Everything is better with guns

[tikl68 6]

And TK if you want to feel safe by living where there are no guns I will bye you a plane ticket to the UK.

[tikl68 6]

The good samaritan loosing his life when just trying to help sucks. IF the victim, or any one else there, had been carrying a fire arm, the POS that he was trying to help may have thought twice about resorting to violence to solve his anger, but even if he still decided that was the way he wanted it to go, the victims might have had a fighting chance to defend themselves. Then after you defend your self and the police roll up cause you called them, when told to put the weapon down you comply,because you have done nothing wrong.

[billvon 2,684]

>The good samaritan loosing his life when just trying to help sucks. IF the victim,
>or any one else there, had been carrying a fire arm, the POS that he was trying
>to help may have thought twice about resorting to violence to solve his anger,
>but even if he still decided that was the way he wanted it to go, the victims
>might have had a fighting chance to defend themselves.

That "POS" may well have been exercising his Constitutional right to defend himself from what he considered to be an angry mob threatening him. (Since he was drunk his judgment was arguably poor.) A second gun may have resulted in two or more people dead rather than one.

Perhaps we need fewer people shooting other people, rather than more.

[tikl68 6]

Nice try but first off blaming some's one actions on " he was drunk"doesnt fly with most people, and if he feared attack from an angry mob why not pull the gun when they first approached? No he waited til they decided to call the cops because he was becoming belligerent and retrieved a gun then chose to shoot another human being. If any of the victims would have had a firearm the aggressor would likely been the one shot. If you cant handle your liquor and get so drunk thats how you act when people try to help their is a bigger problem than 2nd amendment. Like I said I am not going to be an easy/willing target for people who cant control their actions DRUNK or not.

[Stumpy 280]

tikl68

My right to CHOOSE to carry/own a firearm does not make any other citizen(TK) any more in danger than he is normally in, but if you make it illegal to own/carry a firearm you are making me and every one else easier targets/victims.

The 2nd and my choice dont affect or infringe on you or your safety, but your desire to take that away does affect my safety.

All of that is demonstrably false, but never mind.

Quote

I have attended firearms safety courses and am a responsible and proficient gun owner,and yes they are locked in a gun safe.

So no use in a home invasion then. I'm sure nearly everyone who has accidentally shot someone THINKS they are a responsible and proficient gun owner.
Besides, it's a strawman. I have no intention of "taking away" your guns - even if I wanted to, that ship has long since sailed. Its just fun to point out how dumb the NRA stance is.

Quote

My point is that there are shit head humans on this planet that dont respect life or any thing remotely resembling respect and if they wish to do you harm or take what you have, they will find a way.

True. Having a gun will not help you. e.g. Chris Kyle. It will however make it far easier for them to hurt you.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[RMK 3]

I agree with you.

Here's another event, showing that carrying in public does affect other people:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/man-afraid-of-shooting-shoots-woman_us_56a7e0e7e4b09e7f4ab2f4e6

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[Stumpy 280]

RMK

I agree with you.

Here's another event, showing that carrying in public does affect other people:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/man-afraid-of-shooting-shoots-woman_us_56a7e0e7e4b09e7f4ab2f4e6

I'm sure he considered himself responsible and proficient as well.
Something doesn't sound quite right in his story as well. He "dropped it" and it "discharged" all by itself?
Handgun owners - thats almost impossible these days right?
I suspect he was messing with it.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[RMK 3]

A curious event indeed. Our local SC gun experts tell us this cannot happen and have even shared studies with us to both assuage our concern and correct our ignorance of how guns work.

Surely this person just failed to attend the requisite NRA class “How to Fuck About with your Gun While in a Public Place 101”.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[rhaig 0]

RMK

A curious event indeed. Our local SC gun experts tell us this cannot happen and have even shared studies with us to both assuage our concern and correct our ignorance of how guns work.

yeah... a properly maintained modern firearm in working order will not discharge when dropped. Yes, that was a well qualified statement.

Quote

Surely this person just failed to attend the requisite NRA class “How to Fuck About with your Gun While in a Public Place 101”.

treat your gun like a penis.
- only touch it if it's yours or you have permission to touch it
- don't touch it in public
- don't aim it at anyone
- keep it secure so it doesn't slip out of your pants

there are others. but those are what I can remember off the top of my head.

--
Rob

[tikl68 6]

Sure stumpy almost all of the guns are in the safe,except for the one we would carry on our person hence "CCW" during the day and when you get home it stays with you so, home invasion, ready. And yes guns are made today to not discharge when dropped, that is a true statement, however,having a CCW license you should know better than to... as posted by rhaig, "not have your dick out playing with it in public", and as you quoted the report in reply to my message, you conveniently left out the part where he was drunk and on Xanax. Not exactly being responsible even with out the firearm. Did he drive to the theater? That did not put any body in danger did it?

Just like the story in the OP. The suspect was DRUNK, DUI is just as big a danger to the public as a firearm in said drunks hands.Again 3500 lb weapon, but if he had killed someone while DUI thats ok dont take away the car. The weapon it sounds like was also not being transported in a legal manner. most people will not stand and wait for a person to load a magazine with rounds then load the magazine into the firearm in order to be shot, so it sounds as if he was traveling with a loaded firearm in a vehicle while he was DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE.If he is licensed to CCW ok carry it loaded, but I doubt that includes being drunk in public or DUI.

[billvon 2,684]

>Just like the story in the OP. The suspect was DRUNK, DUI is just as big a danger to the public as a
>firearm in said drunks hands.

Agreed. So you would support making penalties for carrying while drunk match the penalties for DWI?

[tikl68 6]

100 percent. But like most laws they are not enforced or are enforced very lightly. We see repeat DUI offenders with multiple DUI's still hold a license and or still drive and continue to DUI and eventually kill someone.Laws only work when enforced.The only things you should operate when you are drunk, the recliner, and the remote. I dont have a couple of beers and decide, hey lets go to the range and shoot my guns, and act like an idiot. If you apply or try to buy a firearm and you have a history of alcohol issues, then you should not be allowed to purchase a firearm.

[rhaig 0]

billvon

>Just like the story in the OP. The suspect was DRUNK, DUI is just as big a danger to the public as a
>firearm in said drunks hands.

Agreed. So you would support making penalties for carrying while drunk match the penalties for DWI?

In some states that is already the case. (at least the same classification as or higher than a DWI)

From memory, so with a grain of salt... in TX first offense DWI is a class B misdemeanor while carrying your handgun while intoxicated is a class A misdemeanor and results in losing your license to carry for several years. The second offense DWI is a class A.

--
Rob

[wolfriverjoe 1,450]

rhaig

***>Just like the story in the OP. The suspect was DRUNK, DUI is just as big a danger to the public as a
>firearm in said drunks hands.

Agreed. So you would support making penalties for carrying while drunk match the penalties for DWI?

In some states that is already the case. (at least the same classification as or higher than a DWI)

From memory, so with a grain of salt... in TX first offense DWI is a class B misdemeanor while carrying your handgun while concealed is a class A misdemeanor and results in losing your license to carry for several years. The second offense DWI is a class A.

Also a Class A misdemeanor in Wisconsin to carry a gun when intoxicated.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Texbubba 0]

Stumpy

if we go on your Trump-worthy line of thought and assume every muslim is a terrorist in waiting,

Low information statement. Read his positions.

Quote

Its all somewhat moot however given that you are killing more people in good old fashioned gun violence every month than terrorists are ever likely to get.

Must be the gun's fault.
Let me throw back at you the same mindset and reasoning that libs use
Auto accidents kill more than guns so let's ban cars.


Makes perfect sense, right?

[Texbubba 0]

Stumpy

***My right to CHOOSE to carry/own a firearm does not make any other citizen(TK) any more in danger than he is normally in, but if you make it illegal to own/carry a firearm you are making me and every one else easier targets/victims.

The 2nd and my choice dont affect or infringe on you or your safety, but your desire to take that away does affect my safety.

All of that is demonstrably false, but never mind.

No never mind. Demonstrate it.
Demonstrate for us how having no means of defense is safer than having a means of defense.
Then, please tell the criminals that a defenseless person is not an easier target. They will appreciate the information.

[Texbubba 0]

billvon

That "POS" may well have been exercising his Constitutional right to defend himself from what he considered to be an angry mob threatening him. (Since he was drunk his judgment was arguably poor.) A second gun may have resulted in two or more people dead rather than one.

Only if the second guy is too slow.
sarcasm

Quote

Perhaps we need fewer people shooting other people, rather than more.

Can't argue with that. What do you think will accomplish that? Dissolving parts of the constitution?

[ibx 2]

Quote

Can't argue with that. What do you think will accomplish that? Dissolving parts of the constitution?

,

Exactly. Maybe parts of a 250 year old document that has been amended many times to keep up with the times is not the all out guarantee for great living you make it out to be.

In case you haven't noticed, the kingdom of England is now your greatest ally.

You know things change.... So should things like your holy constitution.

[CornishChris 5]

***
yeah... a properly maintained modern firearm in working order will not discharge when dropped. Yes, that was a well qualified statement.



Tell that to some of these idiots:
http://dependviral.com/new-the-best-shooting-gun-fail-2015/

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[RonD1120 58]

ibx

You know things change.... So should things like your holy constitution.

That is bovine scatology. We are number one because we have a foundational document.

America: 2
Germany: 0

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Coreeece 2]

ibx

In case you haven't noticed, the kingdom of England is now your greatest ally.

Meh, they're more like our bitch.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Just like the story in the OP. The suspect was DRUNK, DUI is just as big a danger to the public as a
>firearm in said drunks hands.

Agreed. So you would support making penalties for carrying while drunk match the penalties for DWI?

If the situation caused even half as many deaths as driving drunk then yes, we should have the discussion.
But it is not even close to that now is it........

In fact, it is extremely rare.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

ibx

Quote

Can't argue with that. What do you think will accomplish that? Dissolving parts of the constitution?

,

Exactly. Maybe parts of a 250 year old document that has been amended many times to keep up with the times is not the all out guarantee for great living you make it out to be.

In case you haven't noticed, the kingdom of England is now your greatest ally.

You know things change.... So should things like your holy constitution.

It is suited to the times as it was that well thought out and written

You just don't like it so you make goofy statements like those above........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Kadde 0]

Do you really expect people who believe in a 2000 year old storybook to use that type of logic?

[rehmwa 2]

I don't think drunk people should have the TV remote.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants