man who shot at youths on bike trail had permit to carry concealed weapon

[iverglas]

This discussion began here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=241620&mesg_id=241620

but I think an issue has been raised that deserves more attention than just hand-wringing about the dreadfulness of it all.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20090725_Patrols_to_guard_the_trail.html

On Wednesday evening, a 27-year-old Norristown man, Joseph James DePaul Jr., fired six rounds from a semiautomatic pistol during an encounter with two teenagers on the trail/bike path in Plymouth Township, police said. ...

... At the same time, <Sheriff John P.> Durante moved to revoke DePaul's permit to carry a concealed firearm because, he said, carrying a firearm on any trail in the county or in its parks is "illegal and a violation of the rules and regulations of the Montgomery County park system."

To obtain a permit to carry, gun owners submit to a background check. The permit can be revoked by the sheriff at any time if the owner breaks the law.

"This guy was clearly the aggressor," Durante said. "That's why his permit is being revoked."

Durante said it was up to Ferman to decide if additional charges would be filed against DePaul for alleged firearms violations.

So what are the rules?

According to a poster at the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association Discussion Forum (quoting a letter s/he wrote to the author of the article) about the original version of the article, which said: “At the same time, Durante moved to revoke DePaul's permit to carry a concealed firearm because, he said, carrying a firearm on any county trail or in its parks is illegal.” --

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-10/66729-bike-trail-fears-page-2.html

While I do not know what actually happened in the incident that is the subject of your article I can tell you with utmost certainty that the following statement attributed to Sheriff John P. Durante in your article is absolutely FALSE and incorrect. It is totally legal for any law abiding citizen to open carry and handgun or a citizen with a valid license to carry a firearm (LTCF) to carry a handgun concealed in any state, local or municipal parks or trails.

So one way or another, it was legal for this individual to be carrying a handgun in public, and the individual was carrying his handgun legally, or so I gather.

No true holder of a permit to carry a concealed handgun ... !!!

Just think. If he'd managed to kill one of the youths he was shooting at, the VPC could have counted him in its tally. As it stands, I wonder where we'll be able to find him in the statistics in years to come ...

[imdjh]

1. whatever

[Tim01]

2. If a cop does something wrong should we take the guns away from the all the cops?

No, of course not.

[jgraz]

3. If enough cops do something wrong we'd sure as hell take a hard look at who we allow to be cops

We'd likely up the training requirements, add more background checks and psych screens. And we'd be a lot more likely to take away a cop's gun at the first sign of trouble.

Still want to stick with that analogy?

[Tim01]

5. Sure. Nobody is going to be looking at cops anytime soon.

If anything it will probably reducing the requirements to be cop and increase the number of cops.

I actually like that analogy more now.

[jgraz]

8. You might want to read a bit more news than DGU shoot-em-ups

The SF Bay Area is giving strong consideration to disbanding or at least reorganizing an entire police force after a white cop shot a black man on New Year's Day.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/21/18611777.php

[Tim01]

13. You're kidding. I'll go out on a limb and say that not all of the country is like SF.

I will also give the equally outrageous opinion that most of the country is not like back woods folk in the swamps of Alabama.

Not surprised. Cop makes a stupid mistake and the SF area wants to disband the entire police force.
And next week all area inhabitants will be forced to wear environmentally friendly hemp skirts instead of normal "earth mean" blue jeans.

Shocked I am.

[jgraz]

15. You might want to actually read a bit about the issue before you make up your mind

After all, we wouldn't want to act like we're from the back woods of Alabama, now would we?

The cop didn't make a "stupid mistake". He pulled his gun on a black man and shot him shortly after his partner had called the guy a n****r. The fact that he was a member of a poorly-trained quasi-corporate police force with a record of violent stupidity is why people want them disbanded.

You may not like the way we handle things in the Bay Area, but one thing's for sure: whatever we're doing out here will be part of the mainstream in 10 or 20 years. We're just a little ahead of the curve.

San Francisco Values: coming soon to a swamp near you.

[Tim01]

20. So the cop intentionally murdered the guy in front of everybody. That's what you beleive? nt

[iverglas]

22. gosh, such informed discussion

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/24/18597663.php

(not an "unbiased" source, but feel free to dispute the facts reported)

Murder Charge Sticks for Johannes Mehserle

Sun May 24 2009 (Updated 07/22/09)

Preliminary Hearing Concludes for BART Police Officer in the Murder of Oscar Grant III

The Trial of Johannes Mehserle Has Begun

The preliminary hearing in the trial of Johannes Mehserle for the murder of Oscar Grant III on January 1st, 2009 began on Monday, May 18th at the Alameda County court house. To be decided in the preliminary hearings were such issues as if there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial of Johannes Mehserle or if the murder charges should remain or be reduced, and so forth. Indybay has thorough reports from inside the court room during the entire hearing, with defense and prosecuting attorneys presenting video evidence and questioning witnesses as they established their cases. BART police officers testifying tried to show that they were in danger and fearful at the time of the shooting, but video evidence, as well as their own contradictory statements, repeatedly showed them to be lying.

I gather the matter has been / is being set down for trial.

If the preliminary hearing is like the ones I'm used to on this side of the border (I thought US states had grand juries instead, but it may be different here), the purpose was to decide whether there "admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction" (and also to disclose the essence of the prosecution case to the defence).

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Oh snap.

I was sure from the video they would press the 'mistake' between taser and firearm defense. Certainly seems to be what happened if you look at the officer's faces.

I'm astounded (if this is accurate) they are going to use a justifiable homicide defense. Amazing. That's going to fail. I can't imagine any jury in the land acquitting with that video evidence.


The state of California may not use grand juries for this sort of thing.

[rl6214]

62. San Francisco Values: coming soon to a swamp near you.

Good God I hope not.

[iverglas]

21. so I clicked finally

BART is the transit system, I think? So the "police" group in question is the transit police?

Not only has the public largely been shut out of BART police investigatory and oversight processes, but the BART Board itself is often denied relevant information by General Manager Dorothy Dugger. For instance, BART police on January 1st basically stole on false pretenses a high quality video from a passenger who was present on the Fruitvale platform when Oscar Grant was murdered. That video, never released to the public, was later shown during the Mehserle preliminary hearing, yet Police Chief Gary Gee, who had the video in his possession all along, never bothered to share this video with the BART Board when he was defending his officers in press conferences, claiming their actions that night were professional and according to BART protocol.

Etc.

Sounds like the public has lost some control over its transit agency, and thus over its police wing?

You might be interested. ;)

http://www.thestar.com/article/653427

Jun 19, 2009

The Toronto Police Services Board has voted to take control of patrols in the city's transit system.

The plan would see the TTC's almost 100 special constables fall under the command of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.

... Board vice-chair Pam McConnell said the main concern is that TTC special constables currently have no civilian oversight, no complaints system and no requirements relating to use of force. It's important, she said, that Toronto has one police chief directing all police-related services.

Mukherjee described the TTC's current use of special constables as the creation of a second police force "through the back door." ... "The core business of the TTC is to run the transit system and the core business of the Toronto Police Service is to provide policing. So I think it was a rational decision," he added.

Now, "special constables" are a whole nother kettle of fish, and there is another whole discussion possible about them. But at least they'll be under police authority now. (They do not carry firearms.)

You in the Bay Area might want to take a leaf from Toronto's book!

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Wouldn't mind if they took it away from the idiot sherriff

who doesn't understand state law. That guy is a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.

[iverglas]

9. what the hell are you talking about?

Maybe you could go start a poll in GD or somewhere ...

[Tim01]

14. Explaining things to Iverglas is like trying to herd cats. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Uncalled for.

Can we have a civilized discussion in here, just once?

I think this is an interesting topic, and worthy of consideration, for many reasons.

The least of which, is the accuracy of the media, both reporting and editing, as well as how firm a grasp of law our own law enforcment has.

[iverglas]

26. yeah, but amusing in its own way ;) (nt)

[Tim01]

4. "Every person with a gun permit is morally perfect and incapable of making mistakes, a god."

Did somebody say that every single person with a permit is perfect in every way? Please site.
Last I heard permit holders were less likely to be involved in criminal activity than cops. So whine about the cops having guns before you whine about us having guns.

And make all alcohol illegal for everybody because it is too dangerous for humans. It kills at minimum twice as many people as guns.

Oh, wait this is America. We accept responsibility in exchange for freedom. The biker should go to jail.

[iverglas]

10. NOW what the hell are you talking about?

Never mind. It's not like I care.


Oh, wait this is America. We accept responsibility in exchange for freedom. The biker should go to jail. And if he'd killed somebody, he should have to pay for the funeral.

There. That should fix it.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. First off, the county broke state law.

We call this 'state pre-emption'.
http://reference.pafoa.org/statutes/PA/18/II/G/61/A/6120/limitation-on-the-regulation-of-firearms-and-ammunition/

No city, county, municipality or whatever can regulate firearms in a manner more stringent than state law. If there's a state law stating 'no concealed carry on bike trails'/parks/etc, fine, but if there is no state law (and I did not find one) it is against S6120 for said local government to pass any such law.

That said, it sounds like he was the aggressor, if the court finds so, I hope he is punished to the maximum extent of the law. It saddens me to see a sherriff that does not know his own state's law.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickles tried to pull the same thing with city parks, until the State AG smacked him down for opening the city to a lawsuit.
Washington state has the same pre-emption clause, and still, local cities think they can post signs saying 'no firearms' in various places, and those signs have no force in law. I ignore them.

[iverglas]

11. well, actually, first off, somebody with a permit to carry a firearm

fired it repeatedly at people in a public place without lawful excuse.

That's the first thing I'm seeing here.

It must be the floaters. Maybe after the vitrectomy in September I'll see clearly, and be able to look beyond the fact that an asshole was permitted to wander abroad with a firearm and did his damnedest to kill a few people with it, to the really important bit of the story: that it's a good thing that assholes are allowed to wander abroad with firearms.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. I think I'll wait till all the facts come out at trial if there is a trial.

Since the same sherriff that declared he was the aggressor, is also the same person who does not understand state law.

At the least I expect a grand jury to review it, I am curious to see if it gets past that.

[paulsby]

74. there is nothing magickal about a gun permit

that makes a person immune from committing crimes.

this is an example, assuming hte fact pattern as presented is correct, of a guy with a CCW misusing his firearm.

that happens.

what is FACT is that CCW holders have a much lower crime rate than the population at large. LOWER not non-existent. CCW holders of course occasionally break the law, with their firearms.

nobody claims otherwise.

[iverglas]

80. "a guy with a CCW misusing his firearm"

No, he didn't "misuse" his firearm. I'm pretty sure he used it in exactly the fashion in which it is intended to be used.

He committed crimes, endangered who knows how many people, and is damned lucky he didn't commit murder, as he was evidently TRYING TO DO.

[Raskolnik]

87. You confuse "misuse" with "accidental" n/t

[iverglas]

89. and you don't even make sense

I am not confusing anything.

"Misused his gun" is meaningless natter designed to obscure the fact that what this asshole actually did was fire multiple bullets at several human beings some considerable distance away from him in a public space being used by other people.

That isn't "misused his gun" any more than you beating your dog to within an inch of its life is "came in contact with the dog".

[Raskolnik]

91. Don't be embarrassed. You just made a mistake.

It happens. Even to someone as special and clever as you.

[paulsby]

73. king county's new light rail system

has a few of those signs in place. it also has other signs explaining that lawfully carried firearms are legal on the trains.

regardless of what the (few incorrect) signs say, it is entirely legal to carry on the train.

i also went to a suburban park in a small city outside seattle and they had a sign saying "firearms prohibited in the park". recently, due to a complaint, they changed the signs.

you are correct about pre-emption. also, i find it ironic that nickels proposed to pass this park ban with 'executive order'. iow, an illegal law passed by an executive under executive order. shades of bush, to put it mildly.

i can't speak for pennsylvania law, but you may be right about the pre-emption thang

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. He'll be in the FBI stats for gun crime and in custody of Pennsylvania Corrections.

[iverglas]

17. uh huh

I guess I thought everyone would understand that I was talking about stats dealing with permit holders, which some here are fond of pretending exist and prove the overwhelming wonderfulness of them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. He'll be in the stats for revoked CCW permits also.

[Tim01]

19. What is it? Half a percent or something? That's him. nt

[Statistical]

27. Although some people don't want it to be true it is incredibly low.

PA doesn't provide public stats of CCW issuance and revocation (they should, all states should).

FL does have a shall issue permit system and has had it for 20 years providing lots of stats.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Licenses Revoked (total) 4,851
- Clemency Rule or Legislative Change 66
- Illegible Prints w/ no response 10
- Crime Prior to Licensure 520
- Crime After Licensure 4,134
- Other 121

That is out of 1,573,707 permits issued.

4,134 out of 1.6 million which is about 0.25% have been revoked due to any crime.
Only 167 were revoked due to firearm being used in a crime which is 0.01%.

So roughly one out of 10,000 CCW use a weapon in a crime over a 20 year period.

CCW commit violence crime, misuse firearms, and commit homicide far less than even law enforcement does.

Oh and BTW Florida reports that of the 4,851 revoked permits 561 were reinstated.

[Major Hogwash]

98. Incomplete data.

Which means that since several states don't report the number of CCW holders who commit crimes, that your statement "it is incredibly low" is actually not credible, not to be believed, without merit.

But, thanks for the opportunity to bring that FACT to light.

[raimius]

120. Not quite

Several states do publish this information. Florida and Texas publish quite extensive stats on crimes and permits issued.
I'm pretty sure there are other states, but I don't have specifics ATM. (I'll go looking...)

Several MILLION samples in multiple areas is a pretty good way to establish a statistical trend, no?

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Maybe.

You are assuming he actually committed a crime.

[Major Hogwash]

28. About the gun nuts who post here at DU -

Most of them don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Most of them don't even own the weapons they are talking about.
Most of them have never even fired the weapons they are talking about.

One of the misconceptions put forth by the most rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth gun nuts at DU is that a person who has a concealed weapons permit, a permit to carry a gun concealed on his person, can not ever break the law.

The gun nuts put forth the idea that since the person with the permit went through a background check at one time in their life, they are not capable of becoming a criminal.

This flawed logic is fomented by the NRA and the GOA.

But, every single American soldier goes through a thorough background check before they are allowed to join the service.
Yet, more and more each day, the news has a story of some soldier who just came home from Iraq or Afghanistan and has shot and killed some person in the US.

So much for background checks.

People change over time and circumstances in their lives change.
And that's why it is imperative to make sure concealed weapons permits expire, that they are not valid forever.

[X_Digger]

29. My that's a monstrous straw man you have there..

Please find and example of someone here saying that a CCW license holder "can not ever break the law"..

"And that's why it is imperative to make sure concealed weapons permits expire, that they are not valid forever."

And that's valid how? Every state that I've lived in or checked out other than VT & AK (who don't require permits to concealed carry) have an expiration date on permits. Nobody that I've heard of is pushing for a lifetime CHL, have any example? Or was that just you trying to ascribe a position to the opposition that they don't actually hold, just to make them look silly?

[Major Hogwash]

32. I wasn't even talking about you.

You haven't even been here long enough to demand a damn thing from me, squirt.
So, let me be clear about this so that you don't hurt yourself reading my reply.

For the last 4 years, the guns section at DU has been dominated by morons with modems.
Most of them are half-wit, braindead Republicans who pose as Democrats so they can post at the DU forum.
Some of them are even deluded to the point in their pre-conceived notion that they are important enough to even warrant a response.

Believe me, the azzhole gun nuts at DU don't need my help for them to look silly.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. An argument from authority to go with your strawman

You haven't even been here long enough to demand a damn thing from me, squirt.

IOW: "I don't have anything, and will stand on my status to dodge your question"

Well, I joined the same year you did, and am a donor to boot.

So come up with a few cites instead of repeating the same BS and insulting fellow DUers.

And give a few bucks to DU while you're at it, ya cheap blowhard.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. Why *of course* you do, Officer Cartman!

Be sure to say hi to Stan and Kenny, mmmkay?

[DrCory]

103. So, The Rules Don't Appy To You?

"Oh, by the way, I alerted on ya."

Care to know where I found this?:

"Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member"

[X_Digger]

42. Condescention, patronizing, AND a strawman..

.. you win a kewpie doll for the hattrick!

[iverglas]

49. condescending and patronizing, indeed

And well done at that.

Now about this "strawman". Can you identify it for the assembled masses, please?


ne'er mind, found it:

One of the misconceptions put forth by the most rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth gun nuts at DU is that a person who has a concealed weapons permit, a permit to carry a gun concealed on his person, can not ever break the law.

The gun nuts put forth the idea that since the person with the permit went through a background check at one time in their life, they are not capable of becoming a criminal.

Yes indeed, the pretense at the inability to recognize hyperbole when one see is. A favourite ploy, unable though I have always been to understand why anyone would want to make him/herself look so dim/disingenuous.

"Although some people don't want it to be true it is incredibly low." -- based on data too obviously incomplete for that fact to merit comment even -- yes, that's not the sort of thing being referred to. Nooooo.

[X_Digger]

51. I'll have to quote you..

.. the next time you claim to not see hyperbole and take something literally.

Oh hey, no line, no waiting..

"I thought the meme was they just walked to the nearest gun store and picked one up, which is why gun control at those points would be so easy and effective at preventing crime.

The problem with memes. They're dumb. And in this case, even dumber: you cite a meme apparently invented by someone who wishes it actually were a meme. Lookit that. A straw meme."

"No! The important stat is THEY HAVE NO HANDGUN CRIME!

you do know that's not true, right?

Just playing the straw guy, or is there some chance you actually believe this?"

[Tejas]

30. You could say EXACTLY the same about many LEO's

That is, if you had a shred of honesty in your drivel.

[Major Hogwash]

33. No, that's not true. They actually TRAIN using their weapons.

Rather than just thumbing through gun magazines and going "oooh" and "ahhhh" a lot.

[Tejas]

35. ....and use them on their wives/lovers/etc just like

anyone else. Sorry to rain on your bi-annual attempt at BS in the Gungeon but Google is your friend and this was hashed out just a few days ago in another thread here.

Please, come up with new material, your dramatic don't qualify as facts.

[iverglas]

46. and of course

You could say EXACTLY the same about many LEO's

If *I* (the initiator of the thread, so I get to post anywhere I want in it) were proposing that police personnel be treated any differently from anyone else when it comes to authorization to possess firearms, I'd have a problem here.

Since I'm not, and in fact have specifically said many times in this place that I oppose handgun possession by all members of the public, and the carrying of firearms in public by all members of the public, I have no problem at all.

A police officer who is not acting in that capacity is a member of the public.

A police officer who IS acting in that capacity is subject to public sight and oversight. Unlike a police officer who is not on duty, or any other member of the public.

No problem for me.

[Major Hogwash]

69. Naturally, I think that goes without saying.

Since you are the initiator of the thread.

Or as some have referred to you on other forums, Queen Initiator.

LOL

[iverglas]

81. Queen Initiator??

I've missed that one! I almost never start threads. Too much work. I mean, when I start a thread, I actually do some research, to present something worthy of thought and discussion ...

Now, Goddess of Truth and Beauty, that's the ticket.

[Major Hogwash]

97. I'll see what I can do to straighten out the record.

On other forums about the Goddess thing.

LoL

[inkool]

31. They do expire.

In PA a LTCF (License To Carry Firearm) expires after 5 years. Also, if law enforcement are doing there job, the license is revoked if a person is convicted of a crime which prohibits them from having it.

[Major Hogwash]

34. Ahhh, a newbie to DU. Welcome to the DU forum.

Do they require a mental evaluation for people seeking a LTCF, as you call it, in Pennsylvania?

Watch how the other gun nuts just go foaming-at-the-mouth at that suggestion.

LoL

[inkool]

36. I call it a LTCF because that is what it is.

Would you prefer me to call it something it is not?

No foaming necessary. You can not get a LTCF if you Have ever been involuntarily committed to a heath care facility for a mental condition, or been adjudicated incompetent.

[burrfoot]

37. Great jumpin' jehosephat!!

Do you, by any chance, have anything to back up that post? You have made three statements which you attribute to (at least) 51% of posters here on DU.

If you have a break down of who owns what weapons (so we know if they've ever fired the ones they talk about), I'd actually be really interested to see it. I think it'd be fascinating.
As for that first claim...well, I'm not sure how you'd even measure it. I guess maybe we should just trust that you're right because you've been here so much longer than some others of us.

I'd also be really curious if you could show an example of someone- anyone- here claiming that permit holders cannot commit crimes. Same goes with your background check claim.

There may actually be rabid, foaming at the mouth gun nuts here; but I haven't come across them. I'd like to read what they have to say if they are here, because if anyone is claiming what you say they are they've got to be (in my opinion) lunatic fringe.

And I've gotta second the comment that no states- to my knowledge- offer lifetime permits. So at least that issue is taken care of!

[gorfle]

41. Completely bogus.

Most of them don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Most of them don't even own the weapons they are talking about.
Most of them have never even fired the weapons they are talking about.

I find that most of the pro-firearm folks here know quite a lot about the issue. And most of us almost certainly own and have fired the weapons "they are talking about".

One of the misconceptions put forth by the most rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth gun nuts at DU is that a person who has a concealed weapons permit, a permit to carry a gun concealed on his person, can not ever break the law.

Please cite a post where it has been asserted that CCW permit holders "can not every break the law". What has been said is that CCW permit holders have been shown to be many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to break the law than non-CCW permit holders. As post #19 shows, in florida, about 1-in-10,000 CCW permit holders commit crimes with firearms. Not all states report CCW crime data, so it makes it hard to make generalizations. But for the states that do, the trend is obvious.

It is also logical. Someone who wants to carry a gun to the point where they are willing to go to a fair amount of inconvenience and expense following the law that allows him to do so is probably going to be law-abiding in general.

And that's why it is imperative to make sure concealed weapons permits expire, that they are not valid forever.

I wasn't aware of any CCW permits that were "forever". In Alabama, they must be renewed yearly. Do you know of any states that provide for non-expiring CCW permits?

[Major Hogwash]

68. Now here's a fine example of what I was talking about!!

Finally, a foaming-at-the-mouth gun nut.

Dude, you need to go fishing for a change of pace.
I've read some of your posts.

"And most of us almost certainly own and have fired the weapons "they are talking about"."


You can NOT vouche for other people owning OR firing other weapons just because they say they did on the internet.

You're insane if you think you can.

Do you know how I know that?
Remember those foaming-at-the-mouth gun nuts I was talking about?

(Pssst . . you're one of 'em)

[rl6214]

76. Holy shit

It must be tough knowing everything there is to know about everyone and everything.

[burrfoot]

78. I swear,

you've got to be doing this on purpose. Otherwise you're completely absurd, and I'd prefer to believe that you're not.
I hope that you continue to post like this, though, because you're going to keep things entertaining.

Of course, it goes without saying that your statement about people not having shot the guns they talk about is something you're not able to prove, just exactly as much as the statement that they have shot them is. The only difference is that the second statement gives people the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, it's vouch, not vouche.

The only foaming at the mouth around here is coming in the form of spittle, as posts like yours above are laughed at. By all means, please continue.

[Major Hogwash]

100. It's easier to prove than you'd think.

Considering that most of the members that post in the Guns section have never held, much less fired the weapons they talk about the most.

After years of "debating" some of these people, I have come to the conclusion that at least 90% of them are magazine subscribers to Guns and Ammo magazine and simply look at the pictures and then claim they are "experts" here at this forum.

It isn't something that just happened overnight.
Yet, after seeing someone here, someone who had claimed to have a license to sell guns, totally screw up and say something that was absolutely not true, it became more apparent to me that person didn't have a license to sell guns.
Yet he was a prolific poster here at DU, touting guns, guns, guns.

The ad hominen attacks didn't bother me then, they don't bother me now.
I can't tell you how many threads have been started with almost the exact same title on the same issue here in the so-called Guns section, but year after year after year, it has become a rerun of the same comments.

I'm about the only one who makes original comments here about firearms.
I do it without calling others names, because that just lowers the bar of discussion on a serious subject.

But, I also go fishing during the very long fishing season here in Idaho.
And that's what really galls most of the old-time members that I have had discussions with here.
Because they know that fishing here is world-class, and they hate me for it.

[DrCory]

101. The Bar Must have Fallen On Your Head

For you to expect anyone to take this statement seriously:

"I do it without calling others names, because that just lowers the bar of discussion on a serious subject."

Oh, Really? How to explain this?:

"Finally, a foaming-at-the-mouth gun nut."

Yep, that's some real bar raisin' dialog right there. :eyes:

[gorfle]

85. You know what they say, it takes one to know one.

You can NOT vouche for other people owning OR firing other weapons just because they say they did on the internet.

I don't claim to.

But I can most certainly judge a person's level of expertise based on what they write. Many of the active pro-firearm posters here have written with a high-enough level of expertise on the subject that they are either extremely well-read or, more likely, especially based on their personal anecdotes, they have actual experience. Since I have a high degree of expertise with firearms and firearm issues, I think I'm pretty good at picking out fellow experts on internet forums.

In any case, you can't vouch for other people NOT owning or firing weapons, either.

I personally own around 15 firearms. I have shot bolt action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols, single-action pistols, pump-action shotguns, and break-open shotguns. I own and have fired a civilian AK-47. I have fired an AR-15. I own and have fired black-powder and gunpowder arms. And I've been doing all this regularly for 30 years. I'm pretty confident that I can tell when someone is bullshitting about firearms or not.

[Major Hogwash]

96. "fellow experts"? You think YOU'RE an EXPERT??

Kid, you really need to stop talking about firearms and acting like you know everything there is about weapons.

Because you're making it look bad for those of us who do.

[DrCory]

102. You're claiming to know "everything there is about weapons"?

"Kid, you really need to stop talking about firearms and acting like you know everything there is about weapons.

Because you're making it look bad for those of us who do."

Sure seems like it to me!

Everything? You know EVERYTHING "there is about weapons"?

[raimius]

121. Ok, expert

What experience do you have? (Inform a newer poster, please.)

I'm no expert, but I have fired SAO pistols, SAO blackpowder pistols, DA/SA pistols, pump shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, bolt-action rifles, semi-auto rifles, true assault rifles, and a machine-gun.
No, I cannot field strip an M1918 BAR, but I can take care of AR-15s, 1911s, and minor issues on Glocks (plus a few others). I can tell you why I prefer the trigger mechanism of a 1911 over a Glock and why the AR-15 design is more accurate than the Kalashnikov.

From this thread, I've seen you accuse people of ignorance and lies. If you really are THAT knowledgeable, you would easily be able to figure out AND correct the supposed inaccuracies of all the supposed experts.

So, sir, please explain where you aquired your knowledge, and help correct the inaccuracies of this forum.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. Kind of like the absurdity of believing you were ever a marine.

[Raskolnik]

44. Could you please point out who has argued that CCW holders "are not capable of becoming a criminal?"

I'd like to point out how ridiculous such a statement is to whoever said it.

Thanks in advance.

[Major Hogwash]

67. Gezzus Christ! Did your mommy do your homework for you, too?

You can look through the myriad of threads here for your own damned self!

Christ on a bike, how lazy are you people anyway?

[Raskolnik]

72. So, you have nothing, then?

That's about what I thought.

Carry on.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Nice admission of guilt.

[rl6214]

63. Sounds like a major load of hogwash to me.

Did you thinks this all up by yourself?

[Xenotime]

107. It would be better if they were just not issued at all.

[JonQ]

38. Couple of points

Gun grabbers have lied so many times in the past that it makes any claims they come out with impossible to accept at face value. However, they may be right in this instance (habitual liars are capable of telling the truth).

Assuming this guy was a CHL holder, he isn't anymore as he's now likely to be charged with a felony. And no one has claimed that concealed carry individuals never commit crimes and are perfect (can you come up with a group that includes millions of people where every individual is perfect). Merely that (as the numbers prove) that they are less likely to commit crimes than non-CHL individuals.

Attempting to apply an isolated case of one individual screwing up to millions of others who didn't is absurd at best, outright dishonest at worst.

I really have to ask, what's your point with this? That most concealed handgun holders act this way? Because that is untrue. That someone willing to break the law would have been stopped by another law? Common sense and collected data also argue against that conclusion.

I'm sure I could find an instance of a legally licensed motor vehicle operator (there are a few in this country) breaking the law. I wouldn't then come to the conclusion that everyone with a drivers license is a criminal, or that cars should be banned, or any such nonsense.

[gorfle]

40. so what issue has been raised?

but I think an issue has been raised that deserves more attention than just hand-wringing about the dreadfulness of it all.

What issue has been raised? I read your post and could not find you raising one. You pointed out that he was, in fact, legally carrying a concealed firearm. So?

[Raskolnik]

43. Could you please explain what your point is?

You seem to be under the impression that people on DU are putting forth the argument that *no* CCW holder has ever or will ever do anything wrong. That is a mistaken impression.

No matter how many times you raise that strawman, iverglas, it does not become any more meaningful. (even when you raise it in your own trademarked mealy-mouthed way so as to maintain full deniablity of having any sort of point)

[iverglas]

45. actually

You seem to be under the impression that people on DU are putting forth the argument that *no* CCW holder has ever or will ever do anything wrong.

I'm under the impression that this is the place to post fascinating tales involving firearms.

This particular tale had already been posted in this forum. The original post just left out the little fact about the authorization to carry a concealed firearm.

You don't think that's a relevant fact?

Too bad.

[Raskolnik]

47. Just as I thought. You can't bring yourself to actually state the point you're trying to make.

And you started a whole new thread just to say nothing at all.

[iverglas]

48. go ask your little chum Dave what his points are, 'k?

[Raskolnik]

50. If you've got a problem with what someone else is posting, why don't you take it up with them, 'k?

Personally, I think the tit-for-tat reports of shootings are a bore for the most part. Just like I find posts lacking the intellectual honesty to make their point without layer after layer of too clever by half obfuscation to be a bore.

[iverglas]

52. I didn't express any problem, friend

And my thread was not a "tit-for-tat <report of a shooting>".

Actually, my main point was that there are right-wing gun militants abroad who are actually clamouring to remove any existing rule prohibiting the carrying of firearms on the trail in question.

And I was particularly interested in the comment that went like "bike ride, anyone?" - clearly intended to convey a proposal that said right-wing gun militants get together and engage in one of their odious public exhibitions by cycling up and down the public trail with their firearms prominently displayed.

It really ain't my fault if nobody here wants to discuss that stuff, bub.


typo fixed

[Raskolnik]

54. Sure you didn't. You never express anything. n/t

[iverglas]

53. here we are

In the course of putting together the OP, I seem not to have included it; in case it isn't elsewhere in the thread:

http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-10/66729-bike-trail-fears-page-2.html

Bike trail of fears.

... sounds to me like we need to go on a bike ride.

Sounds to me like they're all right-wing pieces of gun militant shit. But then I already knew they are.

[Raskolnik]

55. Sure enough. Look at that.

Remind my why you had to start a new thread about this?

[iverglas]

56. not so good at that reading stuff?

From the OP:


This discussion began here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

but I think an issue has been raised that deserves more attention than just hand-wringing about the dreadfulness of it all.


Damn, that's obscure.

[Raskolnik]

57. That link *is* interesting, but it doesn't explain why you had to start a whole new thread

about the fact that some douchebag happened to have a concealed weapon permit.

[iverglas]

58. oh well

Maybe I'll spend a half hour pretending to believe you have a genuine question / grievance / concern ... and helping you with it.

Or maybe not.

[Raskolnik]

59. My question / grievance / concern is exactly what I said in post #43.

Unlike you, I am capable of making declarative sentences about my point. But since you ignored it, I'll repeat myself:

You seem to be under the impression that people on DU are putting forth the argument that *no* CCW holder has ever or will ever do anything wrong. That is a mistaken impression.

No matter how many times you raise that strawman, iverglas, it does not become any more meaningful. (even when you raise it in your own trademarked mealy-mouthed way so as to maintain full deniablity of having any sort of point)

[iverglas]

60. any mealies in my mouth

are the ones you're trying to stuff there. And you're failing.


You seem to be under the impression that people on DU are putting forth the argument that *no* CCW holder has ever or will ever do anything wrong.

YOU "seem to be under the impression" (granting the benefit of the doubt) that this has something to do with the opening post here.

*I* am entirely capable of advancing the proposition that IT IS UNWISE TO PERMIT THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN PUBLIC without having to pretend that doing so results in "blood in the streets".

ONE THING it evidently DOES result in is firearms in the hands of scum like the one in this report, in public - in fact, in a place specifically defined as a public space, a place designated by the public for the use of the public. Where an asshole WITH A GUN started shooting bullets wildly around the space. An asshole who was evidently legally entitled to take his fucking gun with him to a public space where individuals and families engage in recreational activities together. And should it be the case that there actually was some rule prohibiting him from taking his fucking gun there, there is an organized gang of right-wing thugs ready, willing and probably able to take care of that. If there isn't, then they'll go "protest" the fact that there's no rule against them displaying their firepower in public - in the very epitome of public space - by riding around on bikes with guns.

Now you can take whatever you're trying to stuff in my mouth in place of MY OWN WORDS AND IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS and stuff them somewhere about your own person.


No matter how many times you raise that strawman, iverglas, it does not become any more meaningful.

I HAVE NEVER SAID, THOUGHT, IMPLIED OR DREAMED what you are pretending to believe I was saying. So I suggest that if you can't find a real idiot to mither, you try setting somebody else up as one and see how that goes.

[Raskolnik]

61. Classic iverglas.

Deny you have any point, then stomp your feet and pout when you actually have to make one.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

75. For someone never making any points

she sure does make a lot of noise.

Speak relentlessly and carry no stick.
... all that jazz, you know.

[burrfoot]

82. roflmao. speak relentlessly and carry no stick. Good shit! n/t

[rl6214]

77. Well said my friend, let me buy you a beer.

[Major Hogwash]

70. Ooh, wah! She started a WHOLE new thread! At a MESSAGE BOARD!

Of all things.

Oh my gawd, what will happen next?

Obama may have a beer with a cop!!
Look out!
The world is spinning off it's axis!

LoL

[Raskolnik]

71. Yes. A whole new thread based on a silly strawman which you also embrace.

People can start all the threads their little hearts desire. But when those threads are based on a stupid strawman, *and* the poster isn't intellectually honest enough to even come out an make their point directly, it may be met with something less than raucous applause.

[iverglas]

79. the straw

is spewing entirely from your own mouth, my dear.

I haven't said that anyone says "no permit holder commits crimes".

I haven't said that allowing the toting of firearms in public spaces will lead to "blood in the streets".

If only I had, you wouldn't be thrashing around ... or is that threshing around? ... so.


Anybody who couldn't tell that the "point" of a post about a permit holder shooting wildly around a place where members of the public are enjoying a public space was that allowing the toting of guns in public spaces seems unwise is hiding behind too many bales of the stuff.


the poster isn't intellectually honest enough to even come out an make their point directly

That's so cute, that "intellectually honest" stuff. Talk about yer mealies, eh?

I guess for some people, looking for the point in the strawstack of their own making probably is backbreaking work.


it may be met with something less than raucous applause.

Gosh, and there was me expecting a standing ovation from the assembled DU guns forum for suggesting that the gun militant agenda wasn't in the public interest ...

[Raskolnik]

83. Nope, you lack the intellectual honesty to say it directly. You just repeatedly act as if others

have said just that, and then feign disbelief when your baloney is called.

[iverglas]

84. at this point

do you even know

Nope, you lack the intellectual honesty to say it directly. You just repeatedly act as if others
have said just that, and then feign disbelief when your baloney is called.

what "it" and "just that" are??

I sure don't. And I'm pretty sure you don't either. If you ever did.

[Raskolnik]

86. If you're having trouble following along, I'll repeat myself for the second time.

You seem to be under the impression that people on DU are putting forth the argument that *no* CCW holder has ever or will ever do anything wrong. That is a mistaken impression.

No matter how many times you raise that strawman, iverglas, it does not become any more meaningful. (even when you raise it in your own trademarked mealy-mouthed way so as to maintain full deniablity of having any sort of point)

[iverglas]

88. you have funny impressions

You seem to be under the impression that people on DU are putting forth the argument that *no* CCW holder has ever or will ever do anything wrong. That is a mistaken impression.

And I repeat: it is ALL YOURS.

I really can, as I said, advance an opinion and facts relevant to it without saying what you would like me to be saying.

The issue is not and has never been whether any holder of a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public will ever do anything wrong.

The issue is whether it is wise to permit members of the public to carry concealed weapons in public, and in particular, if you like, in particular public spaces.


No matter how many times you raise that strawman, iverglas, it does not become any more meaningful. (even when you raise it in your own trademarked mealy-mouthed way so as to maintain full deniablity of having any sort of point)

And no matter how had you try to put that bale of straw in my mouth, the only mouth the straw is dribbling from is yours.

[Raskolnik]

90. "I really can, as I said, advance an opinion and facts relevant to it "

Then why don't you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. I think you forgot to finish this remark.

No true holder of a permit to carry a concealed handgun ... !!!


It seems to be incomplete, do you mind finishing it for me?

[AtheistCrusader]

93. I believe it relates to the 'no true scotsman' defense.

Which, when it comes to some people who fervently defend CPL holders from any and all criticism, is probably fair.

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. Trouble is, they're aren't any such people

The argument is (and has been, AFAIK) "The crime rate of CPL/CWL/CHL as a group is way < the population as a whole",
which is accurate. Not to say there aren't crimes committed by permit holders, like the dipshit in the OP.

Problems come when some DUers, like Republicans, prove incapable of handling nuance and 'mis-hear' (to put it kindly) the above and process it as saying "Permit holders NEVER commit crimes".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. About the gun grabbers who post here at DU -

Most of them don't know what the hell they are talking about.
Most of them don't even own the weapons they are talking about.
Most of them have never even fired the weapons they are talking about.

One of the misconceptions put forth by the most rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth gun grabbers at DU is that people who support the 2n Amendment actually believe that anyone who has a concealed weapons permit, a permit to carry a gun concealed on his person, can not ever break the law.

The idiots actually believe that rational people would believe that since the person with the permit went through a background check at one time in their life, they are not capable of becoming a criminal.

This flawed logic is fomented by the VPC, the Joyce Foundation and the Brady Bunch.

The overwhelming majority of gun crime is committed by people legally barred from possessing firearms of course the gun grabbers don't like to deal with real facts and real statistics.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. Shouldn't you be working on a new season of "Mail Call"?

or doing another guest spot on 'House'?

Cause if you're not R. Lee Ermey, you sure are working a schtick.

F_M_Dave has counterpoints, you've got wharrgarbl.

Deadbeat!!

[iverglas]

122. this is about the most I've ever seen you say, Davey

I get so used to the disingenuous subject lines and posts devoid of text.

What I can't figure out is -- what possessed you to think this was a reply to my opening post????

[hansberrym]

104. Update, DA Firman revises her earlier assessment -actions reasonabe

"based on all the evidence available to us now, it appears that under the circumstances his actions were reasonable"


http://www.timesherald.com/articles/2009/07/30/news/doc4a7108665e7f6876152789.txt

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. I would beg to differ with DA Firman

Firing upon someone at that distance is not at all reasonable, chop shop or no chop shop.

[hansberrym]

106. The finding of the chop shop lends support to the shooter's claim

that this was not a case of road rage following an accident between riders, but was reasonable self defense in response to a premeditated attack.

DA Firman also took into account that the shooter was attacked by 2 persons and at the instant of the shooting, the shooter could locate only one of the attackers, so was from his POV still in danger.

[iverglas]

110. damn, I'm confused

Evidence was discovered that would indicate that the initial offenders were trying to steal the initial victim's bicycle.

This somehow suddenly makes it reasonable for him to shoot at them from 200-250 feet? The fact that he couldn't see where Person X was justified him shooting at Person Y?

:wtf:

Though the armed man was initially facing attempted murder and manslaughter charges, Ferman said she would likely withdraw the most serious charges, including attempted murder.

“It warrants re-examination,” she said. “DePaul was a victim of assault, and in his mind he was acting in self-defense.”

Another factor bolstering DePaul’s self-defense claim is that following the attack on him, he lost sight of the other juvenile suspect and became concerned.

“Based on all the information available to us now, it appears that under the circumstances his actions were reasonable,” Ferman said.

It appears to me that under the circumstances, someone succumbed to a lot of pressure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risa_Vetri_Ferman

Risa Vetri Ferman (born April 5, 1965) is an American lawyer and the elected District Attorney in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

... In 2007, Ferman ran for the Republican nomination to replace Bruce L. Castor, Jr. In a unanimous vote, Ferman won the Republican nomination. Ferman had the highest vote total for any Republican in the 2007 Montgomery County election.

Whenever I remember, I thank my stars that I live in a place where the public interest is protected by public servants selected according to merit.

[burrfoot]

112. I don't know what the fuck

is happening when I agree with you, Iverglas, on a gun post, but I do get a kick out of it.

Whoever the fuck that Ferman person is who is claiming that this was IN ANY WAY a self-defense shoot is fucking out of her mind. It wouldn't matter if the kids came after him with a fucking tin can and a whistle, an AR-15-ish rifle, or a fucking bazooka. Once they are 200-250 yards away AND RUNNING you are NOT in danger any longer.

Ferman is a re-Tard.

(sorry for the non-pc term. but The Hangover was fucking funny.)

[iverglas]

115. these situations are when

we have one of these.





Not actually 21 guns though, is it?

[Hoopla Phil]

113. Very interesting update.

Looks like the "kids" were chasing people down. The distance is a concern but if they had already shown that they would pursue you then you may have a valid claim for self defense.

[burrfoot]

114. hmm...

I take your point, but I think that's going to be trumped by how far away they were. 200+ feet away? How do you justify imminent risk at that distance?
The rule of thumb I've always been taught is that if they're further than 7 yds away you should probably be removing yourself from the situation rather than shooting. Particularly when you're outside, with no break-in-considered-as-intent factor going on.

Even if you're "trapped"- what are you doing shooting a pistol at someone that far away?

Although every shooting is a sad event, I'm usually in support of those who have acted in what appears to be genuine self-defense. I don't think that this guy was in the right, though.

[Hoopla Phil]

116. yes

the distance is a concern. The danger distance of a person on foot is 25 feet. I have no idea what that would be for a person on a bicycle. We still are missing information so speculation must be made to ferret out the finer points. Was the thug on the bike making preparation to advance on the shooter? Was the thug attempting to flee the scene? We still don't know. What we do know is that the thugs had attacked the person and showed a willingness to continue the attack.

As a CHL holder myself I think I would have waited a little longer but I was not there.

[burrfoot]

117. You're

right, of course, we're all just playing a guessing game until more details are provided.
I'm a CCW holder too- but 200 yards is two football fields. Even in a car or truck, you've got options with that much space.

I feel like we (CCW/CHL holders, gun owners, whatever you want to call us) are already subject to so much criticism; to which we reply that we are by and large an extremely law abiding group; that when something like this happens we need to support thorough investigation and hold the shooters accountable if they did in fact commit a crime. That's why I cringe when I see things like charges being dropped in cases like this.
Your point is taken that neither of us were there and don't know the actual details; and I'm open to some new information changing my mind. But for now, it doesn't look good.

Two football fields.

[Hoopla Phil]

118. One minor point of correction. The distance was

between 200 and 250 feet, not yards.

____________________________________________
DePaul fired all six rounds at the boy from a distance of 200 to 250 feet, the records say he told officers.
____________________________________________


That's almost a football field in distance and a long way. The distance is a real sticky issue with me no doubt about that. Now IF, and I stress IF, this turns out to be a situation where these thugs were "hunting" the guy down to continue the attack I may see it as justified but even then the distance is still an issue.

Hopefully more info will be coming out on this.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. I wonder if the 200-250 foot range point held up or not?

I saw one report that indicated that was even the shooters statement (which may not be accurate either), this article doesn't source it. Wonder if maybe they were a bit closer after all?

[iverglas]

111. it's my thread and I'll post if I wanna ...

What's up today?

I don't communicate privately about matters in this forum.

For some reason, today, I've had a spate of PMs. :wtf:

If you have something to say to me that is not personal to yourself (i.e. isn't something you're sharing with me about you), and is about the subject of this board, say it on the board.

If you want to give me your negative opinion of me or my posts, you should surely realize that I don't give a flying fuck what you think of me or my posts. If I want to read it, I'll click on whatever you post on the boards. Don't mither me with PMs.

There.