rhaig

not if used on private property. -- Rob

removing guns from the citizenry (sounds like what you want to do) will (and has elsewhere) result in a rise in violent crime. The CDC published study (in 2012) about gun violence estimated between 500K and 3M defensive gun uses each year (DGU defined as showing, brandishing, or firing to stop a violent crime). In the US in 2011 (stats available at the time of the study) there were 1,214,462 violent crimes. Extrapolating, guns in the hands of the citizenry possibly prevented between 6,000 and 37,000 murders, between 35,000 and 208,000 rapes, between 146,000 and 875,000 robberies, and between 313,000 and 1,879,000 aggravated assaults. Where is the tradeoff a good one for you? -- Rob

Wow. No wonder California is broke. Why do you hate poor sick people? Because they're poor. And sick. And people. Be an equal opportunity hater. -- Rob

I buy organic when it tastes better. Bananas. That's it. -- Rob

Yes, but the reasons behind that are more about identification of the transmitting parties and not the access to the data. Otherwise things like broadband hamnet would be illegal. The FCC allows encrypted transmissions on licensed frequencies. (thus identifying the party in question) -- Rob

yes, it's picking a nit, but the 5th is the saturday before the election. Did you mean the 8th perhaps? And I don't care who wins on that day. They've all gotten so far away from what's good for the country, and are concentrating on what's good for the party. We're fucked. -- Rob

use of belts in a bus was mentioned in post 5. -- Rob

So when can we expect Hillary to order the return of the money that foreign governments donated to the Clinton Foundation (aka, the Bill & Hillary's bribery slush fund). Or at least the donations that came from countries that support stoning of women? Or the ones that fall outside the foundation's ethics agreement with the state department? -- Rob

No it isn't. Yes it is. -- Rob

http://www.those-who-serve.com/2015/06/07/very-un-pretty-police-interaction/ An officer's opinion on the incident. -- Rob

TX law says you aren't required to provide ID unless you are under "legal arrest" (I think that's the wording). Yes, this applies to traffic stops. It is a crime to provide false ID (be it physical or verbal) to an officer. The Austin police chief doesn't seem to like those rules, but that's not on topic. I will certainly take corrections on the above. It's from (sleepy) memory, and I know we have more than one TX LEO in this forum. -- Rob

Obtuse angles? well I can't say if he's a cute angle, and while he's right sometimes, like all of us, not all the time. So I guess that leaves being obtuse. -- Rob

They're in the process of passing licensed open carry here in TX. To me it's a matter of convenience. I sometimes concealed carry under a jacket or long shirt. Less worry about accidental exposure now. That's the only reason I can see the utility of open carry. Convenience. -- Rob

so not all police are bad. Are at least not all stupid. :) -- Rob

some people thing just because it's legal, they should do it. It's hard to fix stupid. Some people think that by doing this, they're helping people be less afraid of guns. There has been so much hype about the evil black rifles that are killing machines, that people are afraid of guns. They should be afraid of actions, not objects. While I understand the point of these types of open carriers, and at some level agree with them, it's an execution issue. The way they're executing on this idea isn't accomplishing their goal. -- Rob

two different departments. Likely two different levels of training and awareness. Aside from that the only thing I can see is that the second man had the rifle in a position that could be more easily deployed for immediate use. What's interesting is that in this open carry display http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20140820-huey-p.-newton-gun-club-leads-open-carry-rally-in-south-dallas.ece Some of the members are clearly violating TX law in the way they are carrying the firearms. They are clearly brandishing. But if your all police are bad mentality holds true, they would have been shot at. This is a difference in awareness of open carry laws and training in response. -- Rob

You may have intelligent points to make. I'll never know. You continually use slang derogatory terms for the people you're discussing. I can't respect that. Nor care enough about your opinion to read your posts. -- Rob

looks like that sheriff's dept needs some additional training. However, both of these fall under the heading of "just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's a good idea". -- Rob

Saw that earlier today. That was a good bit. -- Rob

I guess if he was in Tejas.... the shooter could use the "He needed killin" excuse instead of SYG. yeah... well sometimes (though admittedly rarely) that's just the case http://abcnews.go.com/US/charges-texas-father-beat-death-daughters-molester/story?id=16612071 -- Rob

Really it's an officer education issue. Can't have an officer walking up to a law abiding citizen and saying "Hey, I'm not sure if your knife is legal. Give it to me until we're sure." That may be the way you guys roll up in kanukistan, but not down here. -- Rob

I was just addressing the knife as I offered info on knives earlier in the thread. -- Rob

Was his name Lincoln Sternn? http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Captain_Lincoln_F._Sternn -- Rob

So as it turns out, the knife in question was a spring assist blade. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/us/freddie-gray-knife/ So the blade was legal under state law, but not city law. -- Rob

I wouldn't mind if they kept to regulating visible things. I'm not "allowed" to put up a ham radio antenna (or actually any antenna) on my property even if it's not visible from off my property. I have to pay $20 to apply to be able to paint my house the same color it is right now. Yes, I signed the contract after I read the restrictions. I fully expected to be able to get an exception for an antenna that isn't visible. -- Rob