73-87chevytrucks.com
General Site Info => General Discussion => Topic started by: bladerunner on April 04, 2012, 12:21:50 pm
-
I realize we have several firearm related threads, so hopefully we do not overlap too much.
I just finished listening to this broadcast:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-03/stand-your-ground-and-concealed-weapons-laws (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-03/stand-your-ground-and-concealed-weapons-laws)
In general, it is a discussion of conceal carry and stand your ground gun laws. At one point in the show (around 20 minutes in), one commentator is asked what her general impression is of what law enforcement thinks of these laws. She basically goes on to say that many police officers she has talked to have a negative view as these laws allow gun owners to take matters into their own hands.
So just to keep things focused here: I believe we have members of law enforcement on the board. I am just curious if that is the case? I can certainly see that as being true, but at the same time, I have met police officers who seem to think these laws are good. I guess it would be helpful to understand the differences in gun laws in each state, and in this program, most of the commentators were taking issue with Florida's gun laws.
After listening to the whole thing, I do get a sense that most anti-gun lobbyists/thinkers always see guns as tools to primarily harm innocent people, while pro-gun lobbyists/thinkers always emphasize the ability of a gun to protect. I guess I come away thinking there is a bit too much rhetoric on both sides. I can see the validity of both sides.
-
Don't forget that the Diane Rehm Show is an NPR based show. I do listen to that on occasion even if I don't agree with them. I like to know what's going on out there in left field.
My biggest issue with all that is that I in no way want anybody deciding who is privileged enough to carry a concealed weapon when it comes to a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. To me it seems black and white...If you can legally then you should be able to.
When it comes to the issue of actually having to use one in self defense...In today's society unfortunately you better hope there is a credible witness to back you up. The pro gun side will say "good thing he had a gun" and the anti gun side will say "see why guns are so bad now we have vigilantes with guns". Both sides will always think they are right. That will never go away.
I can't see any law enforcement officer ever wanting to stop law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. However they have no control of the actions of the law abiding citizen after they issue a concealed carry permit. That's left to how much comman sense and good judgement the person has. Which should be a whole lot more than a violent criminal has.
-
Don't forget that the Diane Rehm Show is an NPR based show. I do listen to that on occasion even if I don't agree with them. I like to know what's going on out there in left field.
Very aware of that. I believe in having a well balanced media diet. And by that I mean getting both sides, left and right, which means listening to a lot of stuff. Frankly, there is no show or network that I believe does that effectively.
I guess I come away feeling that if someone wants a concealed weapon, they should meet certain standards. Don't ask me what those should be, but certainly some states do a better job than others.
-
I don't know about other states, but in Kentucky you do have to meet certain standards. Its not legal to carry a concealed weapon unless you pass the concealed carry class and get your permit. I assume there is some kind of background check or other criteria as well. It is unlikely that we can stop the criminals from carrying concealed weapons, I want some of the good guys to have them too.
-
I wish that everyone, on both sides would remember, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
I get a little upset when people tell me I can not do something especially when they don't know me or what I am capable of doing.
-
i am always of the opinion that no one should restrict law-abiding citizens from carrying, except proving the person knows the laws and can efficiently use the weapon. Criminals should not be the only people carrying--and they do plenty of that, regardless of what the laws say. Why should criminals have the upper hand in any confrontation?
Now, here in Va, the governor just took a bunch of heat for killing the law that was in place for many years. For a while people, except for police, could not buy more than one gun a month. In my mind, that law proved nothing. Glad the governor overturned that law. Mayor Bloomberg of NY didn't like that VA did this, because he says many of the guns in NY came from VA so he is crying all the time. Sorry Mikey, if you lock up your criminals for more than 30 days at a time your crime rate will decrease, don't blame crime on inanimate objects like guns that are nothing more than paperweights without someone pulling the trigger. So, as mentioned before, guns don't kill people---in NY or Va.
Gun control activists would love nothing more than to have only criminals carry weapons, or, at least they think if the good guys won't carry, the bad won't either...yeah right. I don't understand that.
I am in law enforcement and have been for 21 years now. I wish everyone who is not a mental subject, a subject of a restraining order, or a convicted felon or assaultive misdemeanor, would carry. Cops can only react. If you really want to defend yourself, you better consider carrying and train considerably with your chosen tool. Even up the odds. If criminals knew more people carried, it would deter their behavior and they wouldn't have free reign of the world.
-
If criminals knew more people carried, it would deter their behavior and they wouldn't have free reign of the world.
I agree 100% with this statement. I would say that around 90% of criminals are opportunist, which in short means that if the opportunity wasn't so easy they wouldn't be committing the crime. If they knew that there was a chance of everyone carrying a gun they would be less likely to steal or commit the crime in the first place.
Now of course there is the other 10% of people who no matter what are going to commit the crime. Well, the only way for them to learn is to get shot I guess.
-
I see no need to carry a gun, at least not in my country. Our laws are pretty restrictive anyway. To me it seems like once someone starts carrying a gun then everyone else thinks they need a gun to protect themselves from everyone else with a gun. I don't want anyone to be offended, that's just my opinion.
-
If every person, without fail had a gun in their house, and everyone knew it, criminals wouldn't be so likely to break in. The need to carry at all times depends on where you live, though I'd rather have a means of defense and not need it, than to be in a bad spot because i am defenseless.
I saw a saying once, and its totally awesome and i don't see how this isn't 100% true.
"Blaming guns for columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat".
If they ban guns, only criminals and cops will have them, and criminals FAR outnumber cops. So by default i think whoever wants to ban guns is mentally inferior and has led a padded life. Guns are the difference between us being citizens or being subjects.
I don't carry usually but I do have a 10ga shotgun loaded at all times in my house. It hangs in its place, loaded and ready to go. i feel safe that if a break in happens, they're the victim, NOT ME. I can wake up and get to that weapon in 4 seconds. And If they're in my house I can do whatever I feel the need to do.
If every criminal that broke in a house got his leg blown off, they'd quick that crap real dang quick.
I was tickled that GA finally enacted the stand your ground law a year or two ago. That means someone has some sense.
Besides, have you ever been ANYWHERE where things got a little out of hand, and somebody just cocked a shotgun (to calm everybody down) didn't even point it at anybody, just had to make the sound. that sound will calm down a lot of problems with the quickness. situation diffused and nobody got shot.
Hand guns are the equalizer... a 300lb man vs a 120lb woman; 120 lb woman loses, no question, unless SHE has a gun. a 300lb man with a gun vs 120lb woman with a gun, is an even match. Guns don't come into play if your carrying and someone want to talk about a problem with you, however a gun can mean life or death if they have a problem with you and want to use force. why do you think 120lb women get targeted? how often do criminals target 300lb UFC fighters? they don't, for good reason. criminals want the weakest/easiest target, period.
Would I want my 120lb wife to carry. No question, yes, IF she's trained properly and won't use it for stupid crap.
I do think you must train if you are going to carry. don't want the wife fumbling to pull her gun and shooting a hole through the bottom of her purse into her own foot, now do we? ;)
Unless I have a cop following me all the time as my personal bodyguard, I'd rather have my own means to defend myself than have to wait 5 to 30 minutes for the police to arrive to help me. Once the cops arrive all is usually ok, but will they get there IN TIME? not likely.
Gun Control at its finest:
http://www.wnd.com/2000/03/1933/ (http://www.wnd.com/2000/03/1933/)
(http://waznmentobe.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/GunControlWorks4.jpg)
This one is just a funny, but I'd do this in real life. Why don't all non gun owners put a sign in their yard proclaiming they have no guns and don't believe in them? Instant target, that's why.
(http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/64/51/bb02ceac59aacc3d6b01c466012eaa38.jpg)
-
nuck, I respect your desire not to possess and bear certain tools with which you may be able to defend yourself and others, just so long as you respect my right to do so.
The idea that an armed populace is a violent and touchy populace has been disproven time and time again, but since most folks get their worldview from the mainstream press, you'll rarely see much coverage of the over 2 million successful "saves" with firearms every year. If it doesn't bleed... they don't bother, and usually brandishing your gun at a potential assailant will end the confrontation. Criminals with yellow stripes down their back will wander off to look for easier prey. If the odds aren't in their favor, due to a large percentage of armed folks, they'll have to either leave town, or find honest work.
I've listened to people who will energetically argue against my right to bear arms, and their strongest point is that they "don't understand" why anyone would feel the need.... yada yada... if your best argument is an admission that you don't understand the issue... here's your sign.
As for the Michael Moore-ons, who seem to think that we carry our arms based on some uncontrollable sense of fear, screaming like a girl and peppering the area with gunfire every time we're startled... well, it takes a real mush-for-brains to believe what he scoops out by the ton. I think the stereotype belongs more to the limousine-liberals with their armed security guards (so they don't have to touch the dirty evil guns themselves) and politicians who are afraid of the *real* reason we have a 2nd amendment... backed up by a growing number of hoplophobes who don't really understand their feelings in the first place.
-
as long as you know when and how to use one, go for it. if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns
-
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
-
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
That would make a great bumper sticker!
-
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
That IS an awesome bumper sticker! I might have to have that made up for myself.
That says it all. I can't think of anyhting to add to that... :)
-
trying to say cops are fat? 8) lol
-
trying to say cops are fat? 8) lol
Nope, they just dont fit in my pocket very well.
-
If the pocket is big enough, I could fit in.
BTW, why aren't donut shops robbed often?
I do like the idea of that bumper sticker, or a T-shirt slogan
"I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy." Perfect.
Great points mentioned here. You only see the negative issues in the media...never see the good (unless a 90 yr old grandma is toting or a mom protecting her baby with a shotgun) because it doesn't make interesting news and the media's goal is one thing--to attract viewers. There are so many more incidents where things go bad that DO make the news--but it is a very small minority.
And weapons are the equalizer, just like the old saying "God created man, but Samuel Colt made man equal"
Last night on BookTV (Cspan2) I watched a live call-in show with the author of the #1 bestseller American Sniper, Chris Kyle. When a caller asked how he feels about anyone being able to purchase a gun, this hyper-gun culture, after the likes of Va Tech, Oakland, and all the school shootings, Kyle's reply was, "I am 100% for the right to bear arms. It's my right to be able to have it. It's everyone's responsibility to learn everything about their weapons and how to use them. There are some who don't deserve a weapon--those who will go out and act stupid. Gun control itself, the only thing it's going to do is take the guns away from law-abiding citizens --the criminals are still going to have them."
I have a new hero. I have a new book to read.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51IiP7QgakL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
Now I will say this, and I have followed the Va Tech incident, being in Va myself, and watched the recent court proceedings, etc... What do all these school shootings (Oakland, Columbine, Va Tech, Poducha, that Omish school in PA) have in common? Criminal know there are no guns in the classroom. I am not saying put loaded weapons in kid's classrooms, but, this is a microcosm of society---the criminals will commit their acts in places they know they won't get shot back at for a while--until the damage is done. What does gun control do? Increase these places.
I AM for college students, who are trained and properly licensed and of age, being able to carry ON CAMPUS. There is no reason not to and all the reason in the world to do so. And professors and deans who want to carry? The more the merrier.
In my line of work, I am just sick of criminals getting the upper hand and citizens not wanting to or able to defend themselves. Don't leave it up to law enforcement--we just react to situations--we dont have a crystal ball and predict where the next crime will take place, but, you, the citizen, can do something about it. CRIME WILL DECREASE IF MORE PEOPLE CARRIED. It is called a deterrent.
-
In Canada we're not allowed to protect our property anyways. I'm sure criminals know that if they are shot they have more rights that the person who's property they were stealing or breaking into.
This guy gets 90 days in jail for trying to protect his property:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/10/07/edmonton-red-deer-vigilante-knight-sentence.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/10/07/edmonton-red-deer-vigilante-knight-sentence.html)
-
In Canada we're not allowed to protect our property anyways. I'm sure criminals know that if they are shot they have more rights that the person who's property they were stealing or breaking into.
This guy gets 90 days in jail for trying to protect his property:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/10/07/edmonton-red-deer-vigilante-knight-sentence.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/10/07/edmonton-red-deer-vigilante-knight-sentence.html)
I don't know about this story, why didn't he shoot him while on his atv, why shoot him after he got off ? That seems a little bit too much like revenge for stealing his atv.
Another question I have for you who live in Canada. What would happen if he had a dog or dogs who attacked the 3 men, would he still go to jail for protecting his property that way ?
-
There is always a possibility that the dogs could land you in court as well.
Someone comes into your yard at night to steal something and gets attacked and injured by a dog, they will make up some story that their vehicle broke down and came looking for a place to use a phone and got attacked by the dogs. Then you will get pinched for having aggressive dogs on the loose.
It's always possible, but I haven't heard of any incidents lately where dogs have been the issue like in the previous mentioned article about the shooting.
-
I had a lawyer friend that stated it best. He said to remember, if someone breaks into your house or you feel like your life is in danger, dead men dont testify. Its either him or you. He stated several cases where the home owner let the criminal get away only to have that criminal come back more prepared. I hope I never have to encounter this situation, but I guarantee Im prepared to be the only one testifying.
-
good point chop, there is a reason they call it deadly force. If you must resort to deadly force, and can justify it, it is all fair game. We do not shoot to injure...we shoot to stop the threat. If someone has a weapon, therefore we are justified to use deadly force to protect, we do not utilize our weapon to injure, we use it to stop the threat. As long as he is able to squeeze the trigger, he is still a threat, so, center mass it is and not just one shot. We must ensure the threat is contained. Interpret that as you will.
-
I guarantee Im prepared to be the only one testifying.
I agree !
Better to be judged by twelve then carried by six ;)
-
Better to be judged by twelve then carried by six ;)
Well said! Back to the beginning, NPR??? I used to listen to NPR stations before I realized the slanted trash I was listening to. So, so sad that you can't find any unbiased reporting on there, and they take public funds (no matter how small they claim it is). You absolutely, positively won't hear both sides of this issue there.
-
NPR---only on the air because of tax money carrying it. If the storeis were slanted the other way, it wouldn't be on the air because they'd yank the tax funding. Why can't NPR stay on the air without tax support like all other stations?
-
trying to say cops are fat? 8) lol
Yeah, you got a problem? If cops were lighter I could be safe and not have to take care of myself...lmao! 8)
-
Quote from: Irish_Alley on April 08, 2012, 02:51:41 AM
trying to say cops are fat? lol
I resemble that quote. Well, not for long, running another marathon in 7 months.
-
Wow. Been awhile since I checked up again on this thread.
Back to the beginning, NPR???
Well, I listen to a lot of different things, get a good spread on a subject. I think as long as you go in ready to hear a certain perspective, you can use that to filter our some of the bias. That said, I try to listen to shows that have a different opinion then mine. No fun always listening to people I agree with.
I really appreciate Lt.Del's perspective as a law enforcement officer on this. I just could not believe most cops really think that citizens should not carry. The only police officer who would say that is probably a Sheriff gunning for political office or something.
-
Why can't NPR stay on the air without tax support like all other stations?
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. ;)
-
Why can't NPR stay on the air without tax support like all other stations?
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. ;)
As I've understood it, NPR's gubmint subsidies are between 10-15% of their operating costs, after considering "advertising" and other private contributions. If it were a private network, they'd just tighten their belt and survive the relatively small budget cut. They don't *have" to, though, so they continue to operate as they do... with the understandable bias that naturally follows when gravy is ladled out from the public coffers.
Another effect of their operating outside of competition.... I can't listen to 'em, and stay awake anyway. They're the audio equivalent of watching mold growing on toast.
-
i was just making a point about the funding for NPR. If it was politically slanted the other way, there is no way the gov't would put one penny towards its operating costs.
Since we are borrowing so much Chinese money because we have none, i don't know why we are funding a radio network. Well, really I know why but we shouldn't.
-
Well, really I know why but we shouldn't.
isnt this true with most government stuff ::)
-
oh andy just noticed congrats on the brass bar
-
oh andy just noticed congrats on the brass bar
Thanks Irish.
I don't wear my uniform hardly ever anymore, resorted to dress shirt/tie/slacks (in charge of investigations) so my Lieutenant bars aren't showing and many still call me Sarge, they don't bother reading the badge on my belt. The few times I realize it (i'm not used to it yet myself) I laugh, since I was a sarge for 15 yrs.
Thanks, Chris, for changing my user name!
-
I am all in favor of NPR losing its government funding as well. I also don't feel the slightest twinge of guilt never supporting their stations, even though I was chewed out by a hardcore NPR fan for doing so.
Plus I always figured the true government radio was Voice of America. A bit extraneous if you ask me to have NPR and VOA. Let NPR stand on its own merits and earn its living like any other radio station I say.
-
...They're the audio equivalent of watching mold growing on toast.
I love doing that! better than watching grass grow, no doubt! 8)