Unarmed Concealed Carry holder watched helplessly as Dimebag shot.

[EDT]

As gun owners have repeated 1000's of times to anti gun nuts while they
covered their ears and shook their heads in ignorance, only the law abiding are affected by gun laws.

Criminals brush off all the feel good soccer mom laws passed, while honest people are becoming much more like the English in their helplessness every day.

www.ofcc.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2603

[mike_c]

1. anti gun "nut" here....

Maybe if we weren't awash in handguns Dimebag wouldn't have needed the defense because his assailant might have tried to slap him around instead of shoot him.

[Lefty48197]

47. Maybe one more person shooting, or five, or ten, or...

maybe even 100 ccw holders shooting at the guy would have helped.

[gaia_gardener]

2. Yeah, so the rare occasion like this

is reason to allow people who are drinking to carry concealed. Nope, not buying it.

This happens rarely now. Allow people to drink and have guns on their persons, the incidences WILL rise. I've been to gun shows, I've seen the mentality of these people. I never want to go near a gun show again. I even terminated friendships as those friends got further into the "gun culture" (it becomes cult-like). The weirdness they displayed and the things they would say frankly scared the shit out of me. I know that these formally normal, peaceful people were just an incident away from becoming a killer. They actually started looking for reasons to use their concealed gun (thankfully, as far as I know, they never found a reason).

[mosin]

73. Cult-like gun culture

We're not talking about drinking and gun possession. We're talking about gun possession in a drinking establishment. I don't drink. Ever. Period. It's just a personal decision. I carry a handgun every day, virtually everywhere. In Kentucky, where I work, I can carry into Max & Erma's or Willie's Sports Bar or any restaurant with a liquor license, eat lunch, drink a Diet Coke, and drive home. In Ohio, where I live, I cannot legally carry into Max & Erma's or Willie's Sports Bar because they have liquor licenses, regardless of whether I consume alcohol or not.

A prohibition on carrying should be based on actual consumption of alcohol, not on whether the establishment has a liquor license. The current law in Ohio is the equivalent of banning people from driving to and from liquor establishments because other people there are drinking--and hopefully taking taxi cabs.

[bowens43]

3. That's ridiculous.

There is no reason to think that this could have been avoided by allowing patrons to be armed.

[DoNotRefill]

29. How was the rampage stopped?

It was stopped by somebody with a legally possessed gun coming into the venue and shooting Gale. Would it have been better for Gale to have been shot after he fired his third round, or five minutes later when the cop showed up?

[EDT]

4. Wow! 3 wrong answers in a row.

[m0nkeyneck]

5. lost here..

why not throw the blame @ the nut that did the killing?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[EDT]

12. See post 5

[idiosyncratic]

6. Make that four

Carrying a concealed weapon to such a place, crowded with innocent people, would not be a good idea. :think:

[EDT]

7. DId you read the article?

Sounds like a responsible gun owner, just 5 feet from a jerk who never paid attention to any gun law.

[Pert_UK]

20. Yeah, 'cause bullets always stop after 5 feet.......

and people can always infallibly identify the attacker and then take him out in a crowd without risking injuring or killing a bystander.

I've heard some insane pro-gun arguments in my time, but you take biscuit.........

THE WORLD WILL BE SAFER IF WE JUST ALLOWED GUNS INTO DARK CROWDED BARS!

Keep shouting it - sooner or later someone will notice.....and then cart you away for evaluation.

[EDT]

50. I'm still awaiting a single good argument- all I'm getting is

accusations of me being insane because you've run out of rational arguments.

I do agree with your ALL CAPS exclamation though- indeed a dark crowded bar would be safer if a responsible person was armed when confronted by an irrational indiviual.

I think I'm starting to get through to you.

[Pert_UK]

56. What, other than the two good arguments?

1. that you can't rely on somebody to infallibly pick the shooter out of a crowd and deal with them

2. bullets don't conveniently stop in the intended target and may cause additional unintended injury or death.

How about:

3. once this law abiding gun owner has killed the attacker, exactly what is to stop another law abiding gun owner (in the loud, dark, panicking, confused situation) from mistaking the first law abiding gun owner for another attacker?

Don't really know why I'm bothering - you whinge and bitch about people not simply accepting your dogmatic assertions, and then claim that nobody is making any real criticisms of your position even when they clearly are.

"a dark crowded bar would be safer if a responsible person was armed when confronted by an irrational indiviual." - how about when an irrational individual is shooting randomly into a big group of individuals, many of whom are armed but can't see what's happening. It's not like the attacker said to everyone "I'm the only bad guy here, and now I'm going to start shooting". Nobody knew what the fuck was going on, yet you present it as if it was blatantly obvious to all present who was doing what, and that the crowd could have distinguished between the attacker and the law abiding gun owner in that instant (ignoring the fact that had guns been allowed there would have been multiple weapons pulled when the shooting starts).

I haven't run out of rational arguments, I could go on all day, and if you aren't insane you're clearly unhealthily obsessed with guns as a panacea for society's ills.

[comradebillyboy]

9. i sympathize, but booze loosens

social restraints a lot, and folks often behave irresponsibly when drunk. i am glad guns are banned in bars.

i am thinking of getting a ccw license in the spring. any recommendations on a good concealed carry piece?

[DoNotRefill]

30. then why not have a standard like they do with DUI?

If they passed a law saying you can't legally carry a concealed weapon with a BAC of over, say, .02%, wouldn't that solve the problem? Remember, at .08% BAC, you're presumed to be impared enough to not be able to drive legally, so at .02 BAC, it'd be a VERY tough standard.

The problem is drunk people with guns, yes? If they are not drinking (and a .02% BAC would mean that they couldn't drink even a little) then why shouldn't they be able to carry into the bar?

[iverglas]

43. time for the cloaking device again!

then why not have a standard like they do with DUI?

Cars are not invisible. The people who are driving cars can be recognized by the fact that they are, uh, driving cars.

Now, what's that thing called again? A CONCEALED weapon? And one would know that the person who was recognizable to the naked eye as impaired was carrying a concealed firearm ... how?

Ah, the honour system. Yes, we do depend on people who are impaired not to drive cars -- but we at least know they are driving cars when they do it. And if they're driving in a drunken manner, we can see it. A drunk who wanted to tote a gun around in his pants would, to the naked eye, be a gun-less drunk. If s/he were carrying a concealed firearm around in a drunken manner, we wouldn't have a clue.

If we wanted to be absolutely certain that drunks didn't drive, we could require that car ignitions be equipped with breathalyzers. We sometimes do just that in the case of people with a propensity for driving while drunk (and frankly, I'd be in favour of them being mandatory equipment). Of course, that won't stop them from driving someone else's car, but many people do tend not to hand their keys to drunks.

I wonder whether we could do the same for firearms? Equip them with breathalyzers so they won't ... what? Fit in yer pants? But once the big thing attached to them is off, who puts it back on once the gun-toter gets to drinking? So they won't be operable? Cars have to be turned off at some point, or they run out of gas, and have to be restarted periodically in order to be operable. How does one turn a firearm off? What incentive would there be to turn it off?

Firearms fit in pockets, and are operable at all times.

Cars are visible to the naked eye, and must be turned on to be operable.

Flaws in the analogy.

The honour system, with punishment for people who violate it, is not an adequate deterrent in some cases. Not adequate, if what one is actually doing is trying to reduce the harm associated with the violation, anyhow.

If it is not adequate -- either because too many people will violate it or because the potential for harm if even a few people violate it is too great -- preventive measures, not just deterrent measures, are necessary.

Put up a "no parking sign", and people will park. Install a concrete barrier, and nobody will park. Of course, even when there is no barrier and they do park, the violation is obvious to the naked eye, so the risk of enforcement action is a tad higher than if the car were equipped with Klingon technology to make it as invisible as a concealed weapon.

If they are not drinking (and a .02% BAC would mean that they couldn't drink even a little) then why shouldn't they be able to carry into the bar?

You can tell who is drinking -- but how the hell do you know who is carrying a firearm ... until s/he pulls it out and fires it? So how on earth can the "no drinking while carrying" law itself be enforced other than by pre-emptively searching everyone in the bar, or ex post facto when harm has already been done??

Laws alone -- the honour system: thou shalt not carry a firearm in a bar -- obviously don't stop this from ever happening. They do deter some people from doing it.

Preventive measures -- making it extremely difficult for most people to acquire a firearm that can be invisibly toted around, just as concrete barriers make it extremely difficult to park in a no-parking zone -- work a lot better.

[DoNotRefill]

48. It's pretty simple, and it's already the law in many places...

simply require the person with the permit to inform the officer that they are carrying, and have their status of having a CCW permit come up when their information is run checking for outstanding warrants et cetera.

In order for somebody to be stopped for DUI, there must be probable cause. Same deal for somebody suspected of carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated.

You say: "Laws alone -- the honour system: thou shalt not carry a firearm in a bar -- obviously don't stop this from ever happening. They do deter some people from doing it."

Exactly right. And people who have CCW permits are exactly the kind of people who follow the honor system....they've indicated it by in fact GETTING a CCW permit. Remember, if the gun is concealed, how would somebody know if they had a permit or not, since they never see the gun? The people who jumped through the hoops have shown that they follow the law by getting the permit. In other words, they're low risk people to begin with. And remember, being a "habitual drunkard" is a disqualifying factor for firearms ownership in the first place.

Take the Dimebag Darryl situation. The guy who decided to shoot people didn't have a permit, was basically going on a suicide run anyway, and didn't CARE if it was illegal to take a gun into the bar. The guy who HAD the ccw permit didn't take the gun into the bar because it was against the law, and so had no ability to resist the badguy with the gun. The guy who didn't take his gun into the bar showed that he was trustworthy (because he obeyed the law, stupid as it is). The guy who killed the people showed that he was NOT trustworthy, because he broke the law by carrying a gun without a permit, by taking the gun into the bar, and then by shooting people. what I'm talking about wouldn't have made things easier for the shooter, because he was already breaking the law.

[iverglas]

49. simple indeed

In order for somebody to be stopped for DUI, there must be probable cause. Same deal for somebody suspected of carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated.

"Same deal"? Not quite.

A person driving while intoxicated can be observed to be:

(a) driving
(b) intoxicated

A person carrying a concealed firearm while intoxicated can be observed to be:

(b) intoxicated

How can this be any less clear? How can the observed behaviour -- being intoxicated -- ever provide probable grounds for investigating whether the offence of carrying a firearm while intoxicated is being committed if there is no basis for a belief that a firearm is being carried??

There must be "probable cause", in the case of driving while impaired, for the offence of "driving while impaired" -- driving, impaired. The person must first be seen to be driving before the probable cause can begin to exist.

How can a person possibly, ever, anywhere, be seen to be carrying a concealed firearm??

How can the probable cause required for investigating whether someone has committed the offence ever exist, if by the very nature of one part of the actus reus (the thing done), nobody can know about it?

Short of someone walking inexplicably up to a cop and saying "I'm carrying a conshealed pishtol", when will probable cause exist???


Exactly right. And people who have CCW permits are exactly the kind of people who follow the honor system....they've indicated it by in fact GETTING a CCW permit.

Nuh uh. Nope. They have demonstrated that they meet certain criteria. This is NOT a demonstration of anything else.

In particular, it is not a demonstration that they do not break relevant laws. It is merely a demonstration that they have never been caught breaking relevant laws. And never having been caught breaking a relevant law is NOT a rational criterion for determining whether someone follows the honour system.

There simply is no way in the world that it can ever be determined that someone has not broken a relevant law -- or is not a reckless drinker, or is not prone to fits of rage, or is not unspeakably stupid.

Not having a criminal record is NOT a proxy for trustworthy, or "responsible", or willing and able to exercise self-control under duress, or possessed of the intelligence to behave appropriately in difficult circumstances.

C'mon, don't tell me you haven't read it all.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=incident&menu=gvr

In March 1996, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that Clarence Wilbon, then 48, of Little Rock, who had a license to carry a concealed handgun, fatally shot Gary Allen Smith once in the chest with a .44-caliber revolver. Wilbon fired as he and Smith, who was also armed, struggled for control of Smith's gun, which had fired one round into Wilbon's leg when the two argued at a gambling game in a North Little Rock house. He had a permit despite a record of misdemeanor charges for gambling, as well as arrests but no convictions on drug charges and in the assault of a policeman.

Hell, that one had even been caught being untrustworthy ... just not convicted.

I have to wonder what proof is required that one is not an "habitual drunkard" ...

Take the Dimebag Darryl situation. The guy who decided to shoot people didn't have a permit, was basically going on a suicide run anyway, and didn't CARE if it was illegal to take a gun into the bar.

Indeed. Was all those things, and had a firearm. Remove the firearm from the equation, and you have a suicidal "irresponsible" loon with no gun ... and you most likely just don't have a problem.

The guy who HAD the ccw permit didn't take the gun into the bar because it was against the law, and so had no ability to resist the badguy with the gun.

And unless we have a crystal ball, we have no idea what would have happened had he had his firearm on his person.

The guy who didn't take his gun into the bar showed that he was trustworthy (because he obeyed the law, stupid as it is).

Good grief. I'm sure that Al Capone tried not to drive through red lights. He obeyed the law. So he was trustworthy??

The logical fallacies flow freely.

The guy who killed the people showed that he was NOT trustworthy, because he broke the law by carrying a gun without a permit, by taking the gun into the bar, and then by shooting people.

Ah. There's one now.



We have no idea whether someone who carries a firearm into a public place where it is prohibited without a permit and fires it is "not trustworthy" -- or psychotic, or situationally depressed, or drunk for the first time in his/her life, or shooting at someone who was about to knife someone else.

We can only know why it happened after it happened.

what I'm talking about wouldn't have made things easier for the shooter, because he was already breaking the law.

Yeah, but what I'm talking about would have made things harder for him. Make it extremely difficult for him to acquire the firearm in the first place.

And you just don't do that by permitting anybody and everybody who has no criminal record to acquire, let alone carry around, the firearms with which acts like these are committed.

On June 20, 2000, the Providence Journal (RI) reported that police were investigating Ira S. Nasberg, a freelance photographer whose stolen .40-caliber handgun was allegedly used in the murder of two college students. During the last eight years, Nasberg has reported six guns either lost or stolen. When Nasberg reported the .40-caliber handgun stolen, he told police that the gun was taken from his "unattended" car while he was in a convenience store. Later, he said that another man, Gregory Floyd, was in the car at the time of the theft. Floyd was arrested along with four other men for the abduction and shooting of the college students. Police suspect that Nasberg, a CCW licensee with no criminal record, had illegally purchased guns on behalf of other people.

What a fine and trustworthy fellow he was.

If making it extremely difficult to do things didn't prevent at least some people from doing them, we wouldn't have concrete parking barriers.

And preventing some people from doing really awful things is better than arranging the world so that anybody who feels like it can do them. In my considered opinion.

In Houston, TX, Pete Kanakidis shot and killed Alejandro Cruz Arroyo in May 1996, after a dispute over the ownership of some tools with two other men. The investigation indicated that Kanakidis approached Arroyo, who was sitting in his vehicle, and fired point blank into Arroyo's face. Although Kanakidis indicated that he felt his life in danger, police later determined that Arroyo was not involved in the argument and was sitting alone in the driver's seat of a truck. Texas's CCW law went into effect in January 1996.

... ... ...

[DoNotRefill]

51. In both cases...

the pertinent factor that triggers police intervention is the intoxication. If you're driving and intoxicated, it's the intoxicated part that's pertinent. Driving isn't a crime, it'd driving while INTOXICATED that's the crime, just as standing on the sidewalk is not a crime, but standing on the sidewalk while INTOXICATED is a crime. If you're just standing on the street or sidewalk while intoxicated, regardless of if you're carrying a concealed weapon, you're going to meet the police, and they will speak to you, with the intoxication being the triggering factor. Odds are good that when you speak to the police, if you're not cooperative, they will frisk you, and if you are cooperative, they'll find out when they run your wants and warrants if you have a CCW permit. Either way, they'll find out if you're armed.

"Nuh uh. Nope. They have demonstrated that they meet certain criteria. This is NOT a demonstration of anything else."

If you look at the stats released by the various state agencies (which are not terribly subject to biases, since they're releases of actual facts, without interpretation) that track such things, you'll find that people with CCW permits are far more likely to obey the law than the population at large. And you should be ashamed of yourself for citing to the Brady Campaign as they cite VPC...you and I both know that they have a very pronounced bias. Citing them is like citing Newsmax...you may think it supports your argument, but all it really does is show a lack of work or basic fairness in your approach.

[iverglas]

62. gosh

And you should be ashamed of yourself for citing to the Brady Campaign as they cite VPC...

I suppose I should have included the footnotes, for those who choose not to read for themselves. I thought that maybe since I'd cited the site in a previous post, in this thread I believe, and mentioned how the information was properly documented at the source I cited, that would do.

Citing them is like citing Newsmax...

Nope. Because, as I did say in that other post (number 26) and just didn't think I had to repeat:

(and I don't care about your opinion of the source that compiled them, and I am not relying on that source's characterization of the incidents or allegations of other unreferenced incidents; the listed incidents are documented)

If *you* want to allege that the incidents cited did not occur, or occurred somehow other than the way they are described as occurring, you'll be needing to offer some counter-evidence, not a characterization of the source that reported them.

you may think it supports your argument, but all it really does is show a lack of work or basic fairness in your approach

Tell that to these fine publications:

"Fatal shootings involving concealed handguns," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, February 8, 2001.

"Gun owner under scrutiny," Providence Journal, June 20, 2000.

"Man Shot to Death in Flap Over Tools," Houston Chronicle, May 31, 1996 and "Murder Charge in Man's Death," Houston Chronicle, June 1, 1996.

(the sources of the three reports cited in the post you replied to), and all the other reputable news sources cited by my source.

If you want to say that bradycampaign.org made up the stories I reported, why don't you just say so?

Characterizing the presentation of facts, or a third party's citation thereof, as "a lack of work or basic fairness" is just kinda weird, to my mind.

I don't need "statistics" to prove my point, which is that possession of a licence to carry a concealed firearm around is not, as has been claimed, proof, even prima facie, of trustworthiness or of a superior propensity to obey the law, let alone unfailing practice of obeying the law. I just need the exception that tests the rule. And I found lots of 'em.

you'll find that people with CCW permits are far more likely to obey the law than the population at large.

That's nice. And some of them shoot (and kill) people, and some of them transfer their firearms illegally to other people who shoot (and kill) people. And apparently we have no way of knowing which of them are going to do that ... because if we did, they presumably would not have got permits.

... but standing on the sidewalk while INTOXICATED is a crime. If you're just standing on the street or sidewalk while intoxicated, regardless of if you're carrying a concealed weapon, you're going to meet the police, ... if you're not cooperative, they will frisk you, ...

Whew. Which amendment was that, now? The one about unreasonable search and seizure? The one that police would be violating if they searched someone on the ground that s/he was being "not cooperative"?

I don't know what sort of police state you might live in, where "standing on the street or sidewalk while intoxicated" is grounds for being searched by the police. Glad I don't live in one like that.

Where I'm at, being intoxicated in a public place without causing a disturbance is not a crime, but may be an offence under a provincial statute. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Union describes that province's statute:

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/O/96338_01.htm

91 (1) If a peace officer finds, in a place to which the public has access, a person who is in a state of intoxication, the peace officer may take that person into custody.

as follows:

http://www.bccla.org/arrest/BCCLA%20handbook%20web.pdf

Intoxicated means that you are so drunk or high that you are unable to care for yourself, you are a danger to yourself or others, or you are causing a disturbance.

Just being quiet on the sidewalk with a blood alcohol level of 0.1 (and a handgun in your pants) isn't going to be grounds for being accosted, let alone searched, by police where I'm at. That would be unconstitutional:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Those permissive firearms laws just seem to contribute to the erosion of freedoms where you're at, don't they? Police apparently need the power to accost and search polite drunks minding their own business on the sidewalk, in order to determine whether they are violating the terms of a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Of course, how they'd know that such a person was drunk, providing probable grounds to justify accosting and searching, I don't know.

And unfortunately, "being a person prone to fits of rage" and "being a person with no scruples" and "being really stupid" are not conditions readily apparent to police when the person with such a condition is standing on the street or sidewalk, any more than they are to the authorities which issue licences to carry concealed weapons around.

[alwynsw]

33. Check your PM. n/t

[MrSandman]

46. Sig p-232

[justa]

10. Luckily "Roger" was not carrying or more people might have died.

"I stood not 5 feet from a man that was discharging his weapon into the band members head, shoulder and abdomen, then waving and shooting into the audience. I watched as he swapped clips, then I watched as he ran behind the stage where I heard several more rounds fired. I WATCHED!!!"

This idiot stood by his own admission "not 5 feet from that man" and did nothing. watched as he swapped clips and did nothing. watched as he fired into the band and did nothing. then watched hem run away. People like this do not have any reason to have a gun. Especially where their is alcohol being served. can you imagine the chaos if a hundred drunks like this idiot were also shooting into the crowd. Can you imagine how many people will be shot in bar fights every night if people are allowed to carry a gun while drinking. The laws were made for people like this.

[EDT]

11. He is not an idiot, only an honest man living within idiots laws.

Where exactly did he say he'd start firing into the crowd?

Sounds like more crazy anti-gun nut talk to me.

[justa]

27. I'm not "a crazy anti gun nut"

I happen to on several weapons and have a conceal carry permit. I have owned guns since I was in my early teens and have been taught to use and respect them. I just know better than to carry a weapon where their is alcohol being served. If this man, given his own account, had had a weapon on him he would have done more harm than good.

[Pert_UK]

57. Sorry justa, you're a "crazy anti gun nut".......

Never mind your history of responsible ownership, if you don't agree with all EDT's assertions, including:

- armed bar patrons are safer bar patrons
- children should own RPGs in case of tank-driving paedophiles
- a loaded Desert Eagle is the best tool for cracking walnuts

then I'm afraid you're a gun-grabbing, tree-hugging, panty-wearing Communist, and you're probably one of them gays as well. Isn't it obvious?

Welcome to DU by the way, and thanks for making a rational addition to the pro-gun side of the debate - it's so much more fun to have an adult to play with!

:toast:

P.

[EDT]

80. I'm flattered by the personal attacks- the references to RPG's

Desert Eagles, and crazed gun owners are good stuff for a Hollywood script, or Brady campaign story to whip up the masses with fear.

I'm so thankful you can't vote in my country. Enjoy yours.

[skippythwndrdog]

13. He couldn't run away. There was no where to go.

Did you miss the part where Roger says he has a PROSTHETIC leg? Where was he supposed to go. If Roger had a gun, like is allowed in bars in Florida, the death toll would have been likely lower. I'm sick of all the folks here who are so opposed to self defense that they would prefer a madman kill rampantly than have a veteran like Roger kill the criminal. There is no law against licensed concealed carry while drinking in Florida, and they have had no problems. Maybe many of the people here are more afraid about what they would do. I suppose it is a good thing that these folks don't own guns.

[Billy Ruffian]

23. My recollection of the Florida CCW law is different

I haven't looked at it in a while, and it's certainly possible that it has changed. As I remember, you can carry in a restaurant where alcohol is served, and you can consume alcohol while carrying (with restrictions), but you can't carry in a bar (ie. an establishment where the primary purpose is selling alcohol)

I'll see if I can find a link to the exact statute. FL also addresses BAC while carrying, with (again, IIRC) something like 0 - 0.04 BAC is a 'non-issue', 0.04- 0.08 is an exacerbating factor to be considered if you did something wrong, and 0.08 or over, a violation of the law (ie. you can't carry at all if your BAC is 0.08 or over)

[Billy Ruffian]

63. Found the Florida law

http://tinyurl.com/5kveo

It's section 790.157 of the Fl statutes.

If your BAC is 0.05% or lower, you're not impaired.
.05-.10, that doesn't mean you're impaired, but can be used along with other evidence to determine whether you're impaired.
Above .10, you're impaired.

[justa]

28. according to Packing.org..

you can not carry in Florida if..

"any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.

also the law states that if you can not carry if your blood alcohol level is above .08 and it may be used against you if you use a weapon with a blood alcohol level between .04 and .08. so to say that "There is no law against licensed conceal carry while drinking in Florida" is wrong.

[skippythwndrdog]

60. Whoops, thanks.

Didn't realize that there was a difference in Florida between dedicated bars and other places with booze.

[Old and In the Way]

14. Can you imagine EVERYBODY having a concealed gun

at that concert? I can imagine the chain reaction carnage now.....

[EDT]

15. They would have been aiming for one psychopath- how is that carnage?

All I read from anti gun nuts is the hyped up lie that gun owners are blasting away at crowds of innocents with zeal.

Even anti's know this is a lie. The truth is honest gun owners have taken state approved gun safety courses, and passed rigorous background checks to verify they have always been honest and law abiding. They are aware of the consequences of their actions, and act accordingly.

[gaia_gardener]

16. So, you're in the back of the crowd

suddenly, you hear gunshots. You see the guy in front of you holding a gun. Do you know who was doing the shooting? Probably not. You shoot that guy, figuring he was the shooter, especially since he's probably shooting someone in front of him.

For all these people knew, there were multiple shooters in the crowd. If people started pulling out guns, there would have been a lot of shots because no one would know who was a good guy or a bad guy.

And the problem with a crowd, is you can't tell when people are suddenly going to move. You'd have innocent people stepping in the way of a bullet.

It would be a very bad idea. Period. And no NRA propaganda is going to convince me otherwise (and yes, I've read their magazine and seen all their "thank god I had my gun" stories).

[Old and In the Way]

17. Hey, let's try an experiment!

Let's round up a few thousand CW , gun rights zealots.....treat them to a few drinks. Turn the lights down and light some firecrackers and let see what happens.

:-)

[Fescue4u]

94. I've been hearing that fairy tell for 20 years now

During that time, about 30 states have passed shall carry laws.

During such 20 years, this fairy tale has neve come true.

[iverglas]

95. gee, I wonder

During such 20 years, this fairy tale has neve<r> come true.

Could this perhaps be because the condition precedent, the sine qua non, for it to have come true is for someone to do something like start shooting at the band at a rock concert?

And precisely how many times has that particular fairy tale, the one that rkba-head dreams really do seem to be made of, come true?

Oh look. We have one. And apparently none of your white-knight concealed firearms carriers were armed and on hand to finish the tale for us. So what do we actually know about what would have happened had they been? Hmm. Looks to me like nothing.

So me, I'm seeing no more basis for calling the scenario that was presented a fairy tale than I see for calling the scenario of the ready, willing, able, responsible, trustworthy, perspicacious, licensed concealed firearm carrier cleanly taking out the bad guy ... and none of his/her ready, willing and able colleagues being somewhat less responsible or trustworthy or perspicacious and fucking up and someone else getting hurt/killed as a result.

It's all a matter of what one considers reasonable to predict on the basis of past experience and general knowledge and what risks one regards as worth taking. One person's fairy tale is another person's nightmare, and which it is will depend also on how honest everyone is being and what s/he might be concealing, like an agenda based on something other than the public interest.

[Old and In the Way]

18. You are nuts if you think a few hundred people carry guns in that

situation wouldn't have made the problem a shitload worse. But keep arguing your point! In that situation, once the guns start blazing, no one's asking questions.

[EDT]

22. Please see post #21

We're not crazy, rash and irresponsible like antigun nuts are. We are well aware of the consequences of our actions, and consider them in every situation.

[Old and In the Way]

25. Please see post #24

Obviously, your intent is to incite people to post anti-gun sentiments. You are unable to to give a coherent response to my earlier comment about chain reaction carnage. Anyone who thinks carry concealed weapons into a concert venue is a good thing is a rather nutty pro-gun person. If you feel you have to bring a gun to protect yourself, it's probably better that you don't attend events with large groups of people around you.

[iverglas]

26. and white men can't jump

We're not crazy, rash and irresponsible like antigun nuts are. We are well aware of the consequences of our actions, and consider them in every situation.

Gosh, isn't that stereotyping?

Making a universal statement about a class of people based on individual cases or preconceived notions; I'd say your statement fits the bill.

Oh, lest you be confused about what I'm saying, as I just realized you could be: I'm not talking about your characterization of "antigun nuts".

I'm talking about your bizarre claim that firearms owners are "not crazy, rash and irresponsible", and are "well aware of the consequences of {their} actions", and "consider {the consequences of their actions} in every situation".

And black folk got rhythm, eh?

And you do realize that it takes only one case to disprove the universal statement?

It's hard to pick a favourite from the list of incidents involving concealed weapon permit holders here:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=incident&menu=gvr
(and I don't care about your opinion of the source that compiled them, and I am not relying on that source's characterization of the incidents or allegations of other unreferenced incidents; the listed incidents are documented), but here's one:

On January 27, 2000, Louis Mockewich, 34, of Philadelphia, PA, shot and killed a neighbor who was shoveling snow behind his rowhouse. The two neighbors had been arguing over where the victim was placing the snow, and Mockewich's solution was to pull out his gun, for which he had a CCW permit, and kill the 31-year-old man. The victim, too had a CCW permit.

Oh, how about just one more?

In early July 1999, Scott Stone, Jr., of Tarboro, NC, flew halfway across the country to murder his ex-wife in Southlake, Texas. Stone, a former resident of Southlake, and a North Carolina concealed-weapons permit holder, ambushed his ex-wife, Marisa Jackson, as she jogged along a trail near her house. He then turned the gun on himself. Friends noted that Stone, "ever showed any signs of aggressiveness or any reason to have done what he ." Both doctors, Stone and Jackson had graduated together from the University of Illinois College of Medicine. There was no history of domestic violence between the two. In the trunk of Stone's rental car, police found a will leaving all of his assets to his two young daughters and a check for the executor of his estate.

Oh, and while we're there ... let's arm those teachers, eh?

On March 7, 2000, Deena Estaban, 42, of Woodbridge, VA, was charged with bringing a gun onto school property. Estaban, who has a Virginia CCW permit, had mistakenly brought the gun in a backpack to the elementary school where she is an art teacher. The gun was loaded and had been left unattended in her classroom until another teacher discovered it. Police said that it was likely that students were near the bag during the school day.

[Pert_UK]

19. I have rarely encountered such nonsense....

I love the tone of this article, which tacitly admits that loads of other people have already spoken about this tragedy but somehow this guy has the answer that they all missed.....more guns. I wonder what the other punters would say if you went back to them and said, "Don't you wish that more people had been armed when the shooting started?"....."Shit, you're right! How could I have missed that! That one gun owner has stumbled onto something the rest of us all missed! I've got to arm myself RIGHT NOW!".....

"As gun owners have repeated 1000's of times to anti gun nuts while they covered their ears and shook their heads in ignorance, only the law abiding are affected by gun laws. "

So...you've repeated it for the 10,001st time rather than offering any evidence. Hearty apologies for not caving in to your dogmatic repetition. And I still find it stunning that I live in a world where suggesting that access to guns be controlled means you can be labelled "nuts".

"honest people are becoming much more like the English in their helplessness every day." How interesting that you pick the English, rather than saying British (we're all subject to essentially the same laws over here ya know). Or you could have picked almost every other developed Western country in the world, as the vast majority of them don't allow concealed carrying of guns for self defense.

In case you hadn't noticed, not even the British POLICE feel that they need to carry guns - do you think they're hoping to make themselves as "helpless" as possible? The British aren't "helpless" - happily we're in a situation where gun crime is so incredibly rare that it makes no sense to suggest widespread concealed carry would be a sensible deterrant or response.

What exactly do you think would have happened if the audience at that gig had all been carrying guns? Do you think that would have deterred somebody who was clearly murderously insane? Do you think that there would have been LESS deaths, if several hundred people all pulled out weapons when the firing started? By the sound of the panic and confusion outlined in the article, I'd say it would be likely that more people would have been killed in the crossfire, due to mistakes and accidental discharging, the stampede as people tried to escape etc.

Oh hang on...clearly if the whole audience were armed one of them would have cleanly and accurately killed the attacker with a single shot and then they'd have all carried on with the gig as if nothing had happened. There definitely wouldn't have been a fusillade of bullets flying all over the place with nobody sure what was happening.

Great idea, introduce MORE guns into a dark noisy room full of panicking and confused people....Why are some rabid pro-gunners so bad at maths and probability? One less gun in the hands of the attacker = guarrantee of less deaths. Shitload more guns in the hands of the audience = what? Can anybody tell me? You there, the 5 year old - will more or less people get shot if there are more guns in the room?

[EDT]

21. Once again, painting an image of gun owners as nuts

that are shooting blindly into crowds of mothers shielding their babies.

Though you may wish this, as this falsely conjured image is the only way you can make any of your subsequent arguments work, every legal gun owner I know is well aware of the consequences of their actions, and only wish to protect themselves and their loved ones. We have to be responsible, with squeaky clean legal records, in order to continue to own firearms.

[Old and In the Way]

24. No, just painting you as a gun nut for dragging your fantasy about

guns into this news story. Luckily, the vast majority of gun owners don't think like you.

[EDT]

35. Not a gun nut, just not a helpless sheep.

You can be a helpless sheep if you want,but I believe in living, and promoting other good people's desire to live.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[EDT]

36. No, it's called protection. You got one letter wrong.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

39. and you're all so terribly, terribly clever

If only ... someone had actually said what the comment being discussed:

Once again, painting an image of gun owners as nuts
that are shooting blindly into crowds of mothers shielding their babies.

portrayed someone as doing.

If someone had, this might all be relevant. It would still be just plain dumb.

You will all have to share this week's award in the category.


http://winace.andkon.com/pics

Didn't our esteemed leader recently post a link to something that might be relevant here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#civility

One might suggest that if someone felt personally attacked by what Pert_UK said, s/he might want to consider the adage about shoes fitting.

Anyone who didn't might ask him/herself why s/he considers it appropriate to produce moronic stereotypical characterizations meant to insult in response to Pert_UK's post rather than addressing it.

I can offer a couple of theories.

Dim, or disingenuous? Dim, or disingenuous?


http://www.redbudfarms.com

[Pert_UK]

55. Nope, just staggered that you're too obsessed with guns to agree...

that there are some situations that can't be solved by adding more guns to the equation.

Your problem (actually, one of the many problems, but in this specific case the main problem) is that you fail to acknowledge that in your world there wouldn't be just one law-abiding armed gun owner, helpfully standing by in exactly the right place to prevent this massacre with a single shot, taking out the attacker the nano-second before he kills anyone and with the bullet stopping without exiting the body and flying off into somebody else.

What there would be is a roomfull of law-abiding armed gun owners, the majority of them unable to see what's going on, all panicking (I hate to break it to you, but even gun owners panic when they're stuck in a dark, loud bar with somebody shooting randomly into the crowd) and some of them probably drunk (they're in a bar after all).

It is both bizarre and counter-intuitive to suggest that this wouldn't increase the risks of being shot in this situation.

Now you see, if you'd suggested that there should have been a few armed security / policemen in the venue then I might have begun to agree with you. Unfortunately you're so obsessed that "guns for all" solves every problem on earth that you've chosen a situation where even the majority of pro-gunners think that more guns would have made things worse.

Essentially, you want people to be allowed to carry guns into rock concerts and bars where alcohol is served - and you believe that this will make them SAFER?

Do yourself (and the rest of us) a favour - by all means continue to be a dedicated pro-gunner, but every once in a while try thinking outside the (ammo) box and consider the vaguest possibility that there are situations where guns really don't help.

Or would that mean abandoning all your "well thought out" principles?

[Pert_UK]

58. No time to answer - too busy painting my nuts....

:silly:

[slackmaster]

31. A lot of people watched helplessly as Dimebag was shot

It must have been a terrible experience for anyone who was there.

I don't believe allowing concealed weapons in that kind of venue would result in many real opportunities for them to be used in a heroic manner. There have to be some reasonable limits on where they can be used.

OTOH if people are really serious about keeping ALL weapons out of concerts they should be screening everyone who enters. A quick metal detector check would catch any gun or knife. They're being used at sporting events now, so why not concert halls too? It seems to me the kind of crowd attracted to a heavy metal concert wouldn't be very different from the caliber of folks who watch professional football games.

Honest people follow the rules, criminals ignore them.

[Wickerman]

41. As a guy who has promoted simlar sized shows

having a metal detector and the staff to monitor same would make the event a non-starter from the profit-loss angle. The promoter of the show made money on the door of this one (not speculating on his bottom line due to the "event" at the event), but probably breaks even or loses money on 2 out of 5 such shows. Throw a metal detector in and suddenly he is losing money on 3 of 5 shows and its no longer affordable to stage such events.

I got no comment on nothing else, just thought I would throw that bit in.

[slackmaster]

42. OK, how about a quick frisk like I went through at my first rock concert?

Led Zeppelin, San Diego Sports Arena, 1973 - The very same Led Zep concert portrayed in the movie Almost Famous.

The yellow-shirted security staff managed to pat down all roughly 17,000 attendees in a timely manner. AFAIK nobody got shot or stabbed at that show.

[Wickerman]

44. I think frisking is pretty routine

Sometimes they are more vigilant than others.

Years ago I snuck a reasonably large sony tape recorder (D-6) and mic into a New Order show. I got one helluva frisk from the burly female security guard. I thought she was a tad familiar even for the job and when she found the recorder in my crotch her face turned visibly red, clearly embarrassed she passed me on through. :)

It could've easily been a weapon - of course in those days awareness of potential violence was not as high as it is today.

[iverglas]

45. pfft

my first rock concert ... Led Zeppelin, San Diego Sports Arena, 1973

MC5, Grande Ballroom, Detroit, winter 1968.

Alright, we thought it was going to be the Moody Blues, and we were one night late.

And when Jane and I got separated in the haze and were late for being picked up, and my father came in to look for us, the cop on the staircase said your daughter is in there?? ... and I had to leave home (not long after) if I wanted to go to another rock concert ever ...

But not before my first demo ... Vietnam War, streets of London Ont., spring of '68. And just as I was about to march off in formation my mother drove up in the station wagon with my 2-yr-old sister, and she turned her back and started chatting with the cop on the sidewalk ... but I didn't manage to make my escape, and I had to leave home if I wanted to go on another demo ...

Led Zeppelin. That's cute. You must be my little brother's age. When he was going to rock concerts and smoking pot in his room and bringing girls home overnight, my father wasn't speaking to him, so what could he say?

"Almost famous" -- hey, I saw the video a couple of months ago. Did I see you? Or were you like me in all the pics of the big anti-Bush demos last month ... just off to the left there out of the frame ...

My Texan ex-co-vivant is in Honeysuckle Rose. Right there in the crowd in the stands, behind the guy with the ...

[T Town Jake]

54. The Zep!...

...how I wish I'd been there, to help get the "Led" out!!!

*sigh*...my first attended concert (1978) was KISS; they were good, but I still regret that I came of age just a little bit too late to see Led Zeppelin live and in all of their glory.

On the bright side: I'll wager a fair bet that between you, me, and Lunabush/Wickerman, we're the only three down here in the Gungeon who can even remember having to endure "Do that to me one more time" being played over and over and over and over again on the FM Dial. Not that I have anything against the Good Captain and his lady Tenille, mind you... :P

[Billy Ruffian]

61. You fiend!

I thought I'd purged that memory! Worse, it's linked to all sorts of other horrid music.

[Pert_UK]

59. Sensible words, Slackmaster.....

It's always good to remind myself that at least some of the pro-gun crowd are capable of rationally thinking for themselves and don't necessarily equate being "pro gun" with "guns are the answer to everything and are never a problem".

"There have to be some reasonable limits on where they can be used." - I think that EDT will have something to say about that, you damn Communist!

[slackmaster]

64. Thank you Pert

I'm grateful that someone reads my posts for reasons other than looking for a fight.

It's understandable that some would characterize me as a member of the "pro-gun crowd", but FWIW I consider myself a member of the "pro-choice-on-everything crowd". Only people who really want guns and are willing and able to take on the responsibilities associated with guns should have them.

[Left in IL]

34. More matches more fires?

The idea that other in the bar possessing guns would have lead to wide scale shootings is as likely as handing out matches at the bar would lead to wide scale arson.

If others in the bar had firearms, and they were responsible firearms owners, they would be following firearms safety rules.

As a reminder:

1. Treat all weapons as if they are loaded.

2. Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy.

3. Keep your finger off of the trigger until your target is sighted in and you are ready to fire.

4. Be sure of your target, and what is behind it.

In order to pull the trigger, you must have a clear unobstructed view of a person endagering the life of another, and know what is behind your target. This is the only option if you are a responsible gun owner.

If you are pulling the trigger and this is not the case, you are a criminal yourself.

So the question is do you see the Average CCW holder (who is not a felon, or domestic abuser, and is mentally fit and has taken a a safety class) as a responsible citizen, or a criminal?

[iverglas]

40. so in other words ...

If anybody in the crowd had had a firearm and had obeyed those rules, it would have made not a whit of difference in terms of outcome.

Well ... as long as everybody actually obeyed all those rules, anyhow, eh?

If you are pulling the trigger and this is not the case, you are a criminal yourself.

Gasp! And yet, right up until you did that, you were a law-abiding gun owner!

So the question is do you see the Average CCW holder (who is not a felon, or domestic abuser, and is mentally fit and has taken a a safety class) as a responsible citizen, or a criminal?

The "Average CCW holder"? Who cares about the "average"?

The average Mr. Bush may be a nice guy who tries every day to make the world a better place. Unfortunately, the particular Mr. Bush I tend to worry about isn't. And even if every other Mr. Bush in the world were a veritable Mister Rogers, I would still worry about what that particular Mr. Bush might get up to if given half a chance. Heck, I'd still worry about what a couple of the other Messrs. Bush might get up to if drunk, provoked, depressed, overtired, confused, or otherwise just, um, not themselves.

So I guess your question just isn't the question at all. Better luck next time!

[Left in IL]

75. I agree

I just wanted to agree with you when you said:

"Gasp! And yet, right up until you did that, you were a law-abiding gun owner!"

I couldn't agree more.

This is like having the right to free speech right up until you yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater.

Otherwise, we should be gagging everyone as the entered the theater just to be safe.

[iverglas]

77. yeah

I just wanted to agree with you when you said: ...

You too obviously didn't want to address my demonstration of your bullshit.

This is like having the right to free speech right up until you yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater.

Nope. It isn't.

Ya see? You just used your right of free speech to say something incorrect. And I'm not bleeding.

And fer chrissakes, when are some of you people going to get things straight? You HAVE the right of free speech no matter WHAT you say, WHERE, or WHEN. You are prohibited from, and punished for, engaging in certain EXERCISES of that right. You have the right of free speech right up to, during and after you yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre (where, of course, there is no fire). I mean, where exactly did you imagine that said inalienable right went in that instant?

Try this: you have the right to yell "fire!", but you are prohibited from doing it in a crowded theatre, and will be punished if you do.

Just as you have the right to tell lies, but you are prohibited from doing it in court, and will be punished if you do.

And you have the right to engage in sexual activity, but you are prohibited from doing it without consent, and will be punished if you do.

And you have the right to eat pizza, but you are prohibited from eating pizza you haven't paid for, and will be punished if you do.

Gosh. Sounds like: you have the right to own a firearm, but you are prohibited from doing it without a licence, and from carting your firearm around the world in your pants, etc. And if you obey those laws (the laws I am pleased to have), you are a law-abiding gun owner.

Try that one on for size.

Or have fun dancing and dissembling some more.

[Left in IL]

78. limits on 2nd amendment

So, do you feel the 2nd ammendment confers a right than can be licensed, and not used in public.

[iverglas]

79. hmm, limits on first amendment

So, do you feel the 2nd ammendment confers a right than can be licensed, and not used in public<?>

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And yet ... there are all those laws about shouting and fires and theatres ... and telling fibs in court ... and sacrificing virgins ... not to mention those "free speech zone" thingies ... and those broadcasting licences ... (What, just because yer founders & framers had never heard of television, that means that broadcasters' freedom of the press can be abridged??)

In actual fact, I don't give a crap about the second amendment; nice of you to ask, though.

I have the right to poop, you might recall, but I sure as hell don't expect not to be prohibited from exercising it in public.

How the hell do you license a right, by the way? You can license copyright, of course ... but not an inalienable right; licensing it would be alienating it, you see.

Here, allow me to give you a licence for my right of liberty ... and now you can just exercise it for me on my behalf ...

Nah, I don't think so. I think you must have meant a right certain exercises of which are prohibited without a licence from a public authority. Kinda how you may not exercise your right to liberty by driving an unregistered motor vehicle down the interstate without a driver's licence.

If there's anything you still aren't getting, just let me know.

[Billy Ruffian]

83. I think we have the idea now

In actual fact, I don't give a crap about the second amendment; nice of you to ask, though.

OK, then.

Here in the US, we do have the 2nd Amendment, and it is considered by many to be an individual right.

If you prefer the firearms regulations in Canada over those of the US, that's perfectly fine. I don't, and will stay here, and work to reduce the restrictions that we do have.

[iverglas]

86. such short attention spans

So many people here seem to be so easily distracted by asides that I fear I shall have to stop making them.

C'mon, now. How 'bout that first amendment of yours? Got nothing at all to say about the point of my post? Struck you dumb, did it? No response possible? The argument was so cogent and irrefutable that one is reduced to mumbling irrelevancies?

Aw.

[EDT]

87. I too dream of a bullet proof Superpost, iverglas, but they never happen.

Even if you present a perfectly sound argument that is difficult to reply to, someone will stoop to their lowest and reply with an idiotic equivalent of "..Cuz!" by saying you're crazy or ignorant, take your pick.

BTW, you're crazy!

[Left in IL]

88. I'm not sure what your point was.

Here in the U.S. we have several amendments to our constitution to protect rights. The 1st protects free speech, and the second protects the right to keep and bear arms.

I would disagree with any law that restricts exercising either right in public.

Limiting any individual right to only being excerised in private is unacceptable.

[iverglas]

89. okey dokey

Here in the U.S. we have several amendments to our constitution to protect rights. The 1st protects free speech, and the second protects the right to keep and bear arms. I would disagree with any law that restricts exercising either right in public.

Then I can deduce that you "disagree with" laws prohibiting, and providing for the punishment of, perjury? Threatening to kill a head of state? Conspiring to commit, or counselling the commission of, a crime? Broadcasting without a licence? Publishing material depicting the sexual exploitation of children? Disclosing state secrets to an enemy? Advertising snake oil as a cure for cancer?

They're all speech, and thus exercises of the right of free speech, as I sees 'em.

And I don't know why you would have been unsure what my point was.

If you don't "disagree" with any of those laws, then you do agree that the exercise of the right of free speech may, legitimately and entirely constitutionally, be limited -- despite the very absolute terms in which the prohibition on your Congress enacting legislation to "abridge" that freedom is framed. Just like the terms in which the prohibition against the right set out in your second constitutional amendment being "infringed" is framed.

It's called an analogy.

And the point is that if you say something about Thing A, and Thing B is closely analogous to Thing A on the relevant points, you'd better have an explanation for why you don't say the same thing about Thing B, if that's the case.

[Left in IL]

90. point taken

I agree there can be SOME limits free speech, as well as SOME limits on the right to keep and bears arms, but the level of limits you express for free speech are an order of magnitude different the the limits you appear to favor for the right to keep and bear arms. To use your analogy. It would seem to be ok to eliminate free speech in public as an acceptable limit to the right of free speech.

No free speech in public = no right to keep and bear arms in public

[iverglas]

91. abject nonsense

You may tell lies in your living room. You may not tell lies in court.

You may scream obscenities in your living room. You may not scream obscenities in the grocery store.

You may threaten to kill the head of state on a stage. You may not threaten to kill the head of state on a bus.

You may carry a firearm around your living room. You may not carry a firearm around on a bus.

"No free speech in public = no right to keep and bear arms in public"

Your equation suffers from some problems that make it something less than an equation. Your "x" and your "y", "free speech" and "right to keep and bear arms", really are not equal, and this might be your first clue to why limitations on one are quite different from limitations on the other. You just can't take "apple" and "orange" and say "no apple = no orange".

Speech is not an either/or thing: speech or no speech. Speech is the activity by which a message is conveyed. Both the activity and the message are subject to limits.

Speaking, itself, is legitimately prohibited in certain circumstances. You may not speak in the gallery of the legislature if the rules prohibit it, for instance, regardless of what message you wish to convey. You may not speak over the airwaves without a licence, again regardless of what message you wish to convey. Conversely, you may not threaten (other than in jest or a work of fiction) to kill the head of state anywhere ever, regardless of whether you do it aloud or in print or in digitized form on television.

According to the theorizing that goes on here, the right which concerns you is actually the right to life, out of which the right of self-defence, and thus the right to possess the instruments by which to defend one's life, stem. (The right of free speech is arguably just one manifestation of the right of liberty, of course.)

This "right to keep and bear arms" simply is not of the same nature as the right of free speech, or life, or liberty. It is a "right" to do a very specific thing. As such, it is no different from the right to own pizza. Eating is essential to living; eating pizza is one manifestation of eating. The right to eat, and thus the right to own pizza, stem from the right to life -- just as the right of self-defence and the right to own the instruments of defence also stem from the right to life.

It is ludicrous to attempt set up a parallel between speaking and owning and carrying firearms.

Just as one may never have to eat pizza in order to continue living, one may never have to use a firearm in order to continue living. And one may never have to broadcast in order to convey a message. If everyone were required, by the nature of these rights, to be granted access to every instrument s/he might find useful in order to exercise a right, we would all have to be permitted to broadcast over the airwaves at will. We aren't, because it is not in the public interest for this to be done. If it is not in the public interest for people to stroll around with pistols in their pants, then it is not required that we be permitted to do that either.

Hell, from what I can tell of your logic, it would require that I be allowed to eat pizza at will wherever I found it, since if I did not eat I would starve, and making me pay to eat would be a violation of my right to life.

And really, the mere fact that your founders & framers decided to protect both rights, different as they are, by including them in a list of amendments to your constitution simply does not mean that they are of the same nature, or that you can treat them as if they are.

Look at all the other rights in your constitution, even if we limit ourselves to the Bill of Rights. They are simply not all what we would call, today, fundamental rights: life, liberty and security of the person. There are procedural rights. There are property rights. Not all rights are of the same species, and it is specious to pretend that they are.

You have a right to speak in public (subject to legitimate limitations). You have a right to defend your life in public (subject to legitimate limitations). Those are virtually universal elements of the content of fundamental human rights.

You, as a USAmerican, have whatever right that second amendment says you have. And it's plainly and simply a different animal. It is *not* a fundamental human right.

So if your equation were no stating opinions in public = no defending your life in public, you'd have a glimmer of a point. The right of free speech would be meaningless if an opinion could not be stated in public; the right to life would be meaningless if one could not defend one's self in public.

But the right to voice opinions does not, by pretty universal consensus, demand that I be permitted to set up a loudspeaker on the streetcorner and express my opinions at 3 a.m.; prohibiting this is a justified limitation imposed in the interests of the collectivity. And the right to defend one's self does not, in my humble opinion and by pretty broad consensus throughout the modern world, demand that you be permitted to stroll through the park with a firearm in your pants, because, by that consensus, this is also a justified limitation in the interests of the collectivity.

[Billy Ruffian]

92. all of your first amendment examples

show that misuse of speech can be punished. In each case, the misuse of speech causes harm to someone.

Everything I've seen from you concerning firearms calls for prior restraint. You support laws that turn behavior that harms no one into a felony.

You support laws specifying details of safe storage, and requiring locked storage. You oppose concealed carry laws. IIRC, you support registration of all firearms.

[iverglas]

93. more abject nonsense

"all of your first amendment examples
show that misuse of speech can be punished."

Who the hell died and appointed you the lord high arbiter of what is a "misuse" of speech???

"In each case, the misuse of speech causes harm to someone."

Perhaps you'd care to back that claim up with a detailed response to each instance I offered.

I'd be curious to know exactly how any of the instances of speech in question caused harm to anyone. Shouting "fire", or anything else, doesn't cause any harm to anyone unless, maybe, you do it while your lips are pressed against someone's ears. But prohibiting the shouting of anything (or the saying of anything else) surely constitutes, awk!, prior restraint.

Everything I've seen from you concerning firearms calls for prior restraint. You support laws that turn behavior that harms no one into a felony.

And as soon as you tell me that you favour the abolition of speed limits in school zones, and, of course, of all prohibitions on any kind of speech, I'll think you have made a point worth noting.

You support laws specifying details of safe storage, and requiring locked storage. You oppose concealed carry laws. IIRC, you support registration of all firearms.

Yes indeedy. And your point was ...?

Do you support laws specifying how DDT must be stored, and requiring that it be in locked storage? Do you support laws prohibiting sharp pointy hood ornaments on motor vehicles? Do you support registration of all motor vehicles? (And if you want to drag out the "not if they're driven only on private property", you'll of course be wanting to explain to me when we acquired the Klingon technology needed to make a motor vehicle without a licence plate invisible when it is being driven on public roads ...)

[gaia_gardener]

52. I stand by my earlier statement

You're in a dark, crowded room. You hear a gunshot and see a guy with a gun in front of you - a guy firing said gun (in this case it's because he's seen the actual perp). How in the world do you determine that he is a "good guy"? You can't. Period. So, you feel that you're protecting others (you've seen him fire his gun) and you shoot him.

Now multiply that by a bunch of gun owners.

Clearly there are going to be innocent people shot.

Now you say that you have a clear shot. There is pandemonium. There is no way to be sure that someone is not going to suddenly move into the line of fire. There is that moment between your brain telling your finger to pull the trigger, the finger pulling the trigger and the bullet leaving the gun in which anything can (and often does) happen.

I'll submit that there is no way the guy mentioned in the article could have had a clear shot. In his own words the crowd was panicking and moving. He didn't move because there was a specific danger of him falling and being trampelled. The fact that he mentioned being trampelled tells us that people were moving.

[Columbia]

53. Are you psychic?

There is no way to tell whether it would have been possible whether there could have been an opportunity for this person to stop the murderer had he been armed. None of us were there and none of us can make such unequivocal statements like, "Clearly there are going to be innocent people shot."

The only thing we do know is that he never had a chance to try even if there had been an opportunity for him to stop the shooter without harming bystanders because he was unarmed by law.

A similar story - http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part2/gunside1.html

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

69. This same type of question

was posed in my CHL class.

You hear a gunshot at the supermarket. You look at the end of the aisle you are on and see a person, profile with a weapon drawn and pointed eslewhere (not at you). What do you do?

This is a NO-SHOOT scenario. Until that weapon's sights swing to me or a clearly unarmed person and I feel there is intent to do grevious bodily injury, no rounds will be loosed from my weapon. In this case my hand might be on my weapon, but it will still be holstered.

I'm sure it is hard to believe that there are people carrying handguns right now that are not jumping up and down waiting for their chance to pop a perp, but it's true.

I carry a pistol with me every day. I hope and pray everytime I step out the door that the gun gets to stay in the holster where it sits and the day goes on normally.

[gaia_gardener]

70. So, you see him shoot

and you still don't shoot? Umm, I have a hard time buying that that's what most people are going to do.

I've read the NRA magazine. I've seen the self-congratulatory letters about how having their gun enabled them to save innocent lives. These people are wetting themselves to be able to send a story like that.

You see someone with a gun. You see them pull the trigger. You don't shoot? What do you do? Yell, "drop the gun" and when they turn to face you, then what? They now have the gun pointed at you. You don't shoot then?

Maybe you wouldn't, but I'd bet at least 50% of people would.

[slackmaster]

71. Sounds like you have never had any training in use of deadly force

I have. WhiskyTangoFoxtrot is exactly right; as a civilian (not a law enforcement officer) it's not appropriate and in most states very illegal for you to use deadly force intervene on behalf of a stranger. If you are not threatened you can't legally join in someone else's fight.

If you try to draw the attention of someone you perceive as a bad guy so that you become personally threatened and then use deadly force, that's illegal too. Concealed weapons permit holders are taught in class (or should be) that they are not police and cannot go looking for trouble.

I've read the NRA magazine. I've seen the self-congratulatory letters about how having their gun enabled them to save innocent lives.

Next time you pick up one of those magazines read the stories more carefully. In every single case people used deadly force to defend themselves or their family, usually in their own homes. That's what civilians using weapons for self-defense is all about.

These people are wetting themselves to be able to send a story like that.

If you seriously believe that people who keep guns for self-defense generally have that in their minds, I submit that if you have decided not to own guns you have made a wise choice. OTOH if you ever have an inkling that you might want to start using a gun, knife, or any other potentially deadly weapon for self-defense I cannot overemphasize the importance of getting training. A good course will teach you how to select an appropriate weapon, the laws and ethics of using deadly force, what will happen to you when you use a deadly weapon in self-defense, and most important of all when not to use it.

The basic rules taught at the place I was trained are these: If something is not worth dying for it's not worth shooting someone for; and if you have to ask yourself whether or not you should use deadly force in a given situation the answer is almost always "No". Carrying a gun is very serious business. A lot of people who use them legally and do all the morally right things end up in jail.

[Billy Ruffian]

65. The murderer was stopped by someone with a gun

A police officer who was two blocks away responded to the emergency, and shot Nathan Gale with a shotgun.

Is there NO possibility that a citizen with a gun could have stopped the murderer? That seems to be the position taken by many of the posters in this thread.

[Wickerman]

66. I think people aren't making a black and white statement

that there NO possibility that a citizen with a gun could have stopped the murderer...

I think folks are saying that its likely a whole lot more people might have been hurt or killed had others been carrying. It sounds like it was dark, confused, and of course chaotic. Conceivably, with multiple guns firing it would be hard to determine who was the conceal carry hero and who was the perp.

To many folks its not worth the risk of bystanders being hit by stray bullets (see the bar shooting thread) or mistaken identity.

[Billy Ruffian]

67. No one has made the explicit claim

I think people aren't making a black and white statement that there NO possibility that a citizen with a gun could have stopped the murderer...

but reading over the thread I see at least four posters that are, in my opinion, implying it.

[Wickerman]

68. It matters very little

opinions are like, well, you know. :)

Neither assumption can be proven - the event is past, we will never know if CC would've aided or contributed to the situation and conjecture either direction is merely that.

[Pert_UK]

72. That's not the position I'm taking.....

There IS the possibility that A citizen with a gun could have stopped the murder. However, IMHO there is a far greater probability that if several members of the crowd had been armed the chances of more deaths would have increased.

Moreover, if guns were allowed into this rock concert / bar then they ought to be allowed into every concert and bar in the land, and again IMHO the widespread presence of armed people in establishments that serve alcohol would lead to a huge rise in shootings and only very rarely prevent violence.

[Left in IL]

74. Shooter was on stage with the band

From the story I read (on E!), Nathan Gale (the shooter) was up on stage, and Roger (the unarmed CCW holder) was not.

It dosen't seem like it would be so impossible to get a clear shot of the murderer from the front of the stage.


quote from E!

"One concertgoer close to the stage when the shooting occurred told the Associated Press that he witnessed a heavyset man in a hooded sweatshirt, trailed by a bouncer and club employee, leap onstage and begin yelling at Abbott before unloading on the 38-year-old heavy-metal pioneer. After taking out Abbott, Gale then shot the bouncer who tried to tackle him, sparking mayhem in the venue. "


When someone jumps onstage and shoots an unarmed musician 4 times at point blank range, it would seem clear who the "bad guy" is.

Hey how about letting the bounce have a CCW. so he not going into a gunfight unarmed.

[Columbia]

76. More info here

http://www.roadie.net/heroes.htm

[stevebreeze]

81. what would he have done "quick draw him"

a shoot a bunch of other Innocent people? This is just one reason concealed carry is a stupid concept.

[Peak_Oil]

82. CCW is not stupid.

I believe the 2nd amendment refers to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I don't think that right should be infringed.

However.

If I decide that my home is a non-CCW environment, and I invite a friend over who happens to pack, I'd feel free to ask him to hand it over upon walking through the door. If he doesn't, I'd feel free to ask him to leave.

A bar owner should have the same right. So should a concert promoter. They could even promote the concert by saying that all weapons will be confiscated at the door, so the concertgoers could feel secure in their persons that nobody else there is armed.

If I'm a CCW holder and decide that my 2nd amendment rights are infringed by this policy, I should feel free to refrain from attending that particular show.

Suggesting that more guns everywhere is a solution is interesting. I doubt it would hold water. I don't really have an answer to that. But, I'd rather go to a bar that banned guns than one that allowed guns.

I live in a crappy neighborhood. When I walk around at night I pack. When I go to the bars I don't. I doubt I could hit the target while shitfaced, and I'd probably be more of a danger to society. I leave it at home under those circumstances. If I take my girl out for a hike in the evening, I'll pack, but even better... we'll go somewhere safe to go for a walk.

After reading Ayoob's In The Gravest Extreme, I had a different idea of what it means to defend myself with a gun. It's only for defense of the life of an innocent, not to threaten somebody who bumped my drink onto my shirt. It's a serious thing to carry a gun and shouldn't be taken lightly.

If the idea of a dark bar full of armed drunks doesn't worry you, then it should. I wouldn't want to go in there. Sooner or later something bad is bound to happen.

[Kire]

84. the bar owner didn't demand the gun

the state senate did

[Left in IL]

85. feeling secure

you said:

"They could even promote the concert by saying that all weapons will be confiscated at the door, so the concertgoers could feel secure in their persons that nobody else there is armed."

But feeling secure does not make it so.

Clearly Nathan Gale took a firearm into a concert that did not allow them.

How about letting the bouncers have firearms?

Also, we don't know if anyone else in the bar was armed.

If I was armed at the back of this bar, it would be very unlikely I would have drawn my firearm. As many have noted, I would not likely have a good shot, plus I would be arrested.