle, then a 22 revolver, then a 22 semi-automatic. It rarely fails that someone I am teaching thinks a semi-automatic is "safe" after ejecting the clip; that is only the case in Hollywood.

[Amarant]

135. And once the assault weapons ban expires

I wouldn't be surprised if they moved up to carrying around AK-47s over their shoulder.

[Trajan]

150. Hey ! ... Just like Afghanistan ! ....

Just like Somalia ! ....

We can mount RPG's and 50 Caliber weapons on the backs of Ford Rangers .... and 'display' our power to our neighbors ....

YEAH ! .....

[FeebMaster]

152. The AWB has nothing to do with RPGs. (nt)

[Jack_DeLeon]

162. The AWB has nothing to do with .50cal weapons.

Its probably legal in some states to mount a .50cal rifle to your truck.

[Jack_DeLeon]

161. Do you think the AWB makes AK-47s illegal?

Because it doesnt. A "real" AK-47 is a machine gun, and is already regulated by the NFA 1934.

In states that allow machine guns, and open carry of rifles people can already carry around legal AK-47s.

That being said most "AKs" that civillians own arent real AKs, they are semi-auto clones. They look and function like AKs except that they cant be fired in full auto. In that regard they are rifles just like any other.

The AWB didnt ban these semi-auto AKs either, so in states that allow open carry of rifles (remember these arent machine guns) it would be legal to carry them around.

The only thing the AWB did was make it so that you cant have a collapsable stock, bayonet lug, or flash suppressor on any rifle made after the AWB went into effect.

All the older AK clones with all these features are still legal.

[NickB79]

176. I can buy an AK-47 clone right now

Perfectly legal, and not at some shady pawn shop or gun show table, but at various large sporting goods stores here in MN. As most people seem to erroneously believe, the AWB has NOTHING to do with automatic weapons. Machine guns have been highly regulated since 1934, and NONE of the guns listed on the AWB can fire in full-auto mode, only semi-automatically like many perfectly legal hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns. All the manufacturer's had to do in 1994 was remove a few cosmetic features from the guns and they were good to go again.

[Jack_DeLeon]

158. En Tejas...

You can openly carry loaded rifles or shotguns, but you cant openly carry handgun. You can only carry handguns concealed if you get a concealed carry liscense.

There are also no laws against concealed carry of rifles and shotguns, but concealing them would be the tricky part.

Anyways I remember the Black Panthers having some demonstration with thier rifles and shotguns at some execution in Huntsville.

[Turley]

26. Lived in AZ in the 80's

Used to see bikers all the time driving down the road with a .45 strapped to their leg. Most who carried on their hip were the "compensation" type.

[Romulus]

27. Good for them

Freedom is freedom. As long as they're not doing a drive-by, like one poster said, who cares?

Edited to add:

It seems there are some more "well endowed" DU'ers posting on this thread. Nobody messes with them, 'cuz they swing like that . . .:eyes:

Yesirree - their wives/partners are the happiest women/men in their towns :eyes:

[Northwind]

28. A Simple Yet Profound Thought

For all the knee-jerk anti-gun penis-size-fixated folks here.

Remember that gallery owner in San Fran, the one that displayed the painting depicting the Abu Graihb (sp?) torture? Remember how she was spit and physically attacked?

Do you think the asshole(s) who did that would have tried it if she had had a 9 mm strapped to her hip?

Hint, the answer is no.

[MrBenchley]

32. Wow....what a silly comment...

Don't you think that might have prompted the attackers to shoot at her from a distance?

[northzax]

115. frankly, I think we should bring back deuling

you insult me in any minor way, and I get to take you at pistols at twenty paces. one reason the confederate south was so polite, an insult led to death.

Is this guy really saying the appropriate response to someone spitting on you is shooting them?

[DoNotRefill]

124. Hasn't happened yet....

despite the gun control crowd predicting that it would if CCW laws were standardized and made non-discriminatory.

[NickB79]

178. Spitting? That's all that happened?

You seem to have missed the part in there about the person being physically attacked. It's good to keep in mind that many more people in this country are beaten to death than shot or stabbed to death. Just because a person is using fists doesn't mean they can't cause you serious, possibly fatal, injury. If, for example, a 300 lb linebacker-type wanted to beat me, a 150 lb lab tech, into a pulp, shooting could be the appropriate response, IF no other way of escape were possible.

[Amarant]

136. Ohhh great idea

then she can be charged with murder and the STATE could kill her.

[KansDem]

31. I wonder if this will lead to a "new" crime--"handgun theft from autos"

In "right to carry" states, I suspect more and more businesses and public places will prohibit the carrying of handguns onto their property--ie, schools, banks, parks, bars, etc. So those people exercising their right to carry guns will have to leave them in their cars. I wonder if this requirement will lead to a new crime--or rise in an old crime--of gun thefts from automobile trunks and glove compartments.

[JayS]

34. This was one of the arguments used against starting a CHL...

...program here in Texas but it never panned out as the requirement that a car be "marked" was dropped right away. Our State Constitution is pretty liberal when it comes to firearms so there was not much of a change when the CHL program was adopted. (The big change was that it helped Bush become Governor) At last count, there were only a quarter million or so people with a concealed handgun permit.

[Karthun]

40. Minnesota

In Minnesota we just had our conceled cary laws overturned on a technicality. You can still get a premit, you just need to show a need for one. The biggest concern that I have and the vast number of NRA supporters I have talked too is the people who want to restrict the 2nd amendment are the same people who want to restrict hunting and fishing rights.

[DoNotRefill]

57. Nah...

when Va's CCW reform passed, there was a huge number of stores that posted "no ccw" signs. That number quickly diminished, as people realized the implications of such signs. Now, many years after CCW reform, I know of only one place (a gas station) which currently bans ccw, and they routinely get robbed. It's a case of ideology taking precedence over logic and safety. As soon as one of their customers gets shot and killed, station ownership will change.

Banning CCW from your property means you assume the responsibility for defending and protecting your patrons, far moreso than if you allow CCW.

[Bandit]

37. Welcome to Dodge City or should I say Tombstone

America is going bonkers. Is everyone in America such a Coward?

[diamond14]

42. it's distressing to see the guns in my local library....in Alexandria VA

I have complained, but since it's legal...you can't do much about it....it seems real sick to me...allowing guns to be openly displayed IN A LIBRARY....

you'll see guns all over here in Virginia...and IMO, bush* has encouraged the open display of major weapons, to look for TERRORISTS....most of these gun-slingers will not hesitate PRE-EMPTIVELY KILL a 'terrorist' as an excuse to use their gun....afterall, bush* PRE-EMPTIVE killing of muslims is showing us the way....



my local library in Alexandria Virginia...

[DoNotRefill]

60. Really?

"most of these gun-slingers will not hesitate PRE-EMPTIVELY KILL a 'terrorist' as an excuse to use their gun"

So, you can cite cases where this has happened? I'm waiting for links...

[colonel odis]

62. i'm not afraid of guns. just the morons who feel they need to carry them.

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

63. Yup....just as Jim Crow wasn't about fear of minorities....

but simply fear of minorities exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

[colonel odis]

82. seems like a good day to write a check

to an organization working to ban handguns.

i'd forgotten why i don't care much for the gun-totin' crowd. thanks for reminding me.

[FeebMaster]

92. Go ahead

they'll probably waste it all trying to get the Assault Weapons Ban renewed.

[DoNotRefill]

94. Yuppers....Gotta support those organizations....

that grew out of the racist supression of minorities.... /sarcasm

That's what gun control has historically been all about. You're familiar with the term "Saturday Night Special", right? That's the "PC" term for the original phrase, which was "Saturday Night N*****town special".

Gun control claims to be all about "keeping guns out of the wrong hands". Unfortunately, the "wrong hands" are almost always non-white.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

184. Those who refuse to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Are you REALLY saying that racism was NOT the historical root of gun control in the US? Didn't you watch Bowling for Columbine?

[Geo55]

68. Sad commentary

on a society where this situation exists.
A display of a gun in a normal every day setting has a conotation of intimidation. It's very presence raises the tension level.
Personally , I would not choose to live in an area where folks feel that this is normal and/or necessary.
If a "wild west mentality" is what is considered needed and normal for the function of communal living.....then I would say it's not a pleasant way to spend what limited time we have on this little planet.

[Gin]

73. whats next? I live in VA..can they carry bigger guns openly too?

g.

[FeebMaster]

95. If it bothers you so much then work for laws

to allow concealed carry without a permit like Vermont and Alaska. Then people can carry guns and you'll be none the wiser when they do.

[Geo55]

117. I'll conceed that I probably have been around concealed

weapons at times in my life and not aware of it. If you feel the need to carry a weapon , concealed or otherwise and the majority of folks think that's a valid and necessary need , then who am I to complain.
It's unfortunate that anybody feels that this is a necessary part of life. I assure you that if I lived in an area that called for constant vigilance and the ready availability of a weapon...I'd be "carryin'" too.
It's a complex issue that will not go away as long as there are people that disregard the basic right of another to Life , Liberty , and the pursuit of....hmmm...lessee...what was I pursuin' be for this thread ?

[DoNotRefill]

121. Some of us carry a handgun every day.

it's just like our carkeys, wallet, and cellphone. We grab it without thinking about it and go.

It's not like we're wandering around in a constant state of paranoia...it's just a part of our daily kit.

[Amarant]

141. Well its not surprising

usually you see this kind of behavior in nations where the government has either

1. Collapsed
2. Has no control
or 3. Has full control, but does not provide effectively for peoples safety.

Considering we are under repub rule this does not surprise me.

I agree - it's pretty screwed up to be in a civilized/modern/stable nation and yet see common people going around with guns. You'd NEVER see this in europe.

[DoNotRefill]

189. "You'd NEVER see this in europe"...Heh....

go to Switzerland around August First. Ride mass transit on the First. Count how many machineguns you see. Isn't Switzerland Europe? ;)

[DoNotRefill]

78. Damn our Republican governor for signing this law!!!!!

Oh, wait....

Sorry 'bout that, never mind....

[biftonnorton]

86. LOL

Tears. There are tears in my eyes and coffee on my monitor.

[DesignGirl]

116. Allen signed it

I live in VA also. I believe it was Gov Allen who signed this bill several years. And now he is our senator, we are sooo lucky.

[DoNotRefill]

119. Nope, read the article...the law they're talking about....

was signed by Mark Warner, NOT George Allen. It went into effect July 1, 2004.

[Amarant]

146. *

*

[Rex]

104. We should just go back to the days of the Wild West!

nt

[DoNotRefill]

106. that's what the anti-CCW reform people keep saying...

that if there's CCW reform, there'll be blood in the streets, soccer moms shooting each other over parking spaces, et cetera. It's strange, but the CCW reform movement is going on 30 years old now, almost every state has some form of CCW (most "shall issue"), and the bloodbath has failed to materialize...How long will we have to wait before the sky starts falling?

[JayS]

108. Yup, blood was supposed to run in the streets if CHL became...

...the law. That was what was said when it was proposed here. It didn't but it did help get Bush elected Governor. Now the world has Bush...enjoy.

[Bandit]

111. It is funny how we remain the bloodiest country in the world over

gun related injuries and death. That didn't go down a bit like the advocates for CCW claimed over and over. What sane country would want their country overrun with armed people of the intelligence of the American people. They are so smart they selected Bush* for their leader. :shrug: goes to show ya.

[DoNotRefill]

113. really? since the 1980's, when CCW reform started....

we haven't seen a remarkable decrease in gun violence in the US?

The US is still a very violent place. But it's not the fault of guns. Our non-gun homicide rate is still many times the total homicide rate of europe.

Guns are a tool. They can be used for good or bad, depending on how they are used.

Oh, BTW, the US is NOT the bloodiest country in the world regarding gun related injuries and deaths. It's not even in the top 10. You MIGHT want to check your facts before making such bald-faced accusations.

[Amarant]

140. It would have been more correct

for him to say "in the western world" or something of that nature.

[JayS]

127. Bloodiest country in the world?

[NickB79]

181. Have gun-related injuries and deaths gone up?

From the data I've read, the US crime rate is at the lowest level in 30 yrs (if the news articles on CNN.com were reliable). In the past 15 yrs, over 30 states have ratified some sort of CCW law. So, its pretty obvious there hasn't been the "blood in the streets" scenario predicted by some who were opposed to the CCW laws.

But, just for the sake of argument, lets say crime didn't really go down. Can you point and show me where crime has gone up because of CCW laws? The worst-case scenario here is that CCW laws had no effect on crime. How can you argue on one hand that we're worse off because of CCW laws, but on the other hand say they had no effect on crime? If they were truly neutral, repealing them would have no effect on crime either way, just as enacting them had no effect on crime.

[theoceansnerves]

120. would that restaurant have the right

to refuse service to anyone openly carrying a gun? i certainly wouldn't frequent any establishment with a bunch of people sitting around with guns on their sides.

[DoNotRefill]

123. Yup....

businesses can refuse to serve anybody for any reason unless that form of discrimination is prohibited by law.

[Amarant]

132. Just what I was thinking

these idiots could be costing them business.

[Amarant]

130. Pretty stupid

You startle a cop or another person who happens to be carrying a weapon and your likely to get shot.

Can you imagine if a cop pulls you over and sees a gun by side when he comes up to the window? Might be an act first ask questions later situation.

I would feel VERY uncomfortable at a business with customers sitting next to me brandishing guns - to the point I wouldn't do business there anymore for fear one of them will flip and do something stupid. You have NO idea rather or not they are stable people.

I would hope businesses can prohibit people from carrying guns on the property if they so order.

[DoNotRefill]

137. Ummmm...wearing a holstered weapon isn't "brandishing"...

and I've been pulled over by cops while carrying guns, and pulled people over who were carrying guns, and nobody got shot, not even a little bit.

Businesses can indeed prohibit people from carrying on their property. by doing so, they assume the liability for the safety of their customers, since they've forced them to be disarmed. Also, those people who don't like being told where they can and can't carry will not shop there, costing them business.

[Amarant]

138. Uh huh

Usually when you openly display something you are doing so to make a statement.

Let me further explain my cop pulling you over example - he sees the gun and thinks you are making a move for it - then what? Around here you'd be shot dead. Cops have shot people simply for reaching to an area in the car where they THINK may contain a gun.

"Also, those people who don't like being told where they can and can't carry will not shop there, costing them business."

So I take it they will be losing 2 customers max. Obviously it is SO rare to see people openly carrying guns even in this state that 911 was called upon seeing it. Obviously it's not an everyday thing, or perhaps even something that has happened before. If it was they would not have reacted in that manner.

[JayS]

143. It sounds like your police need more training.

[Amarant]

145. Nope

It's perfectly acceptable. If you seem to be reaching for a gun what is he supposed to do? Let you shoot him before he reacts?

[JayS]

155. Here the officer stands so that he can fully observe the driver...

...and/or the occupants and leaves the driver in a funky position in which to draw and shoot. If you can't keep your hands visible and/or the officer finds you or the occupants suspicious, you will be asked to get out of your vehicle and possibly be cuffed.

What do they do in your state?

[DoNotRefill]

171. here, at least...

reaching for your registration (or even your beer can) isn't considered a death-penalty offense, and also isn't seen as a threat to the officer's safety.

An officer who shoots somebody that is reaching for something without seeing what that something is BELONGS in prison. Once the officer sees something that resembles a gun, that's a different matter, but if they're just reaching for an unseen object, what's the danger?

By your line of argument, it'd be OK for a cop to ask for a driver's registration, and then shoot him when he reaches to get it.

[DoNotRefill]

168. Nah....

if they post "no guns" signs, they'll not only lose those people who carry openly, but also those who have CCW permits. There are a fair number of people with CCW permits. Shops find it much better practice to simply avoid the issue entirely and not post signs, since open carry is a rarity.

"Cops have shot people simply for reaching to an area in the car where they THINK may contain a gun."

I pity you, then. Around here, such officers would a) be out of a job, and b) be on their way to prison for a very, very long time. Of course, it's also illegal here for cops to shoot fleeing felons in the back, too.

[Amarant]

133. You know it's kind of ironic

You can go around with a weapon used to kill clearly displayed - yet if you are a mom breast feeding in public my god you've comitted a horrible crime.

Says a lot about this country.

[IA_Seth]

148. Gun Control

Let me just say this raging topic here points out one thing to me...

Bush can NOT use gun control as an issue during this election.

It seems to me that I am not the only Democrat on this site (which I will arguably say is THE left site) who disagrees with the established Democratic Party's prinicpals regarding gun control but will still vote for KERRY.

We all will, right?

[JayS]

159. Actually there is a chance he can, but I don't know if he will.

I do like the new gun control approach the went in under his reign, but it really isn't his to claim.

[Bo]

149. I grew up in No. Va.

Falls Church area near 7 corners. Im amazed at the news. You never used to hear about this at all back in the late 70s early 80s common sense prevailed. Guns make people nervous I would not have stayed in champs seeing 4 people come in openly armned. What year is this 1870?

[FeebMaster]

153. So you're saying you'd prefer that

people carry concealed then? You should work toward concealed carry laws like Vermont and Alaska have then. They don't require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

[Buck Turgidson]

156. Gee! I wonder if it's any coincidence that ...

NRA Headquarters is right here in Fairfax, VA.

[DoNotRefill]

172. Ohh!!! I Wanna Play!!! The Mason's national HQ is in Alexandria!!!

it's a trap!!! Where's Admiral Ackbar when you need him!!!

[rfkrocks]

173. America, America God spread his guns on thee

and crown thy good with pistol hood from sea to shining sea

[The Animator]

174. So... If a guy has a gun strapped to his side...

it indicates that he has a small penis? And the larger the gun the smaller the penis?

I never have been crazy about guns... I prefer Swords.

Does that apply to swords too? I only ask because I have a few, of varied length and width, and I wonder which one applies, Oh wait, I have a swiss army knife too, and a fingernail file, so nevermind.

The thing I like about swords, is that a sword's effectiveness as a weapon depends entirely on its masterss skill level. One attains skill through training and dicipline. In learning to use the weapon properly, a student also develops a healthy respect for the weapons deadly power.

According to Socrates, "True wisdom, is knowing that you know nothing." This also applies to the way of the sword. Training in swordplay is a humbling process. When students first start out they are eager to prove themselves, eager for battle. Undiciplined, and unskilled they are easily defeated at the hands of a true master. One learns many things in such a senario... there are people in this world who are better at this than you. In a real combat situation, if you come up against someone who is better than you, it is very likely that you will die. It is far better for you to not know who is the best, than to be lying in a pool of blood at his feet.

With a gun, it's far more simple, and at the same time, far more complicated. You don't have to be an expert marksman to be deadly with a gun, even children have proven themselves tragically adept at it. There's no blocking a bullet, there's no dodging it. There is simply no human with reflexes fast enough to pull that off. Even body armor is no garuntee of saftey. There is no way to defend yourself against someone with a gun, all you can do is pray that they miss.

I am of the mindset that most criminals are like predators, they go for the defenseless ones. A criminal is less likely to rob a house when he knows it has an alarm system. A car theif is more likely to steal a car that doesn't have an alarm. These are deterents, they are not always effective, but a criminal with his wits about him will choose an easier target.

If you were a mugger, who would you hold at gunpoint, the person with a gun holstered at his side. Or guy wearing a T-shirt that says "Guns Kill." Logic dictates the one who is percieved less likely to have the ability to defend himself, is the one who will be getting mugged.

I don't like guns, and I wish that we lived in a world where they did not exist, but sadly, we do.

I don't necissarily agree that wearing a gun says something about your penis, I beleive it could also say "Please, mug somebody else."

Sending messages about ones penis are what cars are for.

[minkyboodle]

179. I loves ma gun.... loves ma gun

.... sorry its what popped into my head. I'll have to keep my eye out at Applebees for other NOVA'ers going Dirty Harry style at the takeout counter...

[JayS]

186. I still am wondering if these "pro-gun" demonstrators were not...

...just "paper" members of a pro-gun organization and are actually against gun rights.

[Swamp Rat]

205. So when a patron goes nuts it'll be called "going latte?"

Anyone ever see that guy on MAD TV who works in the cafe and drinks so much coffee that his eyes bulge out of his head? Imagine HIM with a gun.

[DoNotRefill]

208. just imagine...

he can probably vote, too.

Just because you THINK somebody's nuts based upon their appearance doesn't mean they should be stripped of their civil liberties, does it?

[Swamp Rat]

210. ??? What have YOU been drinking?

[DoNotRefill]

211. Enfamil LIPIL with iron....

well, had to figure out SOME way to make sure it isn't too hot for baby... ;)

[Swamp Rat]

212. ok... I guess you didn't like my little joke about latte-drinking gun nuts

Watch out for that Enfamil LIPIL stuff. I've read that it contains two fatty acids never seen in baby formulas before - DHA and ARA - the same fatty acids found in breast milk, but it causes some babies to have non-stop diarrhea and they end up needing hospitalization.

[DoNotRefill]

213. thanks for the info.

We went with the enfamil because that's what the birthing center recommended, since it's the closest thing to breastmilk going. We're trying to feed her breastmilk, but she eats more than my wife produces, and I'm having ZERO luck inducing lactation in myself (go figure). Plus, I think I'm going to have to stop trying to induce lactation, because it's making my nipples sore.

:evilgrin:

the main drawback we've seen is that stuff is EXPENSIVE. Hell, formula for the baby is costing us more than feeding ME costs us!!! We've had no problem with diarrhea, and have now gotten into the....wait, TMI.