Man shopping for coffee creamer at Walmart attacked by vigilante for carrying gun he was legally per
Source: Tampa Bay Times
BRANDON — Clarence Daniels had just crossed the threshold of Walmart's front doors on Tuesday, in search of coffee creamer for his wife, when the gun in hip holster gave a well-intentioned vigilante the idea he was up to something more sinister.
From the Walmart parking lot at 11110 Causeway Boulevard, Michael Foster, 43, of Lithia had watched Daniels, 62, take from his car the handgun — for which he holds a concealed carry permit — and place it on his hip underneath his coat, Hillsborough sheriff's deputies reported.
As Daniels entered the store, a label for the coffee creamer in his pocket in case he forgot the brand, Foster tackled him to the ground and placed him in a choke hold, sheriff's spokesman Larry McKinnon said.
"He's got a gun!" deputies said Foster shouted
Read more: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/man-shopping-for-coffee-creamer-at-walmart-attacked-by-vigilante-for/2214432
"a well-intentioned vigilante"
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
brendan120678
(2,490 posts)If he was that concerned, he should have notified the police or store management.
Could have easily been injured or killed for his dumb actions.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)The well intentioned man didn't want to be another gun victim.
brendan120678
(2,490 posts)He then snuck up behind the victim as he was entering the store. He would not have been at risk if he had stayed in the parking lot and called the police.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)Put himself into harms way to protect himself from another gun wielding person.
brendan120678
(2,490 posts)Been nefarious. Because he spotted the victim holstering the firearm when they were both outside.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)And his selflessness is commendable. We need more brave people like this.
In Paris they just gave a guy citizenship for a similar brave act.
brendan120678
(2,490 posts)as to the intentions of the gunmen.
Reter
(2,188 posts)The gun owner's name was Clarence. Most likely black.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #230)
Name removed Message auto-removed
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
I thought not....
Reter
(2,188 posts)I guess I shouldn't have assumed though, you are right though.
elleng
(130,923 posts)and thanks for recognizing that you shouldn't have assumed. Welcome.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)
jmowreader
(50,559 posts)That would be Clarence Thomas, justice of the Supreme Court.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)elleng
(130,923 posts)White 'hero' couldn't deal with an African American with a gun.
Conceal/Carry=what could possibly go wrong???
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)fuck all gun owners..get rid of all guns we need to be more like Denmark, Sweden etc
niyad
(113,318 posts)Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)Would that be something you considered?
christx30
(6,241 posts)hero have been more or less likely to have tackled a white guy with a gun?
I think that's what the poster is going for, or how I'm reading it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Sad that it was a correct assumption. The gun nuts don't want just anyone to carry a gun, just the whites so they can have open season with their lax gun laws and stand your ground. Ugh.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Are you joking???
This is what you get with guns and permits. People are allowed to walk around with guns. The guy wasn't doing anything illegal so there was no reason for him to be assaulted. I understand the intentions of the attacker - and I'm against all this concealed carry/open carry and guns in general - but this was a law abiding man that was tackled. The guy who assaulted an elderly man is an idiot, not a hero.
Glengoolie
(39 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And who cares about them, right?
This is the detail all the 2nd amendment champions always gloss over. (Well, one of the many).
When more and more people start running around with guns how exactly do the good guys with guns identify the bad guys with guns to stop them before the bad guys with guns start shooting? Or does it just become an arms race seeing who panics and shoots at the other armed individual first because they looked funny or whatever?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)HOW do the "good guys" identify the "bad guys with guns" before they start shooting?
How was anyone supposed to look at some guy walking into a Walmart with a gun and make the evaluation "that guy's no threat" or "that guy's about to go nuts and go on a shooting spree"?
Please, enlighten us.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)At risk of what? The man was a law abiding guy going in for creamer. Someone who is afraid of guns thought he was going to commit a crime. But why did he think that? I assume it's because Daniels is black.
So why would an innocent black man going into a store to purchase creamer, carrying a concealed weapon, be putting everyone in the store at risk?
For the record, I'm for major gun control, I hate guns, I don't see any reason people should carry them around. But I think your statement about risk is incorrect. I agree with what you say in this last post as to how do you know, but if the law is that you are allowed to carry a gun then people need to deal with that responsibly. Tackling an innocent person just because they are carrying a gun is just plain stupid and overzealous. And I don't for one minute think that guy would have felt so in danger if Daniels wasn't black. There is no question in my mind that racism was in play here. He could have followed the guy to see if he did anything illegal if he wanted, but he had no right to tackle someone who was simply walking into a store and he didn't make anyone safer by doing so, especially everyone in the store.
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)Without knowing a thing about the man with the gun aside from the fact that he is armed, how the fuck is anyone supposed to determine whether or not he's a good guy or a bad guy?
When gabby Giffords was shot, the first good guy with a gun arrived to see a woman hosting a weapon with dead people on the ground. He held his fire and later found out she was holding the weapon on the killer, if having been wrestled away from him. It would not have been inconceivable that she be shot instead.
Gunfire in the mall. The good guys come running, guns out. How do they know which one is the bad shooter?
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)First case- shots fired, armed civilian runs to scene, sees a woman holding a gun but the situation is unclear. He does not fire.
Second case- man notices a man has a holstered gun going into Walmart. Violently assaults him. Turns out he is a legal carrier going shopping.
Who showed the better restraint and made the better choice- the man with the gun or the vigilante?
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)They both made snap judgments. The situation could have easily gone the other way.
Remember the Walmart patriot shootings? Good guy with gun confronts nuts, is shot down. The Paris shootings, two good guys with guns and lots of training killed. The only good guys with guns who had a decent chance were counter terror teams.
Odds are that a guy I see with a gun is a concealed carry nut and not a killer. But the funny thing about gun owners, they're good guys right up until they go bad and the vast majority of shooters also happen to own the guna they use.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)actually it is very clear to me.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...is you can't be bothered to think seriously about it.
You are still incapable of answering the question put to you, but that just doesn't even register with you does it?
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)very seriously. Do you?
I took the question as rhetorical. I may have a few years on me but I do remember the events in Las Vegas. I don't see that as cause to assault someone who is shopping.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And the answer to it rather colors your ability to call the assault unprovoked.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)To identify separate unconnected incidents. That is not coloring, it it reasoning.
I would like to know the thought process that would conclude the victim provoked the attack.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Let me put it this way. If this story had read, in an alternate history:
Man walking into community center attacked by vigilante for carrying his legally possessed firearms
BIRMINGHAM - Jiverly Wong had just crossed the threshold of the American Civic Association immigration center on Friday, where he had attended English Language classes, when the gun he was carrying gave a well-intentioned vigilante the idea he was up to something more sinister.
...
What would your reaction here have been? Would you have given the exact same rant about how that idiot vigilante was running around assaulting law abiding citizens for no reason and there was obviously no risk to the people inside that justified this unprovoked assault?
If not... why not?
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)It is not illegal to carry a gun into the community center.
I may observe him for a bit if he seems distressed.
I do not believe in assaulting someone who is not an imminent threat.
Now if it is in his hand...
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...is the one that gave us 13 innocent dead people in that situation.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)is attack anyone you perceive as a potential threat.
No thank you, I'll risk the rare crazy person if the alternative is daily mob justice.
Care to speculate any demographic that is more likely to be a target of that well-intentioned violence?
Hint: Black Lives Matter
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)So you have conceded that having an armed populace is no kind of effective defense against the "bad guy with a gun" scenario at least.
So I expect you never use that... right?
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)For self defense is no more a protector of society than a person with a fire extinguisher in their car is a fire department.
Either might on occasion help others with what they have but it is not the primary intent of carrying such.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)When someone is doing something that is perfectly legal and mundane, you don't get to couch your ('your' rhetorically, obviously you didn't attack anyone) over-reaction as the victims fault.
If he was waving it around. Holding it in his hand. Menacing people with it. That sort of shit, sure. But a person with a gun in a holster, that was in fact concealed inside the Wal-Mart (the attacker saw him transferring it into a holster (A HOLSTER not just jamming it in his waistband, another clue)) in his vehicle, and then followed him into the store should give you no cause for alarm.
He could easily have been a plain clothes police officer. By all reports, no one inside the Wal-Mart was aware he was carrying at all, until captain kangaroo decided a black man with a gun* is super scary and jumped him.
*In a holster, not bothering anyone.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Will be fascinated to hear your response.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'd like to better address your question. But there was no point during that attack, or the moments leading up to it, in which his behavior wouldn't have warranted extreme alarm.
If he'd walked in calmly, with a concealed holstered firearm, no one would have known to tackle him anyway, and many people killed in the attack would have had opportunity to escape, because the doors wouldn't have been barricaded.
However, I see your point. I would perhaps use the attack on Gabrielle Giffords as a substitute scenario, had someone perceived him being armed, and target-fixated on the Congresswoman. Still risky though. Unless one could successfully suss out the nature of the individual, one could be tackling a plainclothes officer/security.
I require an overt threat before intervening in any situation, and even then, it's subject to misconstrual. We had a lawyer coaching my group on the legalities and hazards of using deadly force in self defense. He painted a scenario for us, a woman, running, screaming down the street. Heel broken, possessions flying, etc. Two big burly men chasing her. Long story short, the scenario he painted was actually a prostitute fleeing two undercover cops, and all the scenario participants that jumped in to be a hero, went to jail, lives irrevocably altered by interfering with or assaulting police officers.
I'm afraid there's no easy answer here, beyond what I am doing, all day, every day, when I encounter anyone. I make eye contact, I read their disposition/body language, etc. Knowing that the person might have a firearm on their person doesn't change that analysis for me.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I require an overt threat before intervening in any situation,
While recognizing that by the time you reach "overt threat" to the level you seem to be outlining here it's too late. People are almost certainly going to start to die. if you wait for him to barricade the door you're either following him to the building and now outside a barricaded door... or you were already inside and it would be a stroke of pure luck if you saw what he was doing, happened to be close enough to him to do something about it immediately, reacted instantly and decisively, and didn't get killed in the process.
And THAT is why "Presence of gun = perceived threat" is a completely legitimate connection to make and concluding that there was a risk to the safety of the people inside the store was in no way unreasonable.
As opposed to "short skirt = invitation to sexual assault" in which there is no such scenario in which you can say "but if THIS had been about to happen then that guy would have totally been justified in raping her!"
And yes, there are obviously LOTS of situations in which that threat evaluation will be incorrect and there actually was no threat. And that is the problem with letting hordes of people walk around with guns all the time. It creates these situations everywhere where you can either take quite possibly unnecessary and incident *provoking* pre-emptive action or wait to see if people start dropping dead. Which was the original point of the first post I made in this little exchange, which received a rather ridiculously intentionally obtuse response acting like it was impossible to conceive of how a gun could be perceived as a risk to anyone.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not a very subtle opener.
I see your point, but again, I don't have a way to discriminate between 'good guys' and 'bad guys' based on the sole indicator that they have or may have a firearm on their person. That alone, is not enough. The simple fact that police exist tells me I cannot simply assume a person with a gun is a threat.
Some of this might come from cultural differences. I have a CPL. I carry. I *know* when someone else is carrying, unless they've jammed it up their ass or something incredibly unorthodox. If it's in a holster, I can tell. We always acknowledge each other, and then continue on. Police officers do it too. They know when I'm carrying. There are body language cues. Two looks, one at me, one at the spot on my body where the firearm is concealed. There's a silent, greeting/handshake thing going on. And from that, they develop a threat assessment based on a person's apparent intent, which is much more revealing than the simple fact one is carrying a gun.
Awareness of an individuals intent to commit harm is incredibly important. If you predicate it on the presence of a gun, you might be addressing the force multiplier effect of the firearm, in the rare case where it's a 'bad guy', but you're missing the guy with the knife, the blunt object, the hands/fists/feet, etc, that also can produce severe bodily harm/death.
There's about 9 million people with CPL's nationwide. Not all carry all the time, but that's still a crapload of people. Add in the police officers, on duty or off, plain or marked, and you've got a LOT of people who normally carry a firearm in public, without threatening anyone.
I reject 'but this was about to happen' because it was in no way predicated on the victim's behavior. His attacker imagined it. He did nothing to warrant alarm.
We don't do 'pre-crime' in the US. We can't. The cost is too high.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I see your point, but again, I don't have a way to discriminate between 'good guys' and 'bad guys' based on the sole indicator that they have or may have a firearm on their person. That alone, is not enough.
There isn't a way to discriminate.
At least not until an attack has actually begun and people are going to start dying at that point. Which is the rebuttal to the entire silly idea that we need to have "good guys" carrying guns everywhere to protect people from the bad guys carrying guns. You generally can't tell the difference between the two until it's tool late!
"I reject 'but this was about to happen' because it was in no way predicated on the victim's behavior. His attacker imagined it. He did nothing to warrant alarm. "
So are you rejecting the idea that "presence of weapon designed to kill people in hands of person I have no idea of the motivations of in place there is no obvious reason to bring it" is in itself something that reasonably warrants alarm?
Because I'm having difficulty figuring out how you justify that.
"We don't do 'pre-crime' in the US. We can't. The cost is too high"
Would you like to identify roughly where the threshold is when a cost of any given policy becomes "too high"? Would many thousand dead citizens per year as a result of all the guns laying around the general population be above or below that threshold?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't view it as a silly idea. Sometimes it's costly, but not silly. There are instances where first responders who are NOT police officers, have had a positive impact on these situations. Sometimes good. Sometimes they die doing it. But I would never call it silly.
An example, the Tyler Tx. courthouse shooting. Mark Allen Wilson responded, and stopped the shooter from firing at the courthouse any more, where multiple police officers were pinned down, and also stopped the shooter from executing his own son on the courthouse steps. Wilson died doing it, but he certainly saved one life, possibly more, and gave officers with rifles time to respond to an active shooter that not only was wearing a bullet proof vest, but also a flak jacket over that, and armed with a rifle. That's a good guy with a gun, stopping a total murdering shitbag from achieving his objective. Cost him his life. Congress posthumously recognized his action.
It doesn't happen every day. It's not always clean. It doesn't always save EVERYONE's life. Sometimes it comes at great cost. The Tacoma Mall shooter (Maldonado) encountered an armed citizen, and the encounter gave other potential victims time to get away. The responder tried to talk the shooter into dropping his weapon, and instead, the shooter shot him through the spine. He'll be paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his life, but, with a gun, he did the right thing, and helped the situation. Nobody got shot after that exchange. He helped.
As to the cost, I keep in mind, we're talking about a civil right here. It's not beyond some regulation, to be certain, and I suspect we would find much common ground on many regulations.
But on this, we disagree: "in place there is no obvious reason to bring it". We estimate 'reasons' very differently.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"I don't view it as a silly idea. Sometimes it's costly, but not silly. There are instances where first responders who are NOT police officers, have had a positive impact on these situations. Sometimes good. Sometimes they die doing it. But I would never call it silly. "
If you have policy A in which, across it's entirety, X number of people get killed per year. And then you have policy B in which X times 4 or 5 people get killed each year, any attempt to call spolicy B reasonable by pointing at some isolated saved people and ignoring the many many times more dead people is silly.
And that is exactly the situation we have here. Thousands of unnecessary civilian deaths per year in the US because of the nations gun policies are not somehow balanced out by "but every once in a while at some random place the stars align just so and something good happens...".
"As to the cost, I keep in mind, we're talking about a civil right here."
Very few people outside the US consider the freedom to carry deadly weapons around everywhere a "civil right". Nor, frankly, should they. That's just more of the silly at work. It is an irrational peculiarity of US culture caused by fetishizing a Constitutional amendment that became obsolete a VERY long time ago when the militias stopped being the nation's primary military forces or really effective or organized military forces of any kind and were for all practical purposes either disbanded or rolled into the standing army/national guard structure.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Where did I say that anyone could determine he was a good guy or a bad guy? In fact, the attacker did make that determination and decided he was a bad guy - even though he had done nothing illegal - and took action by physically assaulting an innocent man who was simply out trying to buy creamer.
The fact is that he had done nothing illegal. He was not a "shooter".
You are confusing a situation where there was an innocent person who did NOTHING wrong with a situation where a crime was committed. Now that is pretty thick. Your post makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
Feel free to answer the question posed in that post.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I must be missing something because it says a man legally carrying a gun went somewhere and some vigilante was suspicious of him. Why do you think someone should attack the guy carrying a gun? What did the guy carrying the gun do wrong?
And you have not answered my question yet as to what was the risk of Daniels walking into the store with his gun? What did he do to make anyone think he was up to no good?
Again, I'm against all this gun carrying, but it is legal and therefore it's not okay for someone to be assaulted by an idiot for no reason. If you don't like that then work to get the laws changed, but idiots jumping gun carrying people who are not doing anything wrong are just going to make the situation worse.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And nobody stopped him.
And when he went into that community center he proceeded to kill 13 people with his completely legal to have registered and licensed gun.
And you have not answered my question yet as to what was the risk of Daniels walking into the store with his gun?
That that up there happens. That's the rather incredibly obvious risk. Sure would have been nice if someone had tackled the guy in the parking lot huh?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If you were arguing to change the law I'd be all for it. But I'm not okay with people being assaulted - in this case and I'm sure in most of them, a minority - just because some nut decides they are going to commit a crime. In the same way, I don't want my phone line tapped just because some people use phones to plan terrorist plots.
Applauding someone for assaulting an innocent law abiding person is just wrong and is not the way to solve this gun problem we have.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Are:
A: possibly innocent irritated gun owner who gets to walk away afterwards.
Or
B: Possibly a dozen or so innocent dead people.
Which way would *you* balance those scales in a split second decision in the heat of the moment if you saw someone with a gun heading for a crowded public space they obviously had no need to be armed in?
If you think A is the worse outcome you don't interfere with our community center shooter until it's too late. That sound like the right way to go to you?
(And I have been pointing out the absurdity of gun laws in the US and by extension making clear my support for changing them throughout the thread)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)But as he didn't and he was a law abiding citizen at the time I just can't agree that it was a good thing the innocent black man got assaulted by someone who just decided he was up to no good.
I think we've gotten to the end and we just disagree.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You've lost by far your best opportunity to stop him. Now people are dying. Try rushing him with his gun already in his hands and see what happens.
If you wait for him to pull the gun you've essentially gone with option B for all practical purposes.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)who happens to be in plain clothes?
Have you seen what cops are doing to people these days, when they perceive a threat?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...an active mass shooter with his weapon already out you mean?
Yeah, cops are trigger happy these days. But I still put them a notch below some mass murder who's experienced a psychotic break and decided the entire population of their local McDonalds really needs to die or something.
Not to say I'd be happy rushing either one, but if I had to pick between the two? Option A please. There's at least a chance the cop, after being extremely pissed at you, wouldn't shoot you in the head just because.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That sort of thing has had mixed results due to some people wearing armor, but that's a 'tell' as well, if you're looking to evaluate behavior, and actually assess a threat.
I have no interest in rushing anyone, who is not a clear and unambiguous threat. I encounter armed people all the time in public. They do not particularly frighten me.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And don't let anyone who ever drinks alcohol drive a car because if they ever drive drunk it will be too late.
You can't live in fear to the point where you are willing to give up your civil rights in order to feel more safe. And that's what you are advocating.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Additionally most crimes have the luxury of being able to be addressed with a call to the police without said dead people piling up while you wait for them to arrive and deal with it.
So yeah... not the greatest attempt at creating an equivalence.
And on top of that... the idea that being able to carry deadly weapons around everywhere you want in public is a "civil right" is a ridiculous peculiarity of US culture that is not exactly widely shared or terribly rational.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You did nothing to address that problem, nor the fact that it could be preempted by arresting people for drinking, or installing interlocks in every automobile.
I take it you've never followed a drunk driver with the police on the line, trying to vector them in while the drunk driver is bumping guardrails, running red lights, hell, she bumped a motorcycle right in front of me. Could have been a fatality easy, but luck, sheer luck was on his side.
You are taking a position that has incredibly unpopular logical and principled applications, beyond firearms. Auto fatalities is now below total firearm related deaths, but deduct, say, suicides from both, and your public safety perspective shifts violently on which is the best bang for your buck, trying to save lives.
There are other nations that share that civil right, that have murder rates that are tiny compared to ours. If you want to make a case that american culture has proven itself unworthy of respecting that right, that's an interesting debate we can have. But don't pretend the problem is because of the availability of firearms, because there are nations that can demonstrate otherwise.
Americans are very violent. Take gun deaths out of the picture and rank us against Europe. Its appalling.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 23, 2015, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)
Drunk drivers are an excellent analogy in favor of my point. I actually have trouble thinking of a better one. You just overlooked the incredibly obvious.
The analogous point in the sequence of events where you would intervene to stop a drunk person from driving and potentially killing someone is when they are *heading for their car with their keys*.
That would be the drunk driving equivalent of restraining the guy who has a gun and is heading for a crowd of people somewhere he has no reason to be bringing a gun before he starts pulling out and using it. And I don't know what crowds you run in but among pretty much everyone I know intervening at that point would be considered the exact proper thing to do. Even if it required physically restraining the person in question to keep them from getting in the car.
Once you let them get in the car and drive away on the other hand that would be the equivalent of waiting for the guy to pull his gun. Now you're screwed aren't ya? As you so convincingly described. Boy, too bad nobody stepped in before that driver got in their car huh? Of course at that point they hadn't broken a law yet... so that would have been outrageous right? How dare anyone!
Auto fatalities is now below total firearm related deaths, but deduct, say, suicides from both, and your public safety perspective shifts violently on which is the best bang for your buck, trying to save lives.
I find myself wanting to repeat my post title.
You realize automobiles are something used on a daily basis for significant amounts of time by massive percentages of the population? That *absolute number* of deaths related with their use are under those conditions anywhere remotely in the neighborhood as deaths from firearms which are used a minuscule fraction as often or by as many people demonstrates how MASSIVELY more safe automobiles and the many many many regulations surrounding their ownership and use are. We could only wish guns were as well regulated and as safe as cars. But even if you manage the first the second's not going to happen... because they're guns. They're not safe by nature. Their entire purpose is to be not safe. A gun that poses no safety threat is defective.
There are other nations that share that civil right, that have murder rates that are tiny compared to ours.
Not in the ridiculously poorly regulated and nearly unrestricted manner the US is there aren't. Please, by all means, point at Switzerland or something and we can spend a good long time discussing things like widespread mandatory military service coming along with all those people having guns. Something you simply will never see the NRA or their ilk touching with a 100 foot pole when they start ranting about the right to bear arms.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)is a civil right. You are advocating that we allow fear to make us give up our rights and freedoms.
The alcohol and car analogy works fine.
I agree that carrying a gun is not a civil right and I agree with you that it is ridiculous and I would like very strict gun control.
Anyway, we're never going to agree, so let's just both work to get better gun control.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Think it over and see where your reasoning hits a snag.
Glengoolie
(39 posts)No reasonable person would suggest that a citizen should be attacked because 'they might attack at any moment.'
I hate to tell you this but no one needs a gun to hurt or kill you or a large group of people.
Would you accept a small female driver running over a 300 pound black man because she thought that he could decide to harm her at any moment?
Wanna take on most every military guy I know, myself included, because we've got visible knives hanging on our pockets and that crazy old PTSD might just turn us into violent wackadoodles at the drop of hat?
Quit living in fear and leave others to their rights...
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...like a man armed with a deadly weapon where there's no reasonable justification for him to have one for example.
That would be the very definition of a threat to many reasonable people.
Glengoolie
(39 posts)That's like saying that you attacked a guy at Home Depot as he was picking out an axe. No threatening gesture or even a hint that he has registered your presence but because you irrationally believe that he could snap at any moment, you whack him over the head with a shovel.
I'm sure you could find 'many reasonable people' who are afraid of big black guys but that doesn't give them a legal right to assault them.
It's their problem and this guy deserves to rot...
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...there is always a justification right up until the trigger pull.
We were talking about whether a person could justifiably perceive a threat to their personal safety because of a person bringing a deadly weapon into a public space there is no REASONABLE reason he would need one.
And we both know damn well the answer to that is "of course they could justifiably perceive such a threat". Guns are threatening. That's kind of their thing.
Glengoolie
(39 posts)... that would disagree with you.
Right now you are at the 'nuh uh' stage of the argument with your fingers stuck in your ears.
The exact same reasoning could be used by any moron in the street to attack any citizen because their personal fear of a car, knife, tool, perception of the person, chemical etc.. etc.. ad naseum... with absolutely no threatening action or reason to perceive a threat.
"He might do it" is not a viable defense as the asshole in this story found out.
All the folks advocating violence against citizens who are acting well within the law are forgetting the reasonableness standard that is applied in self defense situations.
It isn't what you, with your extreme bias against this specific 'threat' but none of the other thousands of potential threats, consider reasonable but what hundreds of years of law and rulings have laid down.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"The exact same reasoning could be used by any moron in the street to attack any citizen because their personal fear of a car, knife, tool, perception of the person, chemical etc.. etc.. ad naseum... with absolutely no threatening action or reason to perceive a threat. "
Speaking of fingers stuck in ears... GUNS ARE THREATENING. There has been no argument even attempted against that rather obvious fact. They are designed to be threatening. The idea of a non-threatening deadly weapon is a contradiction in terms.
So your statement there is, bluntly, wrong.
Glengoolie
(39 posts)... anyone that possesses an object that could be used to cause harm to anyone else (i.e. a weapon) is subject to assault at the discretion of any other citizen.
Any object that any person could perceive to be threatening negates a citizen's legal rights to the safety of their person.
That is what you are saying.
An axe,a gun, a knife, a car, a can of poison spray or just being a big scary mofo... Their mere existence with no hint of threat beyond that, is enough for you to attack them.
Fuck the law right? It's all about what you are scared of...
Maybe you should stay inside...
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That poster is making purely emotional responses based on fear and bigotry. It's crazy.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Any object that any person could perceive to be threatening negates a citizen's legal rights to the safety of their person.
That is what you are saying.
I said nothing of the kind.
A gun is a *purpose designed deadly weapon*. When you see someone carrying one it is not unreasonable to assign some at least moderate probability that they intend to use it for its designed function.
So no, not your silly "any object" strawman. But thanks for playing.
beevul
(12,194 posts)It most certainly IS unreasonable, if you jump right past the probability that they have it "just in case they need to use it for its designed function", which is not the same thing as "they intend to use it for its designed function". The difference between the two, is the word "if".
That's exactly the leap you're making, and the leap that the piece of shit who attacked the fella made. Such a leap, requires skipping the process of determining what the persons intentions are, and jumping to a predetermined conclusion, which you, and the guy also did.
That's exactly the leap you're making, and the leap that the piece of shit who attacked the fella made. Such a leap, requires skipping the process of determining what the persons intentions are, and jumping to a predetermined conclusion, which you, and the guy also did.
No, it requires a reasonable evaluation of the risk/reward inherent in the situation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=996367
Glengoolie
(39 posts)Are you more or less dead if you are beaten to death with a pipe as opposed to being shot?
Also if you are going to talk about the purpose of an object, then a firearm's purpose is to expel a projectile quickly... Anything beyond that is on the person holding it.
Out of the uncountable ways that someone could cause you harm, you have decided that society can let this little bit of law go on this one specific object but not for any other 'threats' because that would just be silly.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Are you more or less dead if you are beaten to death with a pipe as opposed to being shot? "
As I said, difference in threat determinations. VAST goddamn difference.
If I see someone carrying a pipe my first and most obvious conclusion is that they intend to use it for something that involves the transport of a liquid or a gas from one place to another. Is there some miniscule chance they intend to use it to crush someone's skull? Sure. But it is a very very very very VERY tiny one. Out of all the times in your life you see someone working with a pipe the odds that person will ever use a pipe to assault and kill another human being are barely worth mentioning.
On the other hand if you see someone with a freaking gun the odds that they will end up using it to shot high velocity projectiles at another human being is orders of magnitude greater than the odds some guy with a pipe is going to beat someone to death with it. Pipe's are made for plumbing. Yes, they can be turned to secondary uses but they're not exactly the ideal murder weapon are they?
Guns are made for FREAKING SHOOTING PEOPLE WITH. They are an excellent murder weapon. They are designed specifically with their facility at killing other human beings in mind. When you see someone with a gun what you see is "oh look, there's a guy with a weapon designed to kill other people with". That's what that is. And that is not what you generally see when you look at guy with pipe, nor should it be what you see.
Now are the odds in favor of any given person with a gun being about to use it to kill someone? Of course fucking not. But exactly what odds do you expect your fellow citizens to find acceptable when the bet they're making is whether they're about to die?
Would you voluntarily place yourself, unnecessarily, in situation where there was a 1 in 100 chance you were going to be killed?
How about one in 200?
How about 1 in 5000? If it was 1 in 5000 would you be ok with that? Because I'll tell you right now if your odds of dying on a flight were 1 in 5000 all the damn airlines would be out of business and rightly so.
What if it was your kid and not you? What would the odds have to be then?
And now, when you answer that question for yourself tell me this. What if the actions of another person FORCED you or people you cared about into a situation where those odds were unacceptable to you? Would you be justified in taking steps to address that *in self defense*?
It is not a matter of whether the guy was likely right about whether a person with a gun where that person had no need to have gun was really going to shoot someone. It is about whether his risk/reward calculation regarding that happening given the circumstances was reasonable.
Hard to argue it wasn't.
beevul
(12,194 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Think it over and see where your reasoning hits a snag.
ETA: I just read your exchange with the other person who responded to the post this is in response to and you are so far off the deep end with your fear and dislike of guns that you are willing to throw away the ability of a law abiding citizen to walk around without fear of being assaulted for no reason what so ever except for the attacker's fear/dislike/bigotry.
You are being completely illogical and unreasonable. Your arguments don't hold water. You are being absolutely ridiculous. You are bigoted to the point where you don't care about the constitution or rule of law any more, just your emotional reaction. I'm done. There's no reasoning with people who disregard logic and facts.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You frankly rather obviously don't even comprehend the risk calculation involved.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=998139
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You just can't go around preemptively attacking people. Or are you trying imitate a war mongering neocon?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...*then* get back to me.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Being in the vicinity of an armed black man?
You know, it is probably better that this white asshole tackled him- if he had called the police instead, the old guy would most likely be dead.
To repeat. Again.
If ANY FUCKING ONE is seen walking into some random place of business carrying a gun explain to me how exactly anyone is supposed to tell they're not a "bad guy with a gun" besides waiting to see if they start shooting?
The risk being... PEOPLE FUCKING GET KILLED if you wait until they start shooting.
Couldn't give less of a shit what color the guy's skin was.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)their guns in stores all over the god damn place and I dont recall any tackling.
This story does beautifully illustrate the INSANITY of the INCORRECT interpretation of the 2nd amendment that creates the situation in the first god damn place.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)But it of course does not do anything to speak to the basic fact that anyone whatsoever carrying a deadly weapon into a crowded public space where they have no obvious need to be bring it is a legitimate and justifiable cause for anyone seeing them to be alarmed and concerned at just what the hell they might decide to do with it at any moment.
mountain grammy
(26,622 posts)in some strange way, the assaulter might have saved the victims life by not calling the cops.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And then decided 1) This man must be up to something, and 2) I'm gonna go tackle him!
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)younger and likely stronger person who attacked him, who reportedly placed him in the same "hold" used to murder a black man for selling loose cigarettes just a few weeks ago, and a nearby child gotten shot in the process, your hero might have spent the rest of this life in prison, the black guy who had done nothing might have worried himself into the grave in grief, and they would have buried yet another kid.
People really don't think all the way past stupid, sometimes. As he proved.
And your idea of safer is seriously in doubt.
Glengoolie
(39 posts)... visible on the outside of my pants.
Am I a potential stabber to be taken down by the first person who sees it?
Glengoolie
(39 posts)Stuff like that is how we end up with the Patriot Act...
FarPoint
(12,408 posts)A George Zimmerman type called 911 reporting man with gun in store pointing it at customers... Not exactly accurate. It was a toy gun off the shelf of store. John Crawford was gunned down instantly by police.. He was using his cell phone and toy gun pointed at ground....
See how this really works!
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)....and the gun in question looked like this:
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)This incident was a very tragic situation. Yes Mr. Crawford was carrying a pellet gun that looked extremely similar to that of an assault rifle...
Yet I have to question why this 'gun' was just sitting there out of the box, which at my local Walmart the exact same gun is in a box with what is commonly referred to as a 'spider web' security anti- theft device designed to alert security that the device had been penetrated.
So I can only assume the pellet gun was already out of the box & Mr. Crawford happened to pick it up. Well as much and as many security personnel & cameras Walmart has, why did Walmart Security not step in, or for that matter call the Police if they thought Mr Crawford was an immenent threat?
Instead some out of state individual called 911 claiming there was a man with a gun pointing it at people, which was a lie btw. So the Beavercreek Police department responded to the scene on the false pretense that there was an active shooter, thanks to a 911 call that gave the dispatcher false information...
Walmart should be held liable for the death of Mr. Crawford as well as the death of the lady who died of a heart attack after hearing the gun shots... I also fault the responding officers for not ordering the man to drop the weapon as opposed to shooting first & asking questions later...
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)....I think the police shot too fast.
I also think Crawford bares some of the responsibility for what happened.
Why was he wondering around the store with it out of the box? You can't buy one without the barcode on the box....(plus you might want the directions, warranty, ammo clip and bolt on sights that are all in the box)
It looked like he was shot in the pet aisle with no other items or a cart. Was he trying to be funny or scare people or imitate open carry or what I wonder?
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)Yes IDK Why Mr Crawford was carrying the gun around the store unless he wanted to show it to his Girlfriend who was also in the store, perhaps he was looking for her to show her the gun...
But evidence has proved that the gun was not taken out of the box by Mr Crawford, so I'm sure he didn't intend to purchase the gun already out of the box....
FarPoint
(12,408 posts)John Crawford was gunned down while shopping at Walmart as a direct result of a lying, cop- Marine want- a -be.... Way too much fantasy entertainment going on in Ron Richie's skull resulting in an innocent Walmart shopper being " Cop Swat " bait.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)The gun in question puts out a pellet at around 800 feet per second or about 545 mph.
Regardless how he found it it was a bad idea to pick up and carry around the store.
FarPoint
(12,408 posts)No reasonable excuse for this Walmart shopper being Swatted by local police... None.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #72)
Post removed
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)was stupid and had the safety off.... then the idiot woulda been the bad guy
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Everyone near him. Dog forbid people leave their guns at home even when going to Walmart. Gun nuts are the crazies. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if he had done what any reasonable person had done.
brendan120678
(2,490 posts)jumped a person they spotted with a firearm, wrestled him to the ground, and placed him in a choke-hold?
A macho-wanna-be pretending to be a hero, maybe; but not a reasonable person.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I can only imagine his pain and disappointment ... No world Star fame ... No TV interviews ... no calls to appear on Hannity or fox and friends ... poor, poor guy!
brendan120678
(2,490 posts)Sorry, I misread your post. Thought you were implying we should be calling him a hero, because he acted like a reasonable person.
christx30
(6,241 posts)could have gone very bad. The gun owner might have been a plain clothed cop. Then "hero" might have gotten himself killed. In Texas, and most other states, he'd be looking at assault charges, easy.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)like, Bill O'Reilly LIVE 
on point
(2,506 posts)Don't understand why all these gun nuts don't get there is no way to tell if someone is just exercising his paranoia, or about to turn into the next mass shooter.
The whole open carry, everyone should be armed stupidity needs to be rolled back
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)There is no need to carry weapons like this in a civilized society. There is no way for ordinary people to know which one is legal and which is a crazed gunman. People should call the police EVERY TIME so they can sort it out.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you lie about the person, to 'SWAT' them, then *you* are the one committing a crime.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you lie to exaggerate the situation to trigger a SWAT type response, *you* are committing a crime.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)A man with a gun is more than enough reason to call.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You see a man with a gun in a holster, not acting in a threatening manner?
They will tell you you are wasting their time.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)Let them make the decision. Doesn't mean they shouldn't know. There is no way to know which one is legal, which one isn't, which is a burglar, mugger, terrorist. Call the cops and let them figure it out.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)a threatening or suspicious manner?"
If no, you wasted your phone call, because it's not like the question is going to change from one call to the next.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)They need to know every time.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And if by some unfortunate miscommunication, you trigger an actual police response to an innocent person, said innocent person might end up very dead.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/08/3469457/man-shot-dead-by-police-in-wal-mart-was-carrying-bb-gun-he-picked-up-in-the-toy-aisle-officials-say/
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)That story shows just what can happen people handle guns in public.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)The person carrying an actual real gun could defend themselves and prove the necessity for carrying a gun. Win-win, well except if anyone gets shot which could happen because the only thing deadlier than a person with a gun is multiple people with guns.
By the way, what good did the gun do in this instance? Did it protect him, did it stop the other person from tackling him and placing him in a choke hold? Seems the man would have been better of without it this time. Which reminds me of the old saying, if you aren't ready to whip it out and use it you may as well keep it in your pants... holster, I meant holster.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So I'll just assume your first paragraph is empty snark.
Second paragraph is nonsense. It was in the holster. He didn't draw it. So, not sure what you're suggesting he should have done differently.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)And you think part of my post was snark? Or do you really consider it entertainment? do you go to the local police and get copies of their mug shots?
Second paragraph was nonsense? So exactly what good did it do that man to strap on a gun to go get some coffee creamer? Was he unable or too scared to draw it and shoot his attacker? Did knowing he had a gun deter his attacker?
You're not not sure what I am suggesting?
Seems self-explanatory to me. Without the gun he isn't on the ground being choked and looking like the fool he is.
But in fairness, please tell me why that man was better off strapping on that gun to go buy his creamer. And while you are at it let me know why the man with the gun was so afraid of walking into a Walmart in the first place. Did he see someone else walking into the store with a gun and feared a massacre was imminent?
The man with the gun seems like a prime candidate to do most of his shopping online. He should keep his cowardice in his house behind locked doors.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He was shot by police officers. You seem snarkily dismayed he only had a toy gun, which of course, would not have protected him from THE POLICE who SHOT HIM, unless he shot at them first. (Not something law-aiding citizens are prone to fits of.)
You're not really contributing to the issue/discourse when you pop off shit like that.
"Was he unable or too scared to draw it and shoot his attacker?"
I don't know why he didn't shoot his attacker. I'm glad he didn't try to. Would have made the issue much worse, in this particular anecdotal case.
"Did knowing he had a gun deter his attacker?"
Not in this anecdotal instance. In fact, in this extremely unusual case, it emboldened the criminal. (Well, he's been charged anyway.)
"But in fairness, please tell me why that man was better off strapping on that gun to go buy his creamer."
It may be that he had it with him for other places/purposes that might seem more reasonable. Once out and about, there are only so many places to store your weapon where it cannot be stolen. On your person is the best place.
As I linked elsewhere in the thread, the nation's Drug Czar himself has lost a pistol to a car break-in. I wouldn't leave a gun in a car in a Wal-Mart parkinglot.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)To me the man tackling the gun guy may have saved his life. People have been killed by police in Walmart for not threatening anyone with a bb gun. Shit you could be 12 years old in a playground not bothering anyone. Nope to me the guy saved the other guy from possibly being shot.
Clearly 911 operators cannot determine who is a threat.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)No one had called the cops at that point. The cops were called because of the disturbance the vigilante caused, and for no other reason.
NoMoreRepugs
(9,431 posts)the time it takes to go from a non-threatening to threatening manner is less than u can speed dail 911 and explain the situation
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)... going from non threatening to threatening involves the instant likelihood of a large number of dead people and a drastic reduction in the possibility anyone will be able to successfully intervene without getting killed themselves.
Whereas, say, "guy with baseball bat" or something can still be jumped and restrained with just a *little* higher probability of success after he switches into attack mode without wiping out a building full of innocent victims first.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)an average of 3 shots fired. (Per the FBI, it's like 2.8 or something like that)
The mad rampage execution human slaughterhouse thing is incredibly rare. You talk about it like it's commonplace. It isn't. It's very high profile, but incredibly uncommon. Most shootings, are purpose-driven, and the victim knows the shooter. And a person with that mad rampage mindset, is pretty damn dangerous even with a knife. (So much so, the UK is working on banning all knives that can be used to stab. It's a backwards arms race.)
I'll agree, the baseball bat scenario is much less threatening to a broad number of people. Firearms ARE a force multiplier. No denying that. But we very much disagree about the scope and scale of restriction of access to them, it seems.
Which is not to say I am fully opposed to more regulation. I would actually like to see a LOT more regulation of a very specific, and targeted type. (I posted considerable details downthread, talking to Orrex.)
negoldie
(198 posts)The guy that called police to the Dayton Wal-Mart "lied" by telling the cops the now deceased black guy was walking around pointing the gun at people when he really wasn't. No consequences for the guy that called the police in Dayton.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm hopeful he'll get hit with filing a false police report or something. He clearly lied.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I'm sure just going out and about you should be able to find one gun wielding evil do'er at least once an hour? You think?
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)John Crawford lll?
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)sarisataka
(18,656 posts)A person saw him carrying a BB gun and called police.
Crawford was killed at a Wal-Mart in Beavercreek, a suburb of Dayton. on Aug. 5. Police said that Crawford was killed after not listening to police orders to drop an air rifle, which can be used to fire pellets or BBs. In addition, someone called 911 and said Crawford was waving the air rifle at people.
A person saw him carrying a BB gun and called police.
Reter
(2,188 posts)Ever been to rural Montana? Try tackling 20 people and let me know how that works for you.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Body language, etc.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts) AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And no, I've never pointed it at anyone.
Granted, I carry concealed (Legally, licensed) and no one knows by looking at me.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)then I'm also a considerable danger naked, fresh out of the shower. I don't need a firearm to employ violence in self defense.
But a threat? No. I live by the non-aggression principle, whether naked or carrying a firearm. I don't threaten anyone.
Glengoolie
(39 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)There is no way to tell if you are a child rapist and human smuggler. I better attack you because I just don't know. /sarcasm
on point
(2,506 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The violent assault would be sufficient to believe his life is in danger. The chokehold would definitely confirm that.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)And Mr Daniels' life was in danger while he was being choked.
When someone accuses you of being a child molester and tries to kill you (choking is attempted murder) I'll have sympathy for you.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)You are always legally allowed to apply the minimum amount of force needed to stop an attack.
If a 175 pound man attacks a 100 pound woman and starts beating her, she can shoot him to stop the attack. Why? Because it is the minimum amount of force that SHE can muster to stop the beating.
If that same 175 pound man attacks a 225 pound professional boxer and starts beating him, the victim cannot simply shoot him to stop the attack in most states. Why not? Because the boxers weight and fighting skills give him lesser means of stopping the attack. In most states, the victim couldn't resort to a firearm unless the attacker actually managed to incapacitate the more powerful opponent.
If that same 175 pound man attacks another 175 pound man, the victim can shoot (or stab, or otherwise permanently physically maim) an attacker if they can show that it was the only way they could stop the attack.
In states that have them, disproportionate use of force requirements simply say that you have to apply the minimum amount of force that YOU CAN BRING TO BEAR in order to stop a crime.
So, if the victim was incapable of physically repelling the assault, shooting him would not have violated disproportionate use of force laws. As for his life not being in danger...all 50 states have laws basically saying that you are under no obligation to suffer a physical assault. If you are beating me, I can apply as much force as is needed to stop the attack. There is no "He's beating me, and I can't possibly fight him off with my fists, so I have to sit here and take it" law. If lethal force is the only way to escape a physical assault, all 50 states have laws allowing you to apply it. Only the means and conditions vary.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)He was attacked from behind, wrestled to the ground, placed in a chokehold, that's all the justification he would need to use deadly force to protect himself.
You really need to learn what justifies use of force for self defense.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)A good friend of mine is a federal prison guard and always carries. Prison guards working in high security environments have been the victims of reprisal attacks outside of the prison itself, and are typically armed all the time for their own protection. He's not a gun nut by any stretch of the imagination, but he's also not an idiot. Under federal law, qualified federal correctional officers can carry firearms in all 50 states, even when state or local laws prohibit civilians from doing so.
Because he's on regular unarmed patrol in the cell blocks, he's also got belts in Krav Maga and Brazilian jiujitsu. He's not a very big guy physically, and has been attacked by inmates before, so he spends a LOT of time working on his defensive skills. Had this dumbass tried his little vigilante tackle on my friend, there's a 100% chance that Mr. Vigilante would have been seriously injured, and a large chance that he would have been killed within seconds.
Attacking someone for simply having a firearm is incredibly stupid and shouldn't be encouraged. You don't know who they are, why they are armed, or how skilled they are. The idiot in the OP just got lucky when he tackled a random gun nut. If he'd tackled someone who actually knew what they were doing, this story could have had a very different ending.
Aristus
(66,380 posts)He was carrying a gun. He got everything that was coming to him.
Oh, and by the way, when he started getting attacked, why didn't he use his gun to protect himself? I thought that's what guns were for...
Idiot...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Having a firearm doesn't make you superman. If you don't see it coming, you're still going to lose, no matter what gun you're carrying.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)Neither did the movie goers in Colorado.
Aristus
(66,380 posts)And yet these gun-nuts go on and on and on about the infallibility of the protective power of guns.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There's a fair bit of fetishizing and whatnot about guns, from both sides of the aisle. It's a tool, for a purpose, only.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)There are a hell of a lot of gun fanatics who fantasize about being Rambo or something, I can bet that not a damned one of them has ever been the victim of an armed robbery (I have). A weapon wouldn't have done me a damned bit of good and probably would have gotten my ass shot. It's pure fantasy to think a citizen with a gun, without lots and lots of training, could defend himself against an armed criminal. It's pointless to carry weapons everywhere you go, and in fact makes it less safe for everyone.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I consider that an irresponsible risk. Cars are easily broken into, and safes meant for use in automobiles are not terribly robust. I have one, but the gun is better off on my person.
Ask former Seattle Police Chief, Gil Kerlikowske.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002141041_chiefgun05m.html
I hope no one was ever killed with his weapon. Certainly a risk, once a gun is stolen. Hopefully it got tossed off the narrows bridge or something when the thief realized what high profile stolen property he or she was carrying, but perhaps not. It may have already been used in one or more crimes. No one will know until it is recovered.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But I respect your opinion/preference.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)And gun nuts are easily taken down by an unarmed man who could have turned the gun on innocent people. Keep your precious at home.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Must burn your ass he didn't shoot up the place, when he got jumped.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)I think it's burning your ass that I am right. You know the gun could have fallen in the hands of an even crazier gun nut. Luckily for everyone Mr. Foster was not a crazed nut.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Just have anti-gun orgs teach their members and supporters to tackle anyone carrying a gun.
Especially if its a black man like this example, right.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)is to kill people. If that gun nut didn't want to be treated like a nut with a gun he should have left it at home.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I view mine as being for the purpose of protecting human life.
All in the intent and eye of the beholder, I suppose.
brendan120678
(2,490 posts)And perhaps the victim was knowledgeable in gun safety and didn't want to blindly fire his weapon due to the risk of hitting an innocent bystander.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The gun owner had an opportunity to make that situation WAY worse, and he did the right thing.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)The gun owner had an arm around his neck and on the ground, how was he going to make it worse. The unarmed man did the right thing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)he's got at least one free arm with which he could have attempted to draw his weapon and fire it in who knows what direction. There are CQB drills for this sort of attack, and how to employ a firearm in that situation, and he either didn't know them, or chose not to employ them, and also chose not to attempt some random shit Hollywood-style.
Essentially, the 'gun nut' showed more restraint than the racist asshole that physically attacked him for no reason.
Aristus
(66,380 posts)Perhaps he had beaten into that thick skull of his that he would have been better off without the gun...
brendan120678
(2,490 posts)Not sure why, since we're obviously totally in disagreement on this issue...but it was a little funny.
shedevil69taz
(512 posts)Reter
(2,188 posts)Legally, he could have.
TeamPooka
(24,228 posts)raccoon
(31,111 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Even if they are legally permitted to do so, I don't understand why someone needs to bring a gun to go shopping.
marym625
(17,997 posts)There might be a black man in there with a toy rifle he got in the store.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Told the police he was threatening people with it. Security footage revealed nothing of the sort.
“He said he was at the video games playing videos and he went over there by the toy section where the toy guns were. And the next thing I know, he said ‘It’s not real,’ and the police start shooting and they said ‘Get on the ground,’ but he was already on the ground because they had shot him. And I could hear him just crying and screaming. I feel like they shot him down like he was not even human.”
John Crawford, 22 years old, dead because one or two other shoppers couldn't tolerate the appearance of a black man with a toy BB gun.
marym625
(17,997 posts)And over zealots cops.
They should be on jail for murder. The cop that shot him as well as the 911 caller
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The vigilante was white.
I'm sure that had no effect on the vigilante's actions.
marym625
(17,997 posts)There is no racism in America. Hadn't you heard?
mockmonkey
(2,816 posts)He had to buy creamer, anything could happen, especially if it was non-dairy!
tblue
(16,350 posts)
I swear he needs therapy, not a firearm.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Great reply!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)groundloop
(11,519 posts)At one place where I worked a few years ago (which happened to have a bank on the first floor of the office building) a fellow employee whose desk was next to a window saw 3 guys getting out of a car carrying guns. He called police, who arrived in time to intercept the guys before they got into the bank - crisis averted. Imagine what would have happened if gun nuts have their way - we all were supposed to think "gee, those guys are exercising their second amendment rights so we'll just ignore them".
tblue
(16,350 posts)If people walk in a place packing heat, how would you know? HOW could you know?
djean111
(14,255 posts)Except, it feels like, quite a lot. The shooter killed one person, and then himself, in a mall shooting in Melbourne, Florida a few days ago.
It WAS a well-intentioned vigilante. IMO.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)I just don't get why a dumb fuck gun nut feels the need to carry a weapon into a department store.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Because that's what the fuckstain in Melbourne was. And the person he shot? He was attempting to disarm the man.
That particular shooting was close to me. My roommate was good friends with Leo (the man who was killed) and Ida (the woman who was shot 6 times and lived).
djean111
(14,255 posts)start shooting, for whatever reason, and waiting to see if it happens seems to not be the safest thing to do.
And - this was in Brandon (I live near Brandon), where the Melbourne shooting was on the news a lot.
Your statement is sort of like saying some carpenters have blue eyes, so all blue-eyed people must be carpenters. Not logical.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)who did nothing wrong, but was attacked by another man to the man in Melbourne (where I live, by the way).
djean111
(14,255 posts)going to start shooting people, and some of us think that it might be risky to just wait and see.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I tend to go with the fact that most people aren't shooting up malls and stores. In fact, it's quite rare. I'll take my .01% risk.
djean111
(14,255 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)they aren't a criminal. The alternative is unthinkable. "You aren't actually doing anything wrong. But you are kind of making people nervous, so we're going to arrest you, for... something. That whole Habeas corpus thing doesn't really mean much." Like, a black guy in a liquor store. Or walking down a residential neighborhood.
Let's just assume that everyone's a criminal. The cops won't be able to actually fight any real crime. They'll be too busy investigating 10's of thousands of innocent people all the time.
hack89
(39,171 posts)why wait until he actually commits the crime we all know he is going to commit.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I think that this Foster guy is an idiot.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I didn't read further for confirmation, though.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)A TV station put up some pics
Clarence Daniels speaks to a deputy after being tackled inside the store.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/27896784/man-spots-gun-then-tackles-concealed-carry-license-holder
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)I wonder if the "vigilante" would have tackled a similarly dressed 62 year old white man bringing a holstered weapon into Walmart.
Neon Gods
(222 posts)Gun nuts will deny it, but all these new permissive gun laws are for whites only. They are in place to allow whites who live their lives in perpetual fear of "thugs" (defined as any black male not wearing a tie) to carry a loaded deadly weapon so said white dudes can manage to face this "very dangerous world" (a world millions of non-armed citizens face without fear every single freaking day).
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)that many non-gun-nuts approve of this course of action.
There is a gun forum I lurk often. Their critique is that he should have had it holstered all the time so the gun would have been less likely to be seen.
No one has said 'well what do you expect if you see any of THOSE people carrying'. A couple have raise questions about racial profiling by the attacker.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)first sold fear, then the gun to soothe those fears...age old propaganda that works.
Partial List of gunner fears, sponsored by Fox and the NRA:
Obama
Not white folk
The UN
Muslims
Bambi
All guns are primitive and ever efficient killing machines, easy as pie to use even for 2 year olds...which is interesting.
No training required, need just one finger for full operational capability.
I do not fear guns, I fear the brains attached to the fingers on the trigger.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The irony is that Obama and the Dems have been very good to gun owners.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)How one can ally themselves with that lot and still say they are progressives is...unbelievable.
Transparently unbelievable like Fox.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is what I expect to hear from my President and party - and that is exactly what I heard. They even put it in the party platform.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)really?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Read what's at the following links, in order, and two possibilities will immediately occur to
the disinterested reader:
Willful ignorance or pious fraud
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=159288
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=159290
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=159293
Along the same lines:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=159592
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=159608
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
uponit7771
(90,344 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Foster would have tackled a white man with a gun.
Reter
(2,188 posts)n/t
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)
Anansi1171
(793 posts)
Tab
(11,093 posts)n/t
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and Wing is only Chinese.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Hello? Orioles Hall of Fame third baseman Brooks Robinson?
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)not sure why you shared that observation.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)where I worked as a teenager was a white Clarence. I'm not sure what the point of your post is, though.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Transferring the gun from the vehicle onto his person is not illegal.
Edit: Excuse me, it has been reported that he had a valid license.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)He must have really been taking his time "transferring the gun" for a person in the parking lot to notice.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not necessarily an infraction of any kind.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)It is better to pat the holster twice if you notice a person watching, rather then show them the gun.
valerief
(53,235 posts)EX500rider
(10,849 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Maybe they will learn not to feel safe carrying one around.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)I'd probably carry, too.
christx30
(6,241 posts)neighborhood with drug dealers 2 doors down from me. There was a stabbing about every 2 months. I heared a gunshot there a few times. I never bought a gun, but I was tempted to a few times. I didn't feel safe there, especially with no car and leaving for work at the ass crack of dawn.
I lived there because I couldn't afford anything better. As soon as I could, I moved to a much better area, and I feel safe.
But that's the kind of "idiot" would want to carry a gun. Someone that has good reason to fear his neighbors and has no way out of the situation.
drray23
(7,633 posts)I also lived in a bad neighborhood when I was a student with no money. However, after a while the people there including the drug dealers at the corner did not pay attention to me anymore. They knew I lived in the area. Its not good for their business to start shooting local people, it would bring the police and disturb the business. Now of course you can always be caught in the middle of a crossfire. I too moved as soon as I could.
christx30
(6,241 posts)at 6:30am. Sun was still 45 minutes away. I was approached by 6 young men. I didn't know them, but I knew they were from the brown house that's catty-corner from me, with 8 cars in the driveway and yard. I see cars drive up and leave after 5 minutes, especially on the weekends, like it's a McDonalds or something.
Anyway, so these 6 guys come up and say "Where you goin'?" like its any of their damned business. "Hey! Commere for a sec!" I didn't turn back. I had to get to work, and I had no interest in anything they wanted to say to me. They were, as far as I could tell, unarmed. I'm thankful they didn't try to mug me or commit any kind of violence against me. But if they had I would have been easy pickings for them. Unarmed doesn't mean "not dangerous".
I just kept walking, got to the bus stop, and went to work.
Anyway, I've been away from there almost a year. Hated that neighborhood. But it made me understand why some people might want to have a weapon. I don't consider them 'cowards' or 'gun nuts'. I consider them in touch with reality. Cops aren't responsible for saving your life. They are there to investigate your murder after it happens.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)tblue
(16,350 posts)Too scary. I hate guns. No logic to having this many guns among the populace.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Surveillance footage revealed no threatening behavior at all.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)He wouldn't have been tackled if he wasn't armed.
How do guns keep us safe, again?
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)The study of victimology seeks to mitigate the perception of victims as responsible. There is a greater tendency to blame victims of rape than victims of robbery in cases where victims and perpetrators know one another
Orrex
(63,213 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Why would blacks want to arm themselves in a racist society that appears to put no value on their lives.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)it is somewhat irrelevant - legal carry is not problem. If you could link legal CCW to an increase in shootings then you might have a point. But after decades of "the streets will run with blood" predictions, we always come back to the fact that as a group, legal concealed carry permit holders are a peaceful and harmless bunch that are not more likely to shoot someone. Now people that illegally carry in public (ie criminals) are a different matter.
So perhaps the baseless fear is yours.
for CCL is largely imaginary.
Out of curiosity, in all of those bloodless decades that you cite, has no legal gun owner gone on a shooting spree or discharged a firearm illegally? Amazing to think that all of the shots fired over the years were fired by people who didn't lawfully own guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Even while CCW is at historic highs your fears are overblown. If you want to live in fear than knock yourself out. I will worry about the real threats to me and my family.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Also, since guns kill more than cars (and at vastly greatly rates per incidence-of-use), then it is not unreasonable to observe that the potential for gun-induced harm is very real.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the odds of a drunk driver killing or maiming me or my family are a lot higher that someone shooting us. Where I live there have been exactly 2 gun murders in 14 years. The death toll due to the combination of cars and alcohol is many times that annually.
I don't own guns for protection. I live in a safe town like most Americans. I own guns for competitive target shooting with my family.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Here's what CDC.gov has tells us about 2011:
Firearm fatalities: 32,351
Firearm suicides: 19,990
Non-suicide fatalities: 12,361
Since you've dismissed firearm suicides, we can equally dismiss vehicular deaths in which the only fatality is the drunk driver himself. Since you made the assertion, I'm sure that you have statistics handy to support your claim, and I look forward to reviewing these. You'll need to demonstrate that the number of fatalities caused by drunk drivers is "a lot higher" than 12,361 non-suicide gun fatalities.
Also, since the issue isn't solely a matter of raw numbers, you'll need to demonstrate that cars are more dangerous per-incidence-of-use than guns. That is, daily vehicle usage nationwide greatly surpasses daily gun usage nationwide, so the fact that the total number of gun and vehicle deaths is so similar is in fact a serious indictment of guns' supposed safety.
hack89
(39,171 posts)People are not running around shooting people where I live. Rhode Island is like every other state - gun violence is localized to a few neighborhoods. Violent crime is not evenly distributed throughout the nation - even in cities like Chicago the majority of neighborhoods are safe with little gun violence. If you stay out of the violent places in America, your odds of getting shot fall to nearly nothing.
I protect them by ensuring they have relatively new, safe cars to drive. I have paid to send them to advance driving schools. I ensure they are not on the roads when drunk drivers are most active (ie closing time). I do what every other rational adult does. But I don't stop living. And I don't live in fear. Because I understand the actual danger.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)And you were continuing your habit of ignoring questions that you can't or don't want to answer. Interesting.
Since you made the claim that drunk drivers kill "a lot more" people than firearms, but since you have provided no evidence to back this up, it is reasonable to conclude either that you are making this "fact" entirely, that you are unable to support it, or that you are withholding that support for some unrevealed reason. Absent corroborating statistics, we have no reason to take your claim as true.
With that in mind, what you describe as the "real threat" of drunk drivers becomes less convincing, especially for a "rational adult." I would expect a "rational adult" to provide reasonable justification for tailoring an entire lifestyle around a response to fear, but you haven't provided that justification.
hack89
(39,171 posts)perhaps you should read what I actually wrote.
Are you saying that gun violence is not localized? It is a basic fact - can't see how you can twist it into victim blaming.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)How common is drunk driving in your area? You've provided nothing but your own nebulous assertions about the state of the world today, and (forgive me) but I have no reason to take your claims at face value.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Doesn't every person in America assess the risks around them on a daily basis and make common sense decisions on what to do?
At present, your motivation is not distinct from basic fear. I am happy to revise this assessment once you provide justifcation for your thinking, beyond a bunch of nebulous assertions about the state of the world today.
hack89
(39,171 posts)http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db37.htm#leading
So looking at that data, wouldn't you say that driver safety should be my number one priority with my family? I know you want to make it about guns but it is clear what is a greater danger to my family.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)That was your assertion, after all. You justified your fear-based lifestyle choice on the grounds that drunk drivers in your very town are putting your family at risk.
Yet you still offer nothing to support your assertion. You were so quick to declare that gun violence is concentrated in particular areas. Why do you suggest that teen deaths are uniformly assessable based on national figures?
hack89
(39,171 posts)one of the benifits of living in an affluent town. It is a very good life. Nice talking to you.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)The FBI reports 8,653 gun homicides in 2011.
12,795 includes ALL homicide by any means. (knives, bats, hands/feet etc..)
FBI link:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
Orrex
(63,213 posts)When we speak of the danger of guns, it is intellectually dishonest to focus on only one category of death.
But you know that, because otherwise you wouldn't keep asserting it as if it were true or relevant.
My figures are from the CDC. Take it up with them if you dispute the numbers.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US.
In the same year there were 33,561 automotive deaths.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)If you're going to include all automotive deaths, you need to include all firearm deaths. Otherwise you're lying with statistics.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)...I wouldn't include people who drove off a cliff on purpose. Only people who didn't want to die in one.
When discussing how dangerous guns are I don't include people who shoot themselves on purpose. Only people who get shot but didn't want to get shot.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)You are differentiating between "danger to self" and "danger to bystanders." That's not unreasonable, though it's not definitive, and it doesn't address the actual overall danger of the gun. It's simply a way of gerrymandering the statistics to get the result that you want.
As noted elsewhere, you'd also need to account for the danger per-incidence-of-use for firearms versus vehicles. Vehicles are used a lot more often than firearms daily, so the per-incidence lethality of guns is much higher than that of vehicles.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)FBI stats:
8,855 gun related homicides in 2012
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Total deaths for 2012: 33,561
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Since you're just parroting the same gerrymandered statistics that you offered in the first place, you're simply arguing by assertion.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)They aren't "gerrymandered".
That is how many people killed other people with a firearm against their will and that is how many people died in auto accidents I assume against their will also.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)That is, you certainly haven't provided what I asked for:
As noted elsewhere, you'd also need to account for the danger per-incidence-of-use for firearms versus vehicles. Vehicles are used a lot more often than firearms daily, so the per-incidence lethality of guns is much higher than that of vehicles.
I also do not accept your arbitrary and frankly self-serving choice to compare only firearm homicides to all vehicular deaths. That's simply intellectual dishonesty, and I reject it. You might make more sense if you compare firearm homicide to vehicular homicide, but you apparently can't be bothered to do that, instead preferring to gerrymander the results to create the illusion of proof.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)was a black man. I wouldn't call a black man's fears baseless.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:42 PM - Edit history (1)
For most people, I submit that their fear is 99% baseless, insofar as they either haven't been attacked at all, or they've been attacked under circumstances that wouldn't have been mitigated had they been carrying a gun in the first place.
Of course, you posit a chicken-or-egg conundrum: would the victim in this case have been attacked if he hadn't been armed? Nothing in the story suggests that he would have been. It's not even entirely clear that he was attacked because he's black, though that appears to be the assumption (which, honestly, I am inclined to share).
Was the victim carrying a gun because he feared he'd be attacked if he were unarmed? Good thing he was carrying, then.
Shamash
(597 posts)Let me try it:
"For most (gun control) people, I submit that their fear is 99% baseless, insofar as they either haven't been attacked (by someone with a gun) or they haven't been attacked at all."
It works, I like it.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)He may very well have been the victim of racist type crimes to the point where he finally decided to arm himself. Since the other man attacked from behind, Daniel's didn't see it coming. I think it was an asshole thing to do. Foster could have expressed his concern to an employee.
I really have doubts that Foster would have tackled a white man carrying a gun.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Taking the article at face value, the assault seems 100% unprovoked and unjustified.
I would imagine that, like any black man, he's been screwed over in large and small ways for his entire life. Since I don't know him, I can't conclude that this motivated him to carry a firearm.
Regardless, he was the unambiguous victim here, and it's unfortunate that the gun that he likely carried to protect himself was a likely motivation behind Foster's attack.
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Surely you are familiar with the US Constitution??
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Things that I am Constitutionally permitted to do. Often I choose not to do these things in deference to politeness and consideration of those around me. Certainly I'm not driven by fear to carry a deadly implement while claiming that I'm motivated purely by a desire to demonstrate my Constitutional rights.
I would hope that gun-carriers would have a better justification than "because no one can tell me that I can't, dammit!"
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)How many times have those detectors saved your life? Never? Do you still keep them up to date, change them out, replace batteries, test them, etc?
Does the rarity of a fire in *your* home make those countermeasures 'baseless fear' driven?
Taking a moment to honestly answer your question, because I fully respect you as a participating member of DU, and I've always enjoyed your style, even if we might disagree on this one issue.
I carry a firearm because I value human life. In some situations, a firearm is the ONLY tool that can be employed to protect human life. Maybe not always 100% successfully. Maybe not without threatening or ending the life of someone who put whatever life I am protecting, in jeopardy. (Though personally, I am more likely to encounter dangerous wildlife than predatory humans, for the sake of convenience I do not return home to store my firearm when I move between rural woods, and urban areas.)
I carry for the same reason *most* police officers carry a gun. To protect human life. Their own, and that of others.
I carry other tools and skills as well. I maintain an advanced CPR/First Aid cert. Search and Rescue. CERT training. I keep all sorts of rescue gear at work, in my vehicles, at home. Radios locked to the town's emergency frequencies. Etc.
It's a lot of stuff. It's a lot of investment, in time and money. Human life (and to any degree that I can protect it, animal life in general) is that important to me. When shit goes bad, I help. (Probably why I work in IT/Support for a living. 
)
To help, I have tools, and skills. Some of those tools, and some of those skills are dual-purpose. They could be employed to do great harm.
But not in my hands.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Specifically, when I was younger, and they activated once to alert us to a damaged furnace churning out torrents of oil smoke in the middle of the night, and another time to let us know that a candle had caught flame in a different room and had set a small table ablaze.
I'd say that those are two good examples. And shame on my mom for leaving a candle burning unattended.
I see your point, but OTOH I've never heard of a smoke detector being used to kill anyone in a fit of anger. Not many toddler deaths resulting from accidental discharge of a smoke detector, nor many suicides.
There's an interesting case to be made in terms of a gun's preventative value, if we view it as a failsafe device akin in that way to a smoke detector, but I'd still have to weigh that against the real potential for lethality, where the comparison breaks down.
Thank you for the kind words and courtesy.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Statistically most people don't, but they are such incredibly cheap insurance, and as you pointed out, they don't carry a lot of negative risk. I'm only aware of one person who has ever used them to endanger the public (radioactive boy scout).
In my household, they've only ever warned me the Bacon is done.
When I weigh the risk of those firearms, I consider the number of people who have them. By and large, the problem is suicides, and while a firearm amplifies the lethality of an attempt to commit suicide, I view the main problem as a health care/availability issue, rather than the implement. Countries with very low firearm ownership still have astounding suicide rates compared to ours, (culturally distinct reasons for this, but the potential is there, as humans are problem-solving mammals) so I don't view reducing the firearms as the most productive panacea. I think we'd get more mileage requiring the mandatory minimum insurance via the ACA, to cover mental health as well as the physical.
We've got a good 9-10 million people licensed to carry. Some 90+ million who own somewhere around 300 million firearms. That's a LOT of people doing things without breaking the law or harming anyone, that I have to weigh when looking back at the exceptions that do produce harm, to self or others.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Funny you should mention him.
You make a series of good points, particularly re: mental health as a national issue, and that's probably the lion's share of the problem right there.
I admit that I tend to bristle at the popular mantra that guns don't kill people, typically with a joke about "spoons make people fat" or some other meme. Likewise the offhand dismissal of concerns about firearm safety, as if advocates for sensible gun regulation are all raving lunatics. That's as unfair as the assumption that gun advocates are all unhinged rightwing survivalist types.
A good friend has a meme posted right now on his FB page about a man who left a loaded rifle propped against his wall and it never once discharged in all of the weeks that it stood there.
Frankly, I find such attitudes insulting and on par with LaPierre's bullshit, and it troubles me when I see echoes of it here on DU. Your response is much more reasonable and level-headed, and I thank you for it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There was a time when I was more in the 'you can't stop the bad guys with laws' camp, but I look at the history of gun control in this country, for what has worked, and what hasn't.
The 1934 National Firearms Act established a registry, and a tax stamp for all fully-automatic weapons. (Machine guns, machine pistols, submachine guns, etc. Anything that can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger) Since 1934, the Government has known the location and disposition of all legally owned fully automatic weapons. In 1986, the registry was closed. (Hughes amendment) Sadly, this had the effect of 'banning' all new fully automatic weapons, which has caused much feeding frenzy by the 'registries are confiscation' crowd, but those weapons in circulation prior to 1986 are still out there, so I think it's a good case for a registry, in the united states. Only two lawfully licensed weapons in that registry were ever used in the commission of a crime. One, by a police officer. That's an astounding record.
I actually advocate re-opening the registry, and then extending it to semi-auto weapons. It's a little give and take. On the give side, people can then acquire new fully automatic weapons. But on the take side, we get registration. That means, not a NICS 'this person isn't a felon' phone call. It means a background check. They talk to you, they take your finger prints and run it against a database to see if there are any unsolved crimes you may be wanted for, they know where the guns you have are stored, they check local law enforcement databases for even petty crimes that might suggest a pattern, etc. So up front, a comprehensive assessment of the purchaser. It also means registering it's location. The BATFE can drop by and inspect any F/A weapon that is registered, right now. They know where they all are. A restraining order, or Domestic Violence charge, per the Lautenberg Amendment, can trigger law enforcement to stop by someone's house and say 'you own XYZ guns, hand them over'. Instead of 'hey, if you have any guns, you should give them to us until the trial.'. That's a powerful tool. It also gives law enforcement a way to identify people who 'leak' guns to the black market. No more 'oh, I lost that gun' or 'oh that was stolen', or 'I sold it to some guy at work', when a gun makes the jump from a paperwork/form 4474 purchaser, to the black market. Any guns recovered could then be positively linked back to whoever transferred the gun. Another powerful tool for law enforcement. And then there's the tax stamp. 200$ per firearm. That's a significant source of revenue for law enforcement to pursue straw purchasers and other problematic people. Though, might need some tweaking, as in some cases, that might be more than the gun is worth, and I'm not in favor of pricing the poor out of guns, making it a 1%'er hobby or anything.
I think there's a lot we can do around safe storage, registration, etc, without crossing the threshold of violating the 2nd amendment, and that means I am Wayne LaPierre's enemy. He doesn't tolerate middle ground. He can't, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the RNC.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)He wouldn't have been tackled if he wasn't black.
Oh. We live in the most peaceful era in human history. Remind me again why you think guns make us unsafe.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)When considered per-incidence-of-use, guns kill vastly more people than cars. In what kind of a fairytale does such a killing machine make us safe?
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Explain how an innocent black man carrying a gun is a threat to your life.
My post was a facetious response to people blaming gun laws for a criminal's behavior.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Otherwise, you're making a false accusation. You asked me why I think that guns make us unsafe, to which I correctly replied that guns are vastly more deadly than cars, for example. That's not a straw man.
Perhaps you can instead provide an answer to the direct question that I asked and which you ignored:
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)And Since I've havent said that, I'm under no obligation to answer that question.
But explain how an innocent black man having a gun makes you unsafe. Or do they only make you unsafe if/when they are owned by other races.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Otherwise, you're making a false accusation. You asked me why I think that guns make us unsafe, to which I correctly replied that guns are vastly more deadly than cars, for example. That's not a straw man. REPEAT: That's not a straw man.
Perhaps you can instead provide an answer to the direct question that I asked and which you ignored:
Since you can't identify the straw man that you attribute to me, I must conclude that you are lying or mistaken. You can easily refute this conclusion by identifying the straw man that you think I'm using.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Or accept that it is a straw man.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)I'm citing them directly.
What do you think is a straw man in my direct quotes of your postings?
Do you actually know what a straw man is? You've made the accusation multiple times without backing it up once, except to say "there it is" without pointing at anything. (That's not a straw man, either; it's a slightly hyperbolic exaggeration of your posting style, intended to express derision for that style without actually claiming to rearticulate your argument for you.)
Anyway, I await your explanation of what you think is a straw man in my post.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)"Remind me again why you think that guns make us safe"
I've never said they make people safer. Text book straw man.
You repeatedly said guns make you less safe. So asking why you think the firearm in question makes people unsafe (unsafe meaning a threat to life or health) is a perfectly valid question. If guns make you unsafe than they make you unsafe when legally carried by innocent African Americans and I want to know why.
What was this innocent black man doing that justified choking him?
Orrex
(63,213 posts)You asked me to "Remind me again why you think guns make us unsafe." That was not my assertion, so if I am guilty of a straw man then you are equally guilty, since you are falsely restating my assertion and attributing it to me. However, I've answered your question correctly several times, while you've petulantly ignored the question asked of you.
The question that I asked is not a straw man. It's a straightforward derivation of the question that you asked me. Since it is reasonable to conclude that your position is contrary to my own, it is reasonable to ask you the corresponding question.
You are free to answer by saying "I do not think that," which is the end of it.
You are free to answer by saying "I think that because X," which might also be a reasonable response.
You are free to reject the question and to indicate why, but you haven't done this.
You are free to offer other answers as you see fit.
You are free to ignore the question, but it would be bad form, since you'd demanded an answer from me, which I've provided.
You are also free to jump up and down and insist that the question is a straw man. You'll be comically and repeatedly wrong, but you're still free to do it.
Frankly, I don't accept that you're capable of rational argument, because you certainly haven't demonstrated it here. You seem to have no grasp of statistics or probability, and you make wild broadsides apparently in hope of distracting from the fact that you can't answer direct questions. You also imply racism and bigotry in an intellectually dishonest tactic apparently intended to make your opponent give ground. I do not care to justify your dishonesty with reply.
At this point I feel quite confident in concluding that you are impervious to reason on this subject, as is very common among gun advocates, so there is little to be gained from wasting time on further discussion with you.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Actually discussing the topic.
If guns make people unsafe, explain the mechanism by which an innocent Black Man legally carrying a gun makes peole unsafe. Or just admit that they only make people unsafe in certain situations.
But you want to rage quit because other people call you out for constantly being disengenous and intellectually dishonest.
For the interest of clarity: I believe that there is not statistically significant connection between firearms laws and public safety. The marginal impact of additional gun laws have a negligible effect on public safety.
And I'm qualified to make that determination because:
-I have taken high level statistics courses at college.
-I've read the studies that people claim support their pro-gun control ideology.
-I'm employed in a position that requires quantitative analysis using statistics.
And you?
Orrex
(63,213 posts)If she sees how you misrepresent statistics (not to mention your basic failures of logic), then you might be out of a job.
In any case, the two are not mutually exclusive. Even if guns "only make people unsafe in certain situations," then it is correct to say that guns make people unsafe. What was your point again?
You should probably review those stat courses of yours.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Serious question. You made a big deal out of this and it really doesn't make sense if you are a couch professor.
"Only" is a red herring in this context. Guns make people unsafe in any situation in which a gun might discharge or be discharged, which is to "any situation in which a gun is accessible and has a round in the chamber or might readily be caused to have a round in the chamber". There's no "only" about it.
You are saying it makes you unsafe, explain what you think is going to happen that will cause lose of life or injury. If something is making you unsafe, there has to be some process that you believe will cause injury or death. Imagine we were having this discussion in the Wallyworld from the OP. Mr. Daniels walks by with his concealed weapon. What possible injury do you believe is the basis for claiming that it makes us unsafe? Do you think he is going to shoot me?
"Guns make people unsafe" and "Guns don't make people unsafe (have no effect on public safety, not "make people safe"
" are mutually exclusive. Saying that there are situations where guns have no effect on safety invalidates "Guns make people unsafe".
It is analogous to saying "There are situations where people used firearms to protect themselves, therefore my Guns make you safer". I disagree with what you have said for the same reasons that we both disagree with the previous statement.
The vast majority of firearms will never be used in a crime. Saying something makes you unsafe when almost all of them will never hurt anyone is absurd. There are hundreds of millions of firearms and the number of crimes involving firearms is orders of magnitude less than that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Since were not talking about machineguns, where 1 "incident of use" means unloading several rounds, and we are talking about semi-automatic/bolt action/break action/lever action firearms, where each round fired is an "incident of use", I'm not sure you're going to like the conclusion that leads to.
Being that several billion rounds are fired by Americans every year.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)I drove about 120 minutes today @ 2700RPM, so that's 324,000 uses, give or take. I would estimate that I passed about 250 cars at approximately the same speed, so that's 81,000,000 uses. Four or six or eight times more, in fact, if we count individual firings of each spark plug.
A "use" is one period of use, from when it is picked up for use until it is put away. You know, like when you drive to the shooting range for an afternoon of responsible target practice. Two uses of the vehicle, one use of the gun (or of each gun). You might be inclined to call this arbitrary, but it's not. If you rented a gun, they wouldn't charge you based on the number of times you unholstered it but on the time that you had it in your possession for use. They might charge you for ammunition, but we're not talking about ammunition.
By either measurement, vehicles see a hugely greater incidence of use and correspondingly have a vanishingly small rate of fatality proportionally by comparison.
I'm very comfortable with the conclusion that this leads to.
How nonsensical is your argument?
"Dad, I need to use the car".
"For what?"
"To drive to the store"
"That's not a single use, that's 324,000 uses!"
That nonsensical.
It most certainly is. Nothing that comes from you anti-gun folks is objective.
Nothing.
That's because they don't charge per round, but per hour. Pay for an hours fee, and you are allowed to use the firearm as many times as you like during that hour.
Criminal shoots someone with a single shot. Is that a "use"?
Think real hard before you answer that.
Nothing you say changes the fact, that like a bow and arrow, each shot is an individual action. Each shot requires aiming and firing. They don't fire themselves when the trigger is held down like a machine gun or the ignition is turned on like a car.
Go look at a paper target some time. Its not a simple as pulling the trigger one time and having a bunch of holes end up in that target. Your argument, is akin to saying that one hasn't "used" a book of matches, until or unless you light the whole book.
Which everybody knows, would be an assertion of complete and utter nonsense, since each match lit, is a "use".
"Dad, can I use the gun?"
"For what?"
"I'm going to fire 100 rounds at paper targets."
"That's not a single use, that's 100 uses."
or
"How was your day at the range, beevul?"
"Great! I used my beloved gun 250 times!"
Does that exchange happen often in your gun-loving world?
My example is absolutely no more nonsensical than yours. Your insistence that they are different, that a different standard should apply to your beloved guns, is special pleading.
Think real hard before you answer that.
If the person fires the gun once and secures it in its case or holster, then that's a single use.
If the person fires the gun twice and secures it in its case or holster, then that's a single use.
If the person fires the gun ten times and secures it in its case or holster, then that's a single use.
If the person fires the gun and secures it in its case or holster, then takes it out and fires once and secures it in its case or holster again, then that's two uses.
We can define "a use" in multiple ways, none of them favorable to your position. Personally, I favor the definition that "a use" as "the period during which the object has the realistic potential for lethality." For a car, that's the period when the car is not parked. For a gun, that's the period when the gun is not secure in its case or holster. More broadly, "a use" might be considered the perod during which the object constitutes a threat.
Before you object that a gun is no longer a threat once the clip is empty, consider this: if a gunman were stalking your office while carrying his beloved gun, his CCL (legally obtained, of course) and 500 rounds of ammunition, would you declare the threat to be over after he'd emptied his first 15-round clip? Do you think that the SWAT team would consider him no longer a threat at that point? Or would you consider the threat active until the gun is rendered harmless?
When he's standing there, reloading with 15 of the paltry 485 rounds left at his disposal, do you stand up from behind your desk and bravely announce to your coworkers that the threat is over? Or do you, like a sane human being, recognize that the threat is still real while the gun is still in use?
For that matter, every moment spent behind the wheel with a car in motion requires "aiming," so by your definition each moment is "a use" of the car.
beevul
(12,194 posts)300+ million guns, in the hands of 80+ million people, fire several billion rounds every year.
That's a fact.
And yet there are ten thousandish homicides.
You can define "use" any way you like, but the fact of the matter, is that even multiplied by a factor of ten, murder by gun accounts for .01 percent of all guns.
Oh, what about suicides? Setting aside the fact that suicides have different causes and therefore different solutions, if we lump them all together as if they are all the same (who would do that except someone more interested in gun control than saving lives), we get .03 percent of all guns involved.
That doesn't sound quite as dangerous as you'd like everyone to believe, or quite as "epidemic" a picture as you folks like to paint.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)I always enjoy that moment, because it suggests that the gun-lover has realized that his argument is nonsense. I'm not telling you what you believe, mind you; I'm merely observing a trend that's been borne out over decades.
Good luck to you and your beloved guns.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)For cars you use the number of human hours spent driving, being a passenger, or in a position where it is reasonable to believe a car could hit you.
For firearms you use the number human hours spent in possession of a firearm and/or in a position where it is reasonable to believe people around you have firearms.
Glengoolie
(39 posts)Carrying a knife? Potential stabber!
Smoking a cigarette? Cancer!
Parent of a child? Child abuser!
I'm not sure what's worse... The irrational fear or the hypocrisy...
How do these folks even manage to go outside?
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Since I've made no serious claim that Foster was right to assault Daniels, your question makes no sense.
How do these folks even manage to go outside?
Glengoolie
(39 posts)It can be used for anything...
If that girl hadn't been wearing those clothes, she wouldn't have been raped.... Tsk tsk tsk...
If that man hadn't had that fully legal weapon, he wouldn't have been assaulted... Tsk tsk tsk...
You aren't beating around the bush quite as well as you think.
Orrex
(63,213 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 22, 2015, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)
If that's your story, then you have my sympathy. It must be difficult to lack the capacity to understand irony and rhetorical hyperbole.
Since I am not actually blaming the victim and have not done so, I have no obligation to respond to your bullshit claim.
But then, that's how gun-lovers always do it. They make up a series of bullshit claims and attribute these to their opponents, demanding that their opponents justify these claims and then declaring victory when the opponents refuse. Typically they do this while calling non-gun-lovers "fearful hypocrits" or the like, in a clear and desperate show of projection.
Nutty, nutty stuff.
Taking the insensitive and unethical thing you said and applying it to something very similar is... unfair?
Poor fella...
Orrex
(63,213 posts)I'm sure you'll still be here and contributing positively to DU.
Welcome.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Not that the tackler is a brain surgeon and couldn't have handled it better, but I will back him. The asshole carrying a gun in Waldemart is the problem.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Mr Daniels should be glad he was only tackled.
I'm guessing that fool wouldn't have acted the way he did, had Daniels been white.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)If the racist had called 911 saying a Blackman with a gun was brandishing it and people were scared, why he could have been shot by the police in 2 seconds. Thank god the racist had the presence of mind not to call 911. Could you imagine that phone call? "911 there's a black man with a gun in Walmart. He's acting all threatening and scaring people. Send the police. I don't know what he's going to do next. He looks like he's getting ready to shoot someone". Yup that white saved that poor black man from being killed.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)...several times.
I will not remark on the results, but to say they're worth it.
adieu
(1,009 posts)"good" guys with a gun. I wonder who's going to win?
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)had a gun. his attacker used bare hands.
adieu
(1,009 posts)then we'd get some nice shootout at Walmart.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)That is sarcastic
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)that we see a good amount of people ROOTING for an asshole tackling and placing an innocent black man in a chokehold than.
Classy.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)And "liberal" somewhere further down the line.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)A LOT of Democrats own guns. They do so at a lower rate than Republicans, but there's only a 20% delta between the two groups on actual ownership, and that means tens of millions of Democrats own guns.
It's not a strictly political issue.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Still, Democrats support gun rights and abhor racism, am I wrong?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)"support gun rights". I support guns rights in the context of a "well regulated militia", not as in "anyone with the money to buy a gun".
Racism is a given, though to be fair no conservative will ever admit their views are racist.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I, personally, am not a fan of guns. However, I respect one's right to own one.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)for a sane individual, with proper training and no criminal record or history of mental illness, the right to own a reasonable number of properly licensed and registered firearms.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Some people like to collect things. I used to collect guitars and amps. At one point I had 27 guitars and 15 amps, and I wanted more. My wife found this number unreasonable. I did not.
For a gun collector, it's the same. What's unreasonable to you may be reasonable to me. Legislating how much of anything one can own is a bad idea. As long as it's bought legally, you have very right to own it. Period.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)a rifle and a shotgun, per person seems reasonable. Now if you want to be a collector, great, that can happen. You apply for a collectors permit wherein you demonstrate annually that your weapons are stored securely in a locked room or cabinet with the key properly secured.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)For instance, I have an AR-15. Great for small game. Gophers, up to Coyote/boars. It is fully illegal in this state to hunt deer with, because it is too small and weak to humanely kill a 200lb deer, let alone elk or larger animals. For those of us who use firearms recreationally, or to obtain game meat, our firearms are as varied and purpose-tailored as hammers can be. Check out the hammers at Home Depot, if you don't know what I mean. You'll find a good half dozen different hammers just for wood framing, let alone roofing, finish woodwork, auto body, dead-blow, ball peen, yadda yadda. They are varied for a reason, they all do different jobs, even though at the end of the day, it's a lever with a mass on the end of it, that you swing at some thing you need to motivate.
That AR-15 that's useless for deer, also mostly useless for bear. For black bear, I've got a .45-70 Government, it's a lever-gun. Looks pretty innocuous, but it's like hitting something with a metro bus. BUT, it's got very short range. Trajectory like a rainbow. If I want to reach out and get a goat, or ram, I've got a WWII .30-06. Perfect for that. Add a .22lr for plinking and I'm already up to four distinct rifles, and well beyond your one-per-person threshold.
And I've got two of those US Model 1917's, one modded for deer, no collector value, the other historical museum quality, with the original leather strap and bayonet.
But I agree with you on safe storage, and I think laws around safe storage are a point where we have a LOT of room for improvement. Every time I Hear a story about a kid that got ahold of a parent's gun, I die a little inside. It's so awful and so easily preventable.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)that is just my opinion of a sane law. I would be happy to set the limit at ten or twelve, or some limit. But there are people out there with arsenals that could equip an infantry company.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)How many can they USE in any given instance, however tragic? I don't think having an 'arsenal' is of any particular instance in reducing gun violence beyond two key items;
1. Safe storage. Large collections are theft magnets, which translates into untraceable (or meaninglessly traceable) guns on the black market.
2. Depending on *why* a person is spending tens of thousands of dollars hoarding guns might be of interest. For instance, the 'black helicopters gonna git me' type, that could be a HUGE red flag.
Beyond that, once a person has 4-5 firearms, they're pretty much tapped out on what they can actually use in even a well-planned premeditated tragic attack on XYZ group of innocent people.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Your idea of reasonable isn't everyone else's. I, for one, am not OK with the government coming into my home to make sure I store things properly. Nor do I feel it's appropriate to place limits on a constitutional right. YMMV.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)that haven't been violated by the government. The folks with guns, who claimed they needed them to protect us from becoming a police state, have been completely absent from from the field as we turned into a police state. The government has pretty much figured out they can abridge all our other rights, as long as they let the loonies have all the guns they can eat.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)To claim otherwise is an insult to people who actually LIVE in a police state.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The U.S. may not be as bad a police state as some countries, but it is a police state:
1) Law enforcement officers may commit murder with no real consequence.
2) The government spies on its citizen.
3) Torture is legal.
4) If you are declared an "enemy combatant" by the state you may be executed without trial.
5) People have been attacked by the state and imprisoned for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
6) The writ of habeus corpus has been violated (despite the fact that the country is not at war or in a state of rebellion).
7) It is legal to execute someone who is innocent (see Collins v. Herrera)
8) Your right to remain silent can be used against you (see Sallinas v Texas).
9) Our prison system is a chamber of horrors, run for private profit.
10) You average police department is better armed than a World War II-era infantry company.
11) Confessions obtained under torture may be used against you.
12) Until this past week, law enforcement officers could simply seize your property/money without charge and keep it unless you could prove your innocence (a complete reversal of the burden of guilt) Despite this, state governments in many states still have and exercise this power.
I can on with another dozen examples, but I doubt I will convince you.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Guns are bad. Always bad. Doesn't matter what some racist asshole does to a guy who is lawfully and benignly carrying a firearm, because he was carrying a firearm all things are permitted, including instigating violence.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)I can't breathe because so many people on DU support choking innocent Black Men.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Nuclear Unicorn has their number. From a thread in GC&RKBA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172159686#post8
They have a right to SWAT and tackle law-abiding, peaceable citizens but law-abiding peaceable citizens don't have the right to defend themselves from rapists, robbers, muggers, burglars and stalkers perpetrating forcible felonies.
Gun control isn't about stopping violence because gun controllers are endorsing violence.
This story has forced the mask to fall away. It's about control and nothing more.
That was in response to this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172159686#post1
1. we have a right to protect ourselves against gun toting idiots.
he should have broken his damn arms...
Fuck Foster and *anyone* (and the keyboard they rode in on)
who supports or excuses his actions
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Shooting spree? Assholes, keep your precious guns at HOME!!!!! And I hope Foster sues the shit out of Walmart for allowing such dangerous people in the store. Ironic that smoking isn't allowed, but guns are.
Vinca
(50,273 posts)Concealed carry is only meant for WHITE guys. Want to see gun laws change in this country? Legally arm all the black men.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)the person who had the gun was white, WE WOULD NOT have had a story. Period. I saw the photo of the pig that attacked Mr. Daniels. Puts to rest all the dixiecrats on here that say black open carry or concealed carry people are treated the same as the other race. Period.
Shamash
(597 posts)You can pore through FBI, DoJ, CDC, Census and other statistics to figure out who is killing whom, where they are doing it and what they are doing it with. It's a bit of work, but some days it is worth it. Today is one of those days.
Politically incorrect yet true:
If you have 100,000 white guys with guns and 100,000 black guys without guns, the odds are greater that one of the black guys will stab you to death than one of the white guys will shoot you to death. So, for those of you thinking the attacker is the hero here, keep this in mind if you want to emulate him in the name of public safety:
If you see a white guy wearing a gun standing next to a black guy wearing a knife...tackle the black guy.
And no, this isn't racist, it's crime statistics. It is also a good way to determine who has a rational attitude towards firearms and who is a ranting fearmonger laboring under the delusion that they are a rational liberal.
As for me, I'm not even going to check back in on this thread. Confirming the accuracy of my calculations does not require my presence, and those who have no inclination to change their attitude would not accept the validity of those calculations even if I laid out every step for them with source links.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)You have no legitimate source links to back it up. If you did, you would have posted them already.
branford
(4,462 posts)Simply look-up whatever information you want concerning type of crime, race of victim, race of assailant, etc.
The two best resources are the National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics, both agencies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/victims-victimization/Pages/welcome.aspx
http://www.bjs.gov/
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)The other poster made a bald assertion without anything to back it up. I could spend hours trying to figure out which data sets were used and still not find which data the poster thinks backs up the assertion. Of course, had the poster provided links it may be all too simple to debunk the poster's assertion.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)Had it been a cop putting a citizen in a chokehold, everything would be fine (except for the victim who would most likely be dead), cop was just doing his job. But since it's a civilian attacking another civilian, its a "vigilante."
niyad
(113,318 posts)clarence daniels:
foster:
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)For everyone who thinks that gun owners are wannabe cowboys who can't wait to fire off a few dozen rounds while yelling "yeehaw!" please take note of who attacked whom here.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)It's ridiculous that this is permitted.
Gun nuts have made this country a terrible place to live.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Leave it in your locked vehicle.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)doesn't he know guns in holsters kill people???
pansypoo53219
(20,977 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)and quite likely because of his race. You can no more assault an innocent and law-abiding person who is an "ammosexual" than you could a homosexual. Your prejudices and fears are not a defense to criminal battery.
You also need to study the various definitions of "concealed" for "concealed carry of a firearm." It doesn't mean that no one can ever ascertain a person has a weapon under any circumstances. In fact, the attacker only viewed the victim lawfully concealing his firearm underneath his coat as he has exited his vehicle in the parking lot, and where it was placed in a holster and never removed. Not only was no one in danger or ever threatened, but it's not an uncommon occurrence in Florida. If the assailant was so frightened, he should of called the police. He's lucky that the victim didn't justifiably shoot him.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.001.html
However, if I was an older black man in Florida, incidents like this might certainly make be consider purchasing and carrying a firearm.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)and an asshole who doesn't realize it's just someone who needs a gun to buy creamer
gun humper chaos
TerrapinFlyer
(277 posts)Anyone carrying any gun into any store.. should be tackled and held down until the Police arrive and verify they are not a threat....
then gun owners might leave their guns at home. 
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Telcontar
(660 posts)Will you regret this post?
ncjustice80
(948 posts)If you cant win a fight you take your lumps and admit you are the lesser man.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)you are a woman?
branford
(4,462 posts)First, I don't know where you come from, but your understanding of self-defense laws everywhere is deficient.
Second, no one has to willingly subject themselves to a violent assault to prove they're not a "lesser man."
Third, where I come from, a younger healthier man attacking a weaker much older man who hadn't actually threatened them, makes the attacker a punk or a thug, not a man, and they would rightly deserve any punishment they receive, including an entirely lawful defensive gunshot wound for the conduct described in the article, as well as criminal battery charges.
Fourth, what happens when the individual carrying the gun is a young and small or elderly woman. Would a younger, stronger man still get to tackle them from behind and place them in a choke hold, or does equal protection not apply where you come from?
Telcontar
(660 posts)"Can't resist gerting raped? Then you might as well lay back and enjoy it. "
That is exactly what you mean. Unfuxking believable
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Im sure they would agree with me.
Telcontar
(660 posts)With being a man?
Otay, back away from the keyboard
ncjustice80
(948 posts)But hey, if you support gunning down unarmed black men, you might be on the wrong website
Telcontar
(660 posts)If I am not mistaken, didn't you just advocate someone taking a breating if they couldn't resist without using a gun? Real progressive attitude there
hughee99
(16,113 posts) 
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Why the fuck would anyone need to bring a gun into Wal-Mart?
mountain grammy
(26,622 posts)LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)Constitutional freedoms only apply to white folks. I read it in the Bible. Besides, as the cost of coffee creamer sky-rockets (thanks Obama!), this type of thing will happen more and more.
Frankly, a true and just God would turn every Wal-Mart into a pillar of salt that I could use to line my margarita glass.
Too bad an old lady in an electric wheelchair didn't run them both over ... for the coffee creamer.
Kaleva
(36,307 posts)TeamPooka
(24,228 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)
riverbendviewgal
(4,253 posts)it is sooooo crazy
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)or perhaps someone well trained in combat. It could have ended very differently.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)openly carrying guns in public a couple of times, and it makes me sick. I didn't know what to do, but in the second case I left (without saying anything only because it was a small minimart and I was afraid the asshole would shoot me if I criticized him to the clerk).
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)The guy who got tackled was the one with the gun. You want to see him sue and win?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)see walmart get sued and decide it's not worth their trouble to allow people carrying in their stores -- which they have a perfect right to do, as does every private business.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)I'm pleasantly surprised to see support for the victim. I also agree private businesses may make such choice and hold no umbrage if they do.
Interestingly the only open carrying I have seen at a Walmart was while we were visiting people out in Dickenson.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)
pauliedangerously
(886 posts)How effing stereotypical can you get?
