The mere presence of a gun

[RSillsbee]

I’ve read several posts that state (in essence) that just the fact that a person is carrying a gun in public endangers the people around them. Assuming the person in question is a law abiding gun owner I fail to see how simply carrying a firearm endangers the people around you.

I carry a firearm daily (sometimes concealed, sometimes openly) and It has never gone off of its own volition. Actually, it’s never gone off (outside of a range) except once when I put down a deer that had been hit by a car at all.

So, please explain to me how the fact that I’m carrying a gun (that you may or may not know I have) endangers you.

[elocs]

1. Not endangerment, but intimidation. Bullies can intimidate without even touching.

The Teahadists frequently used carrying weapons as a tool of intimidation, and that was clearly why it was being done. The message came through loud and clear.

[TheWraith]

3. And a person who is prepared to defend themselves cannot be intimidated.

However, you fail to demonstrate how someone carrying a concealed weapon is "intimidating" the people around them.

[consigli]

5. Really?

Can you supply more information on this or possibly a URL? I would like to read it for myself.

[RSillsbee]

7. I think posting the actual statements could be calling out a DU member

but here is a representative thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=365573&mesg_id=365573

[consigli]

20. thanks, but

I had already read the post about the fool from Utah that made a bad decision to bring his weapons to a shopping mall but the story said nothing about him being a teabagger.

I was asking for a link to information of teabaggers using weapons to intimate people as you stated in your post. You said, "The Teahadists frequently used carrying weapons as a tool of intimidation,"

[RSillsbee]

25. I never said that and I don't believe it NT

[RSillsbee]

6. Intimidation wasn't what was claimed

It was stated that a person carrying a gun in public endangers others. Just because s/he has a gun

[sam sarrha]

8. but the facts are that Tea Baggers cary guns to Liberal events to INTIMIDATE THEM..period

there is no other possible reason.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[consigli]

22. What events are you attending?

Of all the rallies I been to I have never seen anyone there with a weapon. What event(s) have you attended that you felt threatened by the prescience of weapon(s)?

[sam sarrha]

101. i have seen many photos.. link

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x166161

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Callisto32]

54. So, there is no reason to conspicously exercise a right?

I disagree. Conspicuous exercise of a right, especially an unpopular (among others) one is often a good method to, if nothing else, draw attention to your cause. You know, like sitting at "whites only" breakfast bars and maybe even the front of a bus.

[Abq_Sarah]

115. Does the sight of a holstered weapon intimidate you?

Unless it's being held with the barrel pointing at me, firearms certainly don't scare or intimidate me any more than a car driving down the road.

[cleanhippie]

74. You did not answer the question, you deflected.

[76percentuncertain]

113. >

how can one intimidate others when the gun is concealed?

[HankyDubs]

2. you fail to see

"Assuming the person in question is a law abiding gun owner"

We're supposed to assume that the person in question is always a law-abiding gun owner?

Hey there Mr. Cho...hey there Mr. Loughner...I'm assuming you are a law-abiding gun owner.

[TheWraith]

4. I'm sure someone intent on murder will be stopped by laws against carrying a gun. nt

[HankyDubs]

13. Not right now they aren't

Sounds like you want more effective laws.

[Union Scribe]

32. What law would stop the scenario in the post you replied to?

[HankyDubs]

45. open to suggestions

but as I have pointed out before on the gungeon forum, the goal of gun control laws is not to end all gun violence. The goal is to make these incidents much less frequent by making it more difficult to obtain guns...and to make it nearly impossible for criminals or the disturbed to purchase them legally.

[hack89]

60. They are less frequent

gun violence hasn't been lower in 45 years. You have never been safer.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. Actually the original intent of gun control was to insure the poor and minorities were disarmed

and unable to defend themselves. That is still going on today.

[cleanhippie]

76. "These incidents" are VERY infrequent.

In fact, they are so infrequent, one could say they are even RARE.

[RSillsbee]

9. Again, you miss (or dodge) the question

How are you endangered merely because I have a gun?

ENDANGER
transitive verb
: to bring into danger or peril <recklessly endangering innocent lives>
intransitive verb
: to create a dangerous situation <driving to endanger>

Using that definition how does my gun endanger you? Does a cop's gun endanger you as well? Why or why not?

[sam sarrha]

11. anybody carrying a gun to a political event is dangerious because they are F'n crazy..!!

[RSillsbee]

14. Does that include the Secret Service?

I'm not actually talking about political events I'm talking in public in general.

Say you and I walk in to Wal Mart at the same time, I'm armed you're not. How are you endangered by me?

[sam sarrha]

100. I'm "Obviously" talking about the Tea Party Mafia.. and no you aren't endangering me. i always carry

a JHP 38 special with laser sights , a 9mm Makarov P64 or a 32 with JHP depending on what I'm wearing.. but i would much rather use a stun gun or pepper spray.. less paper work.

[HankyDubs]

16. actually you dodged

my point about assuming the person is a law-abiding gun owner. Any response to that?

"to create a dangerous situation"

A gun in any situation makes that situation more dangerous. Yes, a police officer with a gun does endanger me to some degree. That's why folks in my neighborhood call the fire department before they would call a cop. Now if I call the cops because I'm already in danger, the one potential danger is balanced against the other very real danger.

[RSillsbee]

19. I assume the person is law abiding because they usually are

A gun in any situation makes that situation more dangerous.

Specifially how? If I'm in a mall armed ho do I endanger the people about me?

I am sitting 10 feet from a safe that is full of guns and ammunition and at least one gun in the safe is loaded how do those guns endanger me?

[HankyDubs]

29. you are not a safe full of guns and ammo...I hope

"I assume the person is law abiding because they usually are"

Well that's a crock of shit then.

"Specifially how? If I'm in a mall armed ho do I endanger the people about me?"

Well I never know whether you're going to blow a gasket because your cheeseburger had onions when you SPECIFICALLY said no onions. Besides, why in the hell do you need hand cannon to order a goddamned cheeseburger?

[RSillsbee]

48. Well I never know whether you're going to blow a gasket

So, what you are saying is that the gun itself is an inamimate object w/ out human intervention, got it.

[spin]

89. If people with concealed weapons permits do this on a regular basis ...

you should be able to pull up five or six examples that happened recently.

It's my bet you can't and I'll base it on statistics.

Florida publishes a monthly report on concealed carry at: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

This report covers a twenty three year time frame from October 1, 1987 - December 31, 2010. During this time Florida issued 1,902,769 concealed weapons permits of which 780,595 are currently valid. Only 168 licenses have been revoked for a crime involving a firearm committed after the license was issued.

What most people never seem to realize is that while you may be fairly safe inside a mall or restaurant, the parking lot outside that you have to walk through can be dangerous.

Seriously, you strike me as extremely paranoid about those who legally carry concealed. Relax, as a group we are probably the safest people to be around. You might, for example, worry more about cops.

DC-Area Cop Accused of Brandishing Gun in Conn. Bar

A D.C.-area police officer is accused of displaying a handgun at a bar in West Haven, Conn.
Updated 2:06 PM EST, Tue, Jan 4, 2011

Danny McCullough III, 38, was being escorted out of Lager House early Sunday morning when the incident took place, the New Haven Register reported.

Bouncers told police McCullough had been standing in the rear patio of the bar as it closed, and refused to finish his drink and leave. As McCullough argued with the bouncers, one of them crushed his drinking cup, and McCullough picked up a glass bottle as if to strike the man, police said.

McCullough, who lives in Washington D.C., then pointed his Glock 9mm weapon at the ground, police said. Two women reported hearing him say words to the effect of: “That’s right it’s a real gun,” police said.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/DC-Area-Cop-Accused-of-Brandishing-Gun-in-Conn-Bar-112842964.html

[one-eyed fat man]

61. It's old, it's trite, but it's true

Call for a cop, call for an ambulance and call for a pizza, see who shows up first.

If you were in REAL danger and had 911 on speed dial you would be fortunate if the cops showed up before the blood congealed.

If you were really, really, lucky a cop would come to your hospital room and ask you what happened for his report.

You can call 911 and if they don't even come, too bad.

No Duty to Protect

It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”<5>
In the especially gruesome landmark case the “no-duty” rule got ugly. Just before dawn on March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C., shared by three women and a child. On the second floor one woman was sexually attacked. Her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.

The women’s first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the house, got no answer to their knocks on the door, did a quick check around, and left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched.
The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours. When these women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them. Case dismissed.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[safeinOhio]

21. Here is one

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

A bystander critically injured during a police shooting on New Year's has died and authorities announced this morning that homicide detectives are investigating the officer's actions, said Deputy Commissioner Richard Ross.

Abebe Isaac, 33, was a guest as a party in East Germantown when he was shot five times by a uniformed police officer who opened fire on an armed suspect who allegedly pointed a gun at the officer and fled, police said.

-----

Isaac was one of four people injured during the shooting, including Page's 9-year-old son, Nyger Page, who was grazed in the back by a bullet as Isaac tried to push him out of harm's way and shielded him from the bullets.

Another guest, Michael Johnson, 32, was shot in the side and has since been released from Einstein. The suspect police were chasing, Dontate Mitchell, 21, was shot in the arm.

Police responded to shots fired in the air at midnight, a tradition some observe to ring in the New Year. Authorities had warned earlier that day that shots fired in the air are dangerous, illegal and that those caught doing it would be aggressively pursued and prosecuted.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Word salad. You seem to have misread the question.

How are you endangered by his presence, should he be armed with a gun?

[Maine_Nurse]

18. So since we can't assume...

that you aren't drunk whenever you are driving, then you are willing to be pulled over and tested for alcohol use every time you get behind the wheel of an automobile (something that kills more people than firearms)?

[HankyDubs]

33. again with this car stuff

I categorically reject all arguments based on this comparison. I need my car to get to the mall. I don't need my gun to get to the mall. I can do all kinds of things without a gun without living in terror. You should try it sometime.

But as long as we are talking about cars...should you be required to purchase accidental shooting insurance on your gun? Car owners are subject to all kinds of requirements that gun owners are not.

[beevul]

46. Such as?

"Car owners are subject to all kinds of requirements that gun owners are not."

Such as?

[Callisto32]

56. Never had to pass a federal background check to buy a car.

Or an FBI background check to get a license to drive a car in public.

HMMMMMM

[oneshooter]

68. " I need my car to get to the mall."..........

No you don't. There are two objects at the end of your legs called "feet" and by using them correctly, motion can be produced. Forward, backward and sideways at a speed that can be varied. There are also public transportation, man powered wheeled devices, and cabs.

Owning and operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a protected right enumerated in the Constitution.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

105. "dees-il power"

:rofl:

[rl6214]

41. Cho and Loughner weren't carrying in public

They went out with the intent on committing a crime.

It's not the same.

[Callisto32]

55. Its one of those stickly little things.

We call it "innocent until proven guilty."

[cleanhippie]

75. Yes, you are. We have this little priciple of "innocent until proven guilty" here.

Perhaps you have heard of it?

[Uben]

12. I guess it's intimidating if you are intimidated

I'm not. Usually, when I see someone other than a law enforcement officer openly carrying a gun, I see it as their way of easing their lack of self confidence. I own 19 firearms, but have never carried one, either legally or illegally. I haven't even shot them in 20 yrs. I guess if their intention to carry is to intimidate, it only works on those who are afraid of guns. I'm sure there are those who have had experiences that have led them to carry a weapon, and I can understand that. If someone had threatened my life, I might be compelled to carry myself, but it would be concealed. I'm not really a fan of open carry.

Why would you want to carry openly? What purpose does it serve? I'm asking because I truly don't understand why it's necessary.

[RSillsbee]

17. Why would you want to carry openly?

Depends on the situation. If I'm in the back country I OC because it's easier to get to the gun. edit I have walked around a corner on a trail and walked right up on a bear / edit Most of the time I OC it's because I forgot to put on a cover garment or I got hot and took it off.

Most of the time that I OC people don't appear to even notice.

Now back to my question intimidation isn't endangerment how does my carrying a gun endanger you ?

[Uben]

23. It doesn't as long as you do it responsibly

I can understand open carry out in the countryside. I have done it myself for the same reasons you stated. But in public?

I don't feel endangered at all, myself. I see no reason for open carry in public, and I have always been an advocate of gun rights. I think that's more of a "show-off" thing than a necessity. And, showing-off with a gun is ignorant, I think we can both agree. No?

[RSillsbee]

24. More of a "show-off" thing than a necessity.

Some people don't have the money to get a permit. OC is still free

[MichaelHarris]

31. you can

afford the gun but not the permit? Jeeebussss!! Did you save money for bullets?

[Katya Mullethov]

64. I carry a 400 dollar gun

And it took between 1500- 2000 dollars to pay the taxes and mandates Texas dreamed up so that I might have standing
just to ask permission to carry it anywhere other than my own properties or in my car . The grandfatherly demeanor and
candor of the instructor made me forget just how bad I was getting screwed until I was halfway home . The realization of which made me lol .

[RSillsbee]

82. See, I always have a smoke

after getting screwed

[cleanhippie]

77. How much do you think an AK-47 and a scanner costs?

[A Simple Game]

91. Open Carry is not free in New York.

You can't buy or carry a pistol without a permit in New York.

[YllwFvr]

117. new york isnt exactly the shining example

of gun rights. You couldnt pay me to live there, and its only partly due to that.

[RSillsbee]

121. Ya know

There is a reason I have no intention of ever setting foot east of the Mississippi in my life again.

[YllwFvr]

116. comfort nt

[PavePusher]

106. Because Civil Rights do not generally require camoflauge. n/t

[beevul]

15. I can't explain the "endanger" argument...

I can't explain the "endanger" argument, but I can most certainly explain the "intimidate" argument.


It isn't the presence of a gun that intimidates anyone.

Its the presence of someone that would dare do something contrary to the complainers belief system.

[petronius]

26. The 'endanger' argument for open-carry leaves out a step - it's not the carrier

who endangers anyone, it's the unpredictable reaction on the part of passers-by, security, or police that triggers the danger. The suggestion is that, because viewers of the firearm might react in fear, the carry should be prohibited.

I suggested in another thread that one of those 'reasonable compromises' would be to ban open-carry in municipalities that want to, but make all states shall-issue for concealed carry. It seems that would answer everybody's needs...

[MichaelHarris]

28. I don't

know you and don't know your motive. That was easy.

[petronius]

34. That's you being scared by you, not you being endangered by anyone else. (nt)

[MichaelHarris]

35. ya know

if more people had been scared when they saw the last few mass shooters pull their gun more lives would have been saved. Once again, no one knew them either. I'll go even further, if you open carry and I want your gun and wallet I will get it. See the bad guy has his gun out, even more so since he see's yours holstered. It's a two fer for a bad guy LOL! That's how stupid open carry is.

[petronius]

37. Your first two sentences make no sense at all: people are endangered when

mass shooters pull out guns, and they should be scared when that happens. People are not endangered in the slightest when some random law-abiding person walks past with a gun. What are you trying to say, exactly?

As for your edit, concealed carry would solve that problem quite nicely - perhaps we need to remove barriers to that for those who wish to carry, and the drawbacks of open carry will go away...

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Open carriers will be robbed of their wallets AND guns? Cite, please.

Perhaps a police report, for example...

I'll go even further, if you open carry and I want your gun and wallet I will get it.

Michael, as annoying as I find you to be, I'd strongly urge you not to try (or encourage others to try)

that with an open carrier. Some of them really are quicker on the draw than you are.

[RSillsbee]

50. I didn't pull my gun it's sititng in my holster

How, specifically, is it a danger to you?

[PavePusher]

108. So, you can cite to where this has happened, right? n/t

[RSillsbee]

49. So because you don't know me

I cause you to be in actuall danger , please specify

[cleanhippie]

78. What was the motive of the guy you said had an AK-47 and a scanner?

You never seem to answer that. Why not?

[shadowrider]

79. Dude, are you seriously expecting that question to be answered? n/t

[cleanhippie]

80. Of course!

no, not really.

[PavePusher]

107. Stop living in fear and paranoia.

See how easy that was?

[sharesunited]

36. Its presence on your person where you can take it into your hand

for any or no reason within your sole discretion?

If you are offended by the word "endanger," does the phrase "expose me to capricious risk" seem more respectful of your pretend right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. You are exposed to capricious risk anytime you are near a moving automobile....

...even inside your own. More people are killed by drunk, drugged, or just incompetent drivers than by your bete noir, the

gun.

[one-eyed fat man]

62. Hell, you say!

"Its presence on your person where you can take it into your hand"

If that's your criteria, having something close to hand that someone could whip out "for any or no reason within your sole discretion..." exposes everyone to danger...

How do we know you aren't going to start wagging your weenie at the little schoolgirls when you're walking around in public?

The whole situation is fraught with danger!

You might scar their psyche, or if they point and giggle they might scar yours.

[dmallind]

110. Careful - I have seen the "equipped for rape" argument seriously proposed....nt

[one-eyed fat man]

111. Strident militancy has its inspiration

"All men are rapists and that's all they are." - Marilyn French

[quickesst]

42. Didn't you know..

...that those things are in a dormant state, and can come to life instantly. Of course, not being immdiately aware of their surrounding will jump out of the holster and start firing wantonly untill they have gained their bearins. Of course after becoming aware of their sudden newfound surroundings will immediately jump back into the holster offering an apology such as, "oops, my bad". It's ok to carry a concealed weapon, but you must be aware of the first hint they are about to waken and start killing people not knowing what the are doing. One tell-tale sign is a slight trembling, and another is becoming much warmer than it usually is. Be prepared to look for these signs, and you can put them in constraints untill the fever wears off. You should then be able to safely carry your weapon as long as common sense prevails.:sarcasm: Thanks
quick-draw er, I mean quickesst

[KansasVoter]

43. Wow, insecure?

[Hoyt]

44. It's no so much you/Democrats, as your typical tea-bagger gun toters. They are clearly a danger.

Their political beliefs are proof they are not fit to carry. And, they ain't carrying just to defend themselves.

However, I'm not for discriminating against Republicans. So, we need to restrict all gun owners in as many public places as possible. There is no need for one to carry in most public places -- absolutely none (and know regulars, I'm not an arbiter of need). I really don't think kids -- or folks my age -- need to see some gun-toter walking around where guns just aren't welcome by most people.

Toting Democrats would do themselves a favor figuring out how to keep those nuts out of the public.

[beevul]

47. WOW. Just wow.

"Their political beliefs are proof they are not fit to carry."

"Their political beliefs are proof that they are not fit to speak freely..."

"Their political beliefs are proof that they are not fit to vote."

"Their political beliefs are proof that they are not fit to be secure in their persons..."

"Their political beliefs are proof that they are not fit to envoke their right against self incrimination..."


Thats some disgusting thought, right there, no matter how much one disagrees with someones political beliefs.

That kind of thinking is far more dangerous than people with guns.

[Pancho Sanza]

67. Thank you, it's good to know I wasn't the only one horrified by that crazy talk.

:scared:

[Hoyt]

71. As usual you can't think past your gun. TBaggers carry to impose their political beliefs.

Sorry, that's wrong even if you see them as your "brother in arms" or some such BS.

Democrats here supposedly carry to defend themselves (from what I am not sure, but that is what the say).

I don't think intimidation is a valid reason to carry. But, maybe I was mistaken about you guys.

[beevul]

103. " TBaggers carry to impose their political beliefs."

"TBaggers carry to impose their political beliefs."

Which political beliefs did they impose on you or anyone else via a gun?

[AtheistCrusader]

123. I have never had a teabagger try to impose his political beliefs on me

by way of the gun. Trying it would be a really, really bad idea.

[RSillsbee]

51. Their political beliefs are proof they are not fit to carry

Wow so, now that they're in power are you OK w/ them deciding your political beliefs are proof you are not fit to vote?

[Hoyt]

72. Intimidation (wearing guns in public) to impose their political beliefs is wrong.

Surely you agree with that.

[RSillsbee]

81. I agree that intimidation is wrong

I'm not 100% certain that's what they were doing though and you still don't get to be the arbiter of who gets to vote

[Hoyt]

85. Never said a thing about deciding who votes. Anyone, no matter how deranged, can/should vote.

[RSillsbee]

87. Oh yeah, you did.

the teabaggers beliefs are proof they aren't fit to vote

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[RSillsbee]

92. I appologize , you are correct . You did say "carry" NT

[RSillsbee]

95. To be perfectly clear

I acknowledge my mistake you never did say they weren't fit to vote. My apologies

[Hoyt]

97. No apologies necessary. But thanks.

[Callisto32]

57. You CAN'T be serious.

"Deine Politik sind nicht in ordnung."


What's next?

Deine Papiere bitte?

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[PavePusher]

109. Playing an authoritarian fuck-stick on a Progressive web-site...

is a really, really bad idea.

[YllwFvr]

118. i would be fine restricting guns from public places

but there must be no exemption for police officers. They may disarm before they enter the no firearms area.

[Major Hogwash]

52. If you carry openly here now in the city, the police will be called.

They've have had too many shootings here in the last 2 years to tolerate someone walking in to go shopping with a six-gun strapped to their waist.

[Callisto32]

58. Yeah, damn.

How DARE we expect people to tolerate others exercising their rights.

ESPECIALLY people exercising rights WE don't like....

This is another example of the disgusting thought that pervades prohibitionist thinking of all stripes.

[Major Hogwash]

59. This is why -- the first city police officer was killed during an ordinary traffic stop

Read this article, it was in the newspapers and on tv back then, too ---

http://www.ssristories.com/show.php?item=1623

[Euromutt]

65. They might be *called*, sure

But the last time I looked, Idaho was a "gold star" open carry state, and there's fuck-all the cops can do against you if you choose to do so. Well, legally, anyway.

[Major Hogwash]

90. You don't live here, so you don't know squat about it.

[oneshooter]

98. The law is written for everybody to read. Even you. n/t

[YllwFvr]

119. they can be called

and as another poster said, they can do squat about it. Or the police can break the law. Google "Dickson City Dozen". 12 people arrested for not breaking the law. Man is it ugly now. Thats a whole lot of lawsuit they are looking at. Hope that budget is strong!

[AtheistCrusader]

124. Bullshit.

Idaho is Open Carry by state law, and state law specifically pre-empts cities and municipalities from enacting more strict firearms laws than there are at the state level.

If you call the cops every time you see someone open carrying, you are really going to piss off the cops.

[Callisto32]

53. Putting down wounded animals is hard.

At least it is for me. The couple of times I had to do it, I really had to remind myself that it was better for them that way. I'm pretty sure I even apologized first.

I was originally just going to comment on how difficult it is to purposely take the life of another animal, but I guess it ended up being germane after all. Having a gun with which to do this does not make it any easier than the more low tech methods, like cutting the throat. By easier, I mean emotionally. Certainly it is less work to pull a trigger than it is to restrain and cut the throat of a white tail. That doesn't mean it is any less personal, at least not for me, the way that many folks suggest it is. I guess my point is that the mere presence of a gun is not only not dangerous, it doesn't turn otherwise well adjusted people into bloodthirsty murderers either.

[YllwFvr]

120. be aware of your laws

here in Pa, putting down a deer is poaching, and even if permission is given you can still be nailed for using a semi automatic firearm. Even police cant kill a wounded deer unless the department has express permission from the Game Commission. Silly? I think so. You must call the game commission and wait for permission as some wounded animal thrashes out its life at your feet.

[RSillsbee]

122. Luckily I live in Colorado

That said I couldn't just watch an animal suffer for no good reason regadless of the law. If I had to I'd beat it to death w/ a tire iron

[Glassunion]

125. Not funny... But funny none the less. We had an issue at a store nearby.

I was in NJ, and had pulled into the parking lot of a store. The police had blocked off one of the entrances to the store and were directing customers to enter from the other side of the foyer.

An apparently rabid raccoon had backed itself into the doorway and was growling at anyone who came near. I have never heard a raccoon make that sort of a sound.

Anyway, the officer had to use one of those ropes on a stick to get the animal out of the doorway and out onto the lawn. As I sat in my car watching it was absolutely heartbreaking to hear the animal and I knew that the officer was going to put it down. Another officer approached and spoke into his radio. From the little bit that I picked up, he was notifying dispatch that he was going to be discharging his weapon to put down the animal. I heard a response come back over the radio, then the officer approached the raccoon, who the other officer was pinning to the ground with the rope/stick thing, and drew his weapon, aimed and then fired. Boom... From my time at the range I would wage a guess that they use .40. The report from the firearm was quite loud as it was contained by the building. It made my one ear ring a bit.

At first I thought it was the most gruesome thing I had ever seen... When the officer had fired, there was a huge red cloud that had sprayed both officers legs to the point that they jumped back, like you would when you drop a cup of coffee. That sort of stiff legged backward shuffle. There was a long moment of silence as the two officers, standing in a small cloud of gun-smoke, looked at each other for a moment, then at their pants, then back down at the raccoon. Who I then noticed was still thrashing around. Holy shit! This is the toughest mother fucking raccoon on the planet.

The officer who took the shot then spoke into his radio. I could not hear what was said or what came back. The officer then angled himself again, took aim, then fired. Boom! This time I had my finger blocking my ear. And once again, there was another horrid red cloud that erupted all over their pants... I could not believe how horribly gruesome this was. It was like a horror film that I could not tare my eyes from. At this point, the officer holding the stick seemed upset and said something to the officer that took the shot. He was pointing at the raccoon and then at his pants through a gently wafting cloud of gun-smoke. Again, the raccoon was seemingly not affected by any of this as it was still thrashing about at the end of the stick. I was in complete disbelief.

Once again, the officer spoke into his radio and received a reply that I could not make out. This time, the two of them had moved about two paces to the right dragging the poor raccoon with them. They then angled themselves a bit differently with the officer who was shooting, this time was crouching almost directly in front of the officer holding the stick. There was a long pause while the officer was aiming at the raccoon at the end of the stick. Then again, there was the loud boom. Followed this time by a larger red eruption, that did not completely spray back at the officers. Then there was a long pause. It seemed like forever the two officers were peering at the raccoon, who was now not moving. The officer that took the shot then turned back to stand, looking at the officer holding the stick, and as he was turning, I noticed that the crouching officer had blood on his face. Holy shit! That is gross, he literally had about 5 solid splatters on his face that were running down to his neck and chin... One was on his mouth. Oh man, this officer now has to go to the hospital I thought.

The two officers stood silent for a moment. The smoke had cleared, the air was silent, and all I could hear was the clicking of the lights on the patrol vehicles. It was an eerie, gruesome sight that will stick with me forever. The officer with the blood stained face, then, just simply wiped his face in the crook of his sleeve. The officer then got back onto the radio and exchanged something with dispatch. It was at this point that I noticed the raccoon was trying to get free again. I was in stunned shock at the sight. How the hell could anything that small, live through such a barrage? Was the little guy on PCP, was he a zombie, or did he have some sort of strain of super rabies? Nothing could live through that. NOTHING!

As the officer finished talking on the radio, the officer holding the stick said something to the officer. I did not pick up what he said at all, but the other officer snapped loudly back, "I KNOW!" and crouched again, taking aim at the raccoon. This time, there were two loud shots, fired about 1/2 a second apart. This time there was no red cloud. I thought, of course, how could there be any blood left in the little guy. The officer then stood as the other officer worked the pole stick off of the raccoon and walked back to their vehicle. Leaving behind the small little mound of raccoon on the lawn. "How very sad", I thought.

As the officers were walking back to their vehicles I overheard them speaking. The officer that was holding the stick was talking to the officer that took the shots. What I over heard suddenly made the entire scene not so gruesome at all... He simply said, "But you got mud all over us.". To which the shooting officer replied, "I know... I'm sorry.". The other officer then simply asked "How did you miss four times?"

[Still a Democrat]

66. Jared Loughner was a law abiding gun owner, like you

The appeal of your post is predictable, but it's not very logical.

With the "law abiding" disclaimer you try to ignore the reality guns can be used in crimes. The problem is we don't know who will always be a "law abiding" gun owner. Jared Loughner was law abiding, he owned a gun, so why should we have a problem with that?

No one has a problem with guns, assuming all owners will always be "law abiding". But that isn't reality.

[oneshooter]

70. So can knives, cars, and baseball bats.

Do you own any of them? If so then you need to be carefully watched while in public.

After all, you are also a "law abiding" person.

Till you ain't.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[spin]

83. Jared Loughner was waving RED FLAGS ...

which everybody ignored until his mental illness caused him to run amok.

Many of the other mass shooters have also had serious mental problems and should have never been allowed to buy firearms at a gun store. Seung-Hui Cho who murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007 is one example.

The Virginia Tech review panel detailed numerous incidents of aberrant behavior beginning in Cho's junior year of college that should have served as warning signals of his deteriorating mental condition. Several former professors of Cho reported that his writing as well as his classroom behavior was disturbing, and he was encouraged to seek counseling.<48><49> He was also investigated by the university for stalking and harassing two female students.<50> In 2005, Cho had been declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice and ordered to seek outpatient treatment.<51>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

[shadowrider]

84. Yet

He never sought treatment and wasn't forced to, so he fell through the cracks.

But MORE laws, common sense laws, would magically fix all that?

:banghead:

[spin]

86. It is possible that proactive mental care might stop many of these massacres ...

as most of the shooters did exhibit signs that should have alerted those around them. If Jared Loughner would have received treatment rather than "falling through the cracks" we might not be talking about this problem today.

One thing is for sure, banning extended magazines will have NO effect on stopping gun massacres as magazines can be changed quickly and a shooter can always carry more than one firearm. Mass murders have occurred with no extend magazines involved which proves that an extended magazine is not a requirement to murder a lot of people. Such an idea merely shows the stupidity of the anti-RKBA proponents and if passed, our politicians.

But one important similarity in these mass murders in our country is the mental condition of the shooter. Mental illness CAN be treated as can most other illnesses. We need to develop a better system for diagnosing and treating those with severe mental problems and we also need to stop them from legally buying firearms until they are cured.

[jody]

69. One never knows when a gun might go berserk and start randomly shooting people -- in the minds of

those who themselves go berserk at the very thought of a gun.

Anyone who exercises their unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense should help those people if possible.

[KansasVoter]

93. Well, how about the story 4 days ago of an idiot dropping his CC gun and shooting someone?

[friendly_iconoclast]

94. It wasn't the presence of the gun, it was its mishandling by the nitwit owner

As that story revealed, CC gun owners are neither saints nor perfect- but they don't do stupid shit like that very often, taken as

a group.

[KansasVoter]

96. I think most of them are stupid as shit. And if the gun wasn't there you ca';t drop it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. Would that be a sampling error on your part, or just bigotry?

After all, there are several million of them. How many have you met?

[KansasVoter]

102. Based on the sample of ccw people I know!

[shadowrider]

104. Did you meet them in class? n/t

[slackmaster]

112. Class is postponed until "Spring".

I planted my sweet corn over the weekend, so it's already Spring in San Diego.