University of Maryland researcher John Lott has shown a distinct correlation between the introduction of concealed-carry statutes and a decrease in violent crime in the affected communities, and has pointed out that those public locations that suffered mass shootings were all areas in which concealed-carry weapons were banned. What path of logic leads one to believe that possession of a gun will automatically make one a criminal? If you are a criminal, what would lead you to legally buy a gun at higher cost, and then put yourself on the grid further by obtaining permission to carry it into the places where you plan to commit crimes? As a student of the University of Missouri, I am proud of the concealed-carry provisions passed by the Missouri House of Representatives. I am glad that they, if not some of my peers at MU, trust me to know right from wrong, know danger from anger and make the right decisions should a potential tragedy show its ugly face. — Nick Haynes, the Maneater (Mizzou student newspaper)
The claim that rankles me the most is that if more people carry guns with them on college campuses, then disasters such as the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech will be avoided. Legislating based on extremely rare, hypothetical events is misleading and illogical, not to mention incredibly speculative. It’s like saying that because one human is killed by a shark out of the millions of people swimming in the ocean every year, beachgoers should be allowed to secretly carry hand grenades. Arguments that imply concealed-weapons carriers are only capable of making campuses safer also (irritatingly) suggest that every single permit holder is the flawless version of Wyatt Earp, the type of shooter who will brandish a firearm only to uphold the law and protect helpless saloon girls from the whims of psychotic banditos. If the only reason for carrying guns is protection, why aren’t we discussing less lethal means of defending oneself? Why does a woman scared for her safety need to have a gun instead of a can of pepper spray? — Katy Steinmetz, the Columbia Missourian
208 Comments
Bad idea.
So does that mean guns in the men’s dorm will be legal? Ha, ha, ha. Have at it Cons. The likely victim is your son.
Just as a little aside, as a fromer Navy diver, a hand grenade wouldn’t help much in a shark attack. Furthermore, they would be very hard to conceal in a speedo.
On the other hand, a concealed handgun by a student at Virginia Tech would have evened things up a little.
It takes a while for Wyatt to saddle up and get there with his Buntline special.
“Why does a woman scared for her safety need to have a gun instead of a can of pepper spray?”
In a battle between a can of pepper spray and a gun guess who loses.
This thread would be considered madness in anyplace but America.
On campuses they conceal their ‘crib sheets’ and illegal drugs, so there would be no room.
Great idea. Allow the hormone-driven students to carry firearms. What is the downside? These are the Nation’s best and brightest. It isn’t like we are licensing binge drinkers and Ecstasy users here . Someone needs to issue proper holsters to these students so the weapon doesn’t fall out when they do kegstands.
Should concealed handguns be legal on college campuses?
NO! Concealed handguns should not be legal anywhere. The people “licensed” to carry are all nuts.
Grasseater says- baaaaaaaaaaaa.
Go wet yourself Heckler.
Too late?
I wanna know where I can buy a gun that takes rubber bullets. If I was ever so unlucky enough to be caught in the middle of a mass shooting incident, you bet I would shoot the perpetrator over and over and over with rubber bullets, and bring him into a hellish world of pain, until the cops got there. I’d be sure to shoot him in the nuts with rubber bullets over and over, for good measure as well.
BJ says-”Go wet yourself Heckler.”
You lefties pretty much have that one covered.
Isnt this a moot point since most college kids are under 21?
Yep, Tom, arm the graduate students. Now that’d be a really, really good idea. And the leftist professors, too. Haw, haw, haw.
TomPaine
Posted May 4, 2009 at 9:19 am | Permalink
Isnt this a moot point since most college kids are under 21?
–
Obviously underage laws do not matter on Kansas college campuses judging from all the recent deaths due to binge drinking.
Obviously underage laws do not matter on Kansas college campuses judging from all the recent deaths due to binge drinking.
____________________________________________
Pray tell. How many have there been?
1. This does not arm all the students.
-This merely extends the right to carry concealed on campus. Nothing else. Those students, teachers, and other law abiding citizens who were already so inclined to have a concealed carry permit may now carry on campus. Those students who would like to start still have to follow the same procedures to carry concealed as were outlined before: Background checks, classroom instruction, and obtaining a license.
2. This does more than stop or prevent “rare” mass shootings.
-Concealed carry allows any individual the choice (I thought all you liberals were for choice) to defend one’s self if needed. Not only from a “rare” mass shooting, but nearly any other form of attack they might face while leaving campus or arriving to campus. Rape, Battery, or any other crime which endangers them or others.
3. There will be no “blood in the streets” and there will be no “wild west”
-This is the same tired argument that the liberals have been pushing in every state which has eventually passed concealed carry. Even here in Kansas. The claims that there will be blood in the streets or that the place will turn into the wild west are simply absurd. Concealed carry has now been passed in nearly every state over the past 20 years and those that do so are not out getting drunk shooting people, getting road rage shooting people, killing people while trying to stop a bad guy, shooting each other on accident…etc…etc… or whatever other lame argument the liberals dreamed up.
Less Lethal means…
-Ok. Deal. Lets allow both. The liberals on campus and nearly every where else don’t want that either though. I am all for allowing students to carry pepper spray and tasers if they choose to.
However, to say they are good substitute for a gun is simply absurd.
They are great when you need to use less lethal means but if you are going up against an armed attacker who has a gun or a knife and they are determined a taser will only stop them momentarily and so will pepper spray. And if they have a gun, a taser or pepper spray will not prevent them from shooting at you. Just as those 2 cops last week who were both shot and killed while tasering a man several times.
When you need to defend your life or that of another from someone with a gun, kinfe, or other weapon then a taser and pepper spray are not what you are going to want or need.
Barnie,
Good luck. First, you would have to be able to accurately deliver those rubber bullets over and over again and hope that the bad guy doesn’t simply shoot you in the process.
Rubber bullets do not stop the threat, they hurt and annoy the threat.
They are great for riot control or to bring down someone when you have the upper hand and back up. So you can disorient them and then rush them.
But an active shooter? Someone who has a gun and is actively shooting people?
You need to stop the threat immediately. Not annoy him momentarily with a rubber bullet.
I really wonder which side of the law those that argue law-abiding,licensed,conceal-carry citizens are going to come out shooting are on.
Having heard Dr. John Lott speak I am convinced he has researched this topic more than any other person I know. He gives very knowledgeable answers that make a great deal of sense.
Jr. he has a book out on the subject and another one coming out soon. Why don’t you read it and then give an opinion instead of giving an opinion based on nothing. This could be your book for 2009.
I don’t have a pistol but am seriously considering getting one. After hearing his facts I am convinced this would be the smart thing to do.
One of the most interesting things he says is that when conceal carry is passed that crime goes down. He has statistics to show this is true. A fact he points out is that those who carry have made it safer for those who don’t have a gun because the assailant doesn’t know who is armed and who isn’t and they don’t want to be shot. Therefore those who do carry are helping those who don’t think it is a good idea.
“The people “licensed” to carry are all nuts.”
Not good of me to post that and cite no examples.
At least one poster to this forum who is licensed to carry concealed BRAGGED about illegally carrying guns.
Our own Nathaniel once disrupted and caused cancellation of a picnic because he threatened to use his gun to intimidate people. Yet he is licensed to carry concealed.
Oddly enough, the people who COULD be trusted to carry a gun probably don’t want to.
I’m fine with concealed carry. I just think there needs to be more advances for civilian non-lethal or less lethal weaponry. I’d rather have the chance to maim someone in self defense, and if that dosen’t work, then maybe having the option to switch the gun from, stun, maim, to kill would be a nice option to have.
It seems that some against allowing students to legally carry have a low opinion of our future leaders-be it industry, business or politics. I did not know that merely attending a university made me a drunk, hormone driven individual.
Please note: I said legally carry. That means that the person who is carrying is at least 21 years of age, has taken an 8 hour course and understands the law as well as when they can or can’t carry as well as the consequesnces and responsibilities of carrying a concealed firearms and has passed both a KBI and FBI background check. It’s not a case of: “Welcome to WSU/KSU/KU/etc, here’s your gun.” Not by a long shot.
Several univesities already allow conceal carry and there have been no reported cases of “Blood on Campus” in those institutions.
Mr_Kia: Learn the law: If I am in fear of my life or if your life is in jeopardy, I can legally shoot in self defense. This means I’m on the rightful side of the law. If my life is not in jeopardy I will not use my weapon. So, I’m still on the rightful side of the law. And so you’re aware, It has been determined that there are AT LEAST 2.5 million times a year that a firearm is used in self-defense without a shot being fired. So just because I have a weapon and am ready to use it in self-defense, it doesn’t mean necessarily that I will have to use it. In most cases, a criminal desires a soft or easy target. May I give the next one that tries to rob me your name and address?
BlueJay,
Don’t you ever get tired of posting the same lie over and over again?
It wasn’t true the first 50 times you posted it and it still isn’t.
I’m not interested in getting into a shootout with anybody if I can help it. Been there, done that. The results can be not quite what you expect.
My first reaction would be to run the heck away; get out of harm’s way. But when backed into a corner, I’d like to have a fair chance to defend myself. I’m not a John Wayne type and I’m not going to get into a shooting match to save others. But I will defend myself and loved ones when push comes to shove.
Why should the criminals be the only ones armed?
Barnie
Posted May 4, 2009 at 11:11 am | Permalink
I’m fine with concealed carry. I just think there needs to be more advances for civilian non-lethal or less lethal weaponry. I’d rather have the chance to maim someone in self defense, and if that dosen’t work, then maybe having the option to switch the gun from, stun, maim, to kill would be a nice option to have.
—————–
Barnie looks good in print but while you are doing your kung fo kick a bullet is heading your way. Kick vs bullet. Doesn’t seem like a real contest to me.
Real gunfights often require two or more hits from a powerful, perhaps lethal bullet to stop a killer from continuing an attack. This means that rubber bullets are worse than useless.
Killers may be on drugs, or be psyched up and be unable to reasoned with, they will complete their evil plans.
But in the past 25 years, 48 of the 50 states have passed laws to allow ADULT citizens to carry a concealed weapon for defense. Allowing these same citizens to carry their firearm onto a college campus is the correct thing to do. It isn’t going to be the 17-20 year old recent HS grad carrying a gun with a license, it will be the professor, the banker in a PhD class, the doctor or nurse. The law in Kansas and everywhere else does not allow carrying while under the influence.
But what is known, given unarmed victims, a killer can take their time and kill 10, 20, 30 people. What is also known, killers have been stopped at schools and colleges by a civilian who had or was able to get a gun.
Are college students adults? Are they citizens of the US?
Or do you treat them like kindergarten children and government controls all aspects of their lives.
Oops, I guess that’s the future for all of us. (Nevermind.)
I don’t have a pistol but am seriously considering getting one. After hearing his facts I am convinced this would be the smart thing to do.
===============================================
You’ll shoot your eye out, kid.
http://img1.picturewizard.com/1328E88/0/christmasstory.jpg
Too often when discussing this subject it’s done in terms of reducing crime or stopping a massacre.
It’s really about restoring the natural right of the individual to righteous self defense.
For 80+years now that right has been slowly eroded by the progressive principle that in an advanced society there is no need for self defense, that the government will take care of you. The same kind of thinking tries to tell you that you are too stupid and can’t be trusted to do it responsibly.
Progressive thought tried to teach us that in an advanced society violence(all violence) begets more violence and that if we just treat criminals and violent psychopaths with respect and dignity that they will change their ways. All one has to do to see the folly of that is look at our large cities, overwhelmingly run by progressives and power freaks, and look to Great Britain. Utter failure.
What is happening now is the slow reassertion of the traditional principle of Western Civilization that says that not only does the individual have a RIGHT to defend against violence but the individual also has the RESPONSIBILITY to fight back. For to submit to the violent criminal is allow him freedom to victimize others in society.
While discussing the possibility of reduced crime due to the concealed carry of lethal weapons on campus may be valid to an extent the true debate should be about the right to personal defense EVERYWHERE one goes in the course of living their life. WHY SHOULD A RESPONSIBLE ADULT FORFEIT THE NATURAL RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE WHEN SETTING FOOT ON CAMPUS?
I’d rather have the chance to maim someone in self defense, and if that dosen’t work, then maybe having the option to switch the gun from, stun, maim, to kill would be a nice option to have.
================================================
http://img1.picturewizard.com/1328E88/0/settostun.jpg
Nathaniel?
Where’s the lie?
BlueJay,
You know exactly what you lied about, but here you go:
LIE:
“Our own Nathaniel once disrupted and caused cancellation of a picnic because he threatened to use his gun to intimidate people. Yet he is licensed to carry concealed.”
Not only is it a simple lie, but you purposefully distort what actually happened and present it here in a manner as to completely mischaracterize what was actually said and what actually happened.
You go beyond a simple lie. You are being outright fully dishonest.
A picnic was planned. Many people were going to attend.
Nathaniel joked? (hey who knows?) that he would bring his gun to make the liberals “wet their pants”. (His words)
Several people were intimidate by Nathaniel’s remark and remain so to this day.
All true.
Daniel, lol, exactly what I was thinking of. Also Marvin the Martian popped in my head as well.
http://www.strangelycompelling.com/sam/images/marvin.jpg
Our own Nathaniel once disrupted and caused cancellation of a picnic because he threatened to use his gun to intimidate people. Yet he is licensed to carry concealed.
Having read about this “incident” for the past few years, over and over ad nauseum, it’s clear that JR’s assertion is a blatent lie; even by JR’s recitation of the “incident.” It’s clear Nathan did no such thing. Moreover, Nathan has long since apologized for any perceived wrong (though he had no need to). JR just can’t grow up about it.
Having said that, I have yet to see a reason, rational, logical argument against the proposal.
What I’ve seen are the usual “blood in the streets” fearmongering that has been proven to be wrong in state after state as CC was passed, and has proven (shockingly, yet again) to be wrong in Kansas. I’ve seen the usual ignorance and phobia of firearms and the usual stereotyping of gun owners from the “tolerant” left. I’ve NOT seen rational argument.
Is there any reason to believe permitting persons who are otherwise legally qualified and permitted to also carry on a college campus would be any different? We’ve seen, in these “gun free” zones, mass shootings again and again; in the VT case, given the relatively lengthy time the shooter took to conduct his murders, a trained CC holder may have saved lives; certainly it couldn’t have made the situation any worse. And what is true in the “real” world is no less true on college campuses: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In those crucial seconds when a life may be in the balance, you are on your own.
So – what is the downside here? Provide me a rational, logical reason to oppose permitting the same freedoms routinely practiced outside college campuses to also apply on campus.
Any takers?
BlueJay,
Julie also joked that she would be bringing a bigger gun than me as well.
Are those same people afraid and intimidated by her to this day?
Of course not. Because you and they are being complete idiots.
And now you lie.
My comments were no where close to saying I was “threatening” people by saying I would actually use my gun as you try to characterize.
You and your sad little liberal friends are nothing but idiots.
“Our own Nathaniel once disrupted and caused cancellation of a picnic because he threatened to use his gun to intimidate people. Yet he is licensed to carry concealed.”
Funny, I don’t remember it that way at all.
I’ve seen 2 handguns at 2 different blogger’s picnics. One of them was mine.
Does anyone doubt that there are already guns on campus?
How many meetups have you been invited to since then Nathaniel?
I rest my case.
BlueJay,
You don’t invite hardly any of the Conservatives to any of your meetups.
I rest my case.
Idiot.
It still doesn’t change the fact that you completely mischaracterized my comments.
You are the worst kind of liar.
How very conservative of you Nathaniel!
Trying to make me responsible for your remarks.
You yourself are a poor poster child for allowing people to carry concealed. That is a fact that you made, not me. And that will have to be my last word for now.
Nuff said!
No!
BlueJay,
I am responsible for my actual remarks, not your twisted lies.
“Daniel
Posted May 4, 2009 at 11:31 am |
I’d rather have the chance to maim someone in self defense, and if that dosen’t work, then maybe having the option to switch the gun from, stun, maim, to kill would be a nice option to have.
================================================”
SWAT Teams have shooters, talkers and time. In a self-defense situation, you get one chance to stop the mad killer. Whether you run, jump through a window, use karate or fire your gun, you get to do it one way… When the police use Tasers, they have an officer with the stun gun and another officer with a real gun in case the Taser doesn’t work. But any cop will tell you, when faced with a killer, the Taser stay on the belt and the real gun is employed to save the lives of the of the other people in the area.
#
XXX
Posted May 4, 2009 at 11:20 am | Permalink
Why should the criminals be the only ones armed?
==============================
I’ll second that.
I don’t have a problem with guns on campus.
I carried my Spyderco everyday while I was a student, and support peoples right to defend themselves however they feel comfortable.
Even if concealed carry were allowed in colleges, most students would not be carrying guns. You have to be 21 to own a handgun (or to purchase ammo for it) and most college students are not 21.
I’m really an agnostic about concealed carry. I think it’s based on heavy marketing by gun manufacturers which breeds paranoia and CC proponents have some trumped up ego that convinces them they’ll rise up like Dirty Harry and wipe out the punks in mid hotdog.
And I really can’t think of any situation where adding a gun to the mix doesn’t increase the danger exponentially. I know cops always ask, even on routine traffic stops (I had a brake light out), “Are there any drugs or weapons in the car?” This trooper was visibly relieved there weren’t. No telling what his response would be if I pulled out a Glock….
Further, in the VaTech case, the presence of more guns might have cut down the criminal — OR — confused first responders likely to shoot at anyone brandishing a firearm at the scene of a bloodbath.
Still, I like the idea of 8-hours of training, a background check, et cetera and wonder if such provisos might be expanded to all firearms owners.
Another Anti-2nd Amendment post from Brownlee?
I’m Shocked!
Say BrownLib, you haven’t posted on the Tiahrt Amendment for a long time. Can we get another post from you attacking the Tiarht Amendment?
Thanking you in advance.
Jim
I’d rather see those Red Circle No Gun signs then to have actual guns on campus.
Those signs keep us safe. Gun Free Zones work quite well.
See how they worked at VT and NIU?
BlueJay
Posted May 4, 2009 at 11:44 am | Permalink
A picnic was planned. Many people were going to attend.
=====================================
Gosh Nathan, you ruined JR’s picnic?
It must have pi ssed him off to miss out on a free meal.
“Monkeyhawk
Posted May 4, 2009 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
…No telling what his response would be if I pulled out a Glock”
You probably would get the response you deserve if you ‘pulled out a Glock’.
However, if you said “Yes Officer, there is a weapon in the car, I am a concealed carry permit holder and have my Glock 40 in the glove box” you would get a much different response. Depending on what you were being pulled over for, it probably wouldn’t be a problem at all.
JJ, in Vermont it’s everyone’s right to carry a concealed weapon; no permit required.
MonkeyHawk,
In most cases the active shooters are not stopped by “first responders” they are stopped when they kill themselves.
VT, your example, the shooter killed himself, the “first responders” didn’t.
The shooter went from room to room killing.
Someone carrying concealed would have the choice between getting killed by the mad man with a gun or the slim chance of being shot by a “first responder” in that one instant they pull their gun and shoot the bad guy…
If the “first responder” even gets there which in most circumstances they don’t.
beber
Posted May 4, 2009 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
JJ, in Vermont it’s everyone’s right to carry a concealed weapon; no permit required.
——————————
Alaska too.
(My post above referred to VT, as in Virginia Tech. You know, where a student brought a gun to a Gun Free Zone and killed 33 people.)
MonkeyHawk,
All the Officers I have come into contact with couldn’t care less. This is the typical conversation:
OFFICER: Good Afternoon, license and registration please.
PERSON: Here you are officer and I would like to let you know I am also carrying concealed.
OFFICER: Do you have a license for that?
PERSON: Yes, would you like to see it?
OFFICER: No thanks.
The one time I was asked to see my license the Highway Patrolman was curious about what I was carrying? Where do you carry it at? What kind of gun do you carry? Why not a .45?
The Officer was more interested in having a good discussion on it.
The few other times I have been pulled over the WPD or Highway Patrol didn’t even care or ask to see my license.
The ‘Gun Free Zones’ are great. Why just the other day I heard about a robber that was getting ready to walk into a bank with his .38 when he saw the no gun sign. Whatta ya know, he put his gun back in the car before going in to rob the place.
Nathaniel
Posted May 4, 2009 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
MonkeyHawk,
In most cases the active shooters are not stopped by “first responders” they are stopped when they kill themselves.
VT, your example, the shooter killed himself, the “first responders” didn’t.
The shooter went from room to room killing.
Someone carrying concealed would have the choice between getting killed by the mad man with a gun or the slim chance of being shot by a “first responder” in that one instant they pull their gun and shoot the bad guy…
If the “first responder” even gets there which in most circumstances they don’t.
====================================
The shootings would most certainly be over before the cops got there.
When cops arrive, the law abiding shooter (if he or she survives) would have his or her weapon holstered again.
MonkeyHawk,
Heavy marketing by gun manufacturers?
When was the last time you seen a commercial for concealed carry? Any commercial about guns?
LOL…
Where do you get this stuff from?
And after the Assault Weapons Ban expired:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512560,00.html
According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 133 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in 2008, a 27 percent decrease from year before and the lowest annual total since 1960.
The Virgin Prophet “Nathaniel” says –
“In most cases the active shooters are not stopped by “first responders” they are stopped when they kill themselves.”
Wouldn’t you be a “first responder,” boy?
And if the VaTech shooter popped a few caps down the hall and you responded, and saw a guy with a gun in the hall, wouldn’t you respond? Even if another vigilante such as you beat you to the hallway and was going after the original shooter?
And if the second responder happened to hear shots fired down the hall and saw you brandishing your weapon in hot pursuit of… somebody, wouldn’t that second responder likely shoot you?
At any rate, those comments were reflective of my personal approach.
And no one has responded to the gist of my post –
“Still, I like the idea of 8-hours of training, a background check, et cetera and wonder if such provisos might be expanded to all firearms owners.”
“Nathaniel” –
“Heavy marketing by gun manufacturers?”
Yup.
I guess you read other magazines at your barber shop.
“Highlights for Children” perhaps?
Lotsa hypotheticals in Monkey’s post.
With millions of permit holders in the USA, it should be easy for him to find an example of the events he’s making up in his own mind.
Surely, millions of permit holders have caused so much blood to run in the streets, that Monkey can come up with one example of permit holders mistakenly shooting each other or being shot by the cops.
The only gun ads I see are in hunting and shooting magazines that are bought by (gasp!) those who already have or are looking for guns.
The Ad might help steer me to buy and XD over a Glock, but I’d be buying one or the other (or both) anyway.
It’s not like that Remington Ad pops up in Readers Digest and forces someone (who normally wouldn’t buy a gun) to go out and buy a gun.
Guns sales are at all time record highs, even without gun advertisements on TV and Radio.
Huh…
I would say that the best we could hope for, would be for a well trained and armed civilian to take them down before they injure or kill too many people, because the cops always arrive too late. Still there’s not a whole lot of justice, in killing a man, who plans to kill himself after he commits such atrocities beforehand.
“Monkeyhawk
Posted May 4, 2009 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
…“Still, I like the idea of 8-hours of training, a background check, et cetera and wonder if such provisos might be expanded to all firearms owners.””
I think no.
Would you support the same training, background check, etc for other deadly things (knives, arsenic, gasoline and lighters, bow and arrows, and even cars)?
“Why does a woman scared for her safety need to have a gun instead of a can of pepper spray?”
It is about choice. The anti-gun crowd wants to take away a woman’s right to carry a gun if she wants to.
The pro-gun crowd is certainly not going to force anyone who does not want one to carry a gun; they only want those that do want to carry a gun to be able to choose to do so.
I find it supremely amusing how the roles of which party wants the government to tell its citizenry what to do are reversed on the gun and abortion issues.
MonkeyHawk,
Now you betray your notion that you are merely an agnostic on this subject.
Even in your first post you bring forth many notions which are clearly biased and skewed against concealed carry.
Now you are calling them vigilantes even.
A vigilante is someone who breaks the law to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals.
Someone who is legally carrying concealed and is defending themselves from a bad person is not a vigilante.
Also, what is commonly known as and considered to be a “first responder” are those in Law Enforcement, Security, Paramedics, and/or Fireman.
If you wish to confuse the language and play word games fine.
Just more proof of how you are hardly an agnostic or a reasonable person in the middle of the road on this issue.
“JimJohnson” trolls –
“Lotsa hypotheticals in Monkey’s post.”
New to the planet, “JimJohnson?”
The standard arguments for concealed carry are based on nothing but hypotheticals.
“If someone thinks you might be carrying a concealed weapon, they might not mug you.”
“If someone attacks me….”
“If those kids at that daycare center had guns they could have shot back.”
I love the “gun free zones” signs. It makes my shopping easier; I know that a business with such a posting can be checked off my shopping list. Makes the day go much faster.
Seriously, I do not believe that such signs, as are sometimes argued, are open season for crime; most criminals are incredibly stupid, and likely not paying attention. For those criminals who might be actually, ya know, conscious, however, it seems perfectly obvious to me that were I intending to rob a bank, for example, all other things being equal I would choose a bank which posts “no guns” over one which does not. I know that in the former, I will not face a legally armed citizen; in the latter, I might. It’s a small thing, but success or failure turns on small things.
The larger problem I have with the signs is that they will lead to more gun thefts. Were I interested in stealing a gun, one way to do so relatively safely is to simply stake out a business which posts no guns, wait for someone to see the sign and return to their car to disarm, and then break into that car. Presto – a crime gun. If it hasn’t happened yet, it will.
I know cops always ask, even on routine traffic stops (I had a brake light out), “Are there any drugs or weapons in the car?” This trooper was visibly relieved there weren’t. -MH
You know, in the times I’ve been pulled over (more often than I would like to admit; yes, I tended to have a lead foot) I’ve NEVER been asked that. I’ve also never been asked for consent to search the vehicle (my advice, BTW, when an officer asks to search your vehicle is to politely refuse to give any consent).
And Nathan & brian are right; letting the officer know you are a CC holder is a good thing; it is, for all intents and purposes, a “good guy” card. A substantial majority of officers favor legal CC (even if their political bosses do not). Officers understand more than most that they are not likely to be there in the moment you need them. Officers take reports and clean up afterwards, for the most part. Rarely is an officer where needed to save a live at just the right moment. That’s not criticism; far from it, that’s just reality.
BTW – I’ve yet to see a rational, logical argument against extending legal CC to college campuses. It may be out there, but it hasn’t been made here. Still no takers?
I see the agnostic MonkeyHawk continues to label anyone trying to have a discussion with him by calling them names and characterizing their posts with “trolls” etc…
Yep… you are really proving just how reasonable and agnostic you are.
“Nathaniel” –
From Meriam-Webster:
vigilante
“a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)
broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice”
What part of the definition do you disagree with, boy?
The standard arguments for concealed carry are based on nothing but hypotheticals.
Riiiiiiight. VT, NIU, (need I really go on?), etc. Hypotheticals all. Because in the real world, no bad things ever happen.
Yeesh.
All I can say is that anybody so unlucky that he gets caught in a school shooting is probably also unlucky enough that he’ll blow away his fellow students instead of the assailant. And in the middle of a gun battle, it gets hard to know for sure who’s the shooter and who are the defenders, when none are wearing white hats and they’re all blazing away. More guns means more dead students, which I’m sure some of you will find gratifying.
Of course with CC on campuses, we’re going to lose some few professors to stressed out students every year during finals.
If CC poses problems in the real world, it has exponentially more dangers where there is a concentration of armed and underage kids who want to be Rambo.
vigilante
“a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)
broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice”
What part of the definition do you disagree with, boy?
—–
None of which, MH, describes legal concealed carry. 0 for 2. Wanna try to strike out?
More hypotheticals, “JimJohnson” –
This time from “GMC70″ –
“…were I intending to rob a bank, for example, all other things being equal I would choose a bank…”
“Were I interested in stealing a gun, one way to do so relatively safely is to….”
“If it hasn’t happened yet, it will.”
So start attacking him, “JimJohnson.”
“GMC70″ posts from work –
“None of which, MH, describes legal concealed carry.”
This was an exchange between the Virgin Prophet and me, “GMC70.” Do you think he needs defending?
“Vigilante” pretty much describes a lot of hypothetical arguments concealed carry advocates use.
Interesting how no one wants to address:
“…I like the idea of 8-hours of training, a background check, et cetera and wonder if such provisos might be expanded to all firearms owners.”
If CC poses problems in the real world . . .
What, pray tell, are the problems in the “real world,” Jed?
As Nathan points out, Jed, given millions of legal CC holders nationwide, surely you can point to examples of the kind of misidentification problem you postulate? Example after example of blood in the streets and “stressed-out” students attacking professors?
No? I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you!.
Yeesh.
“Vigilante” pretty much describes a lot of hypothetical arguments concealed carry advocates use.
Name one.
Jed says in his 1:28 post (I’m paraphrasing here) “I have images in my mind of bad schiite happening therefore concealed carry is bad.”
“brian_nuevo” asks –
“Would you support the same training, background check, etc for other deadly things (knives, arsenic, gasoline and lighters, bow and arrows, and even cars)?”
Pretty much, yes.
Put me down as in favor of the Boy Scouts (knives training), Fire Prevention Month (firefighters warning kids about gasoline and lighters), education about poisons and, yes, even cars (Driver’s Ed.), complete with licenses and tests in the case of the latter.
The two biggest cons perpertrated on any nation have been done right here and it’s damages society at rate unheard of elsewhere in the western/ civilized/advanced world. The NRA and the AARP. There are places where the cops don’t and never have carried guns. The UK comes to mind.
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 4, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Quite a bit different scope you than what you want for guns… why the double standard?
“GMC70″ –
Your “Name one” was addressed thrice at 1:18.
Please try to keep up.
(Although I realize you’re busy at work.)
“sursum
Posted May 4, 2009 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
…There are places where the cops don’t and never have carried guns. The UK comes to mind.”
Obviously you have never been in Heathrow…
MH –
1) What does my “work” (assuming it’s true) have to do with the topic? Nothing. It’s a pathetic attempt to intimidate silence by one of those champions of “tolerance.” How quaint.
2) Your 1:18 contains no “vigilente” activity at all. There is nothing remotely “vigilante” about defending oneself, or another, from imminent threat.
Nor is there anything hypothetical about bad things happening. And shockingly, sometimes they happen when police are not standing right there beside the victim! I understand reality is hard for you to grasp, but, please do try.
Oh, and WHIFF! You’re 0 for 3. And to strike out so early in the day. Must hurt, huh?
Considering your chances of being caught in a school shooting are roughly half that of being struck by lightning, maybe concealed personal lightning rods would save more lives. Hell, you’re twice as likely to get shot while hunting in Texas than being shot by a fellow student anywhere. Okay, granted Texas may be a special case, but you get the picture.
“Jed
Posted May 4, 2009 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
…maybe concealed personal lightning rods would save more lives.”
I have one of those….
.
.
In my pants
Monkey”boy” says-
“Interesting how no one wants to address:
“…I like the idea of 8-hours of training, a background check, et cetera and wonder if such provisos might be expanded to all firearms owners.””
I guess I need to ask why you feel this would be necessary. It’s not like we have a lot of people dying from negligent discharges or something. Compare the number of accidental firearms deaths with the number of “legal” gun owners in this nation and it’s such a tiny percentage as to not warrant forcing people to do the training. And if you buy a gun from a dealer you get a background check anyway.
Sounds like an unwarranted burden fixing….what? (not to mention it would serve as a handy means of creating a registry of gun owners)
MonkeyHawk,
It is not the definition of vigilante I have a problem with.
It is your misapplication of it to a person carrying concealed legally and defending themselves legally which is the problem.
Perhaps you care to explain what it is about someone who is legally carrying concealed and legally defending themselves from death or serious harm which makes them a vigilante?
Hell, you’re twice as likely to get shot while hunting in Texas than being shot by a fellow student anywhere.
================================================
On a related note, you’re 37 more times likely to get shot in the face if you go hunting with Uncle Dick.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5110835,00.jpg
Put me down as in favor of the Boy Scouts (knives training), Fire Prevention Month (firefighters warning kids about gasoline and lighters), education about poisons and, yes, even cars (Driver’s Ed.), complete with licenses and tests in the case of the latter.
You’re in favor of educating people to be safe? Great. Gven the prevalance of firearms in this country, you’d be in favor of adding firearm knowledge and safety training to public schools. It would save lives; when dealing with firearms, much like fire safety education, ignorance can be deadly. Much like we teach sex education, as well.
Right?
Oh, and interesting how no one wants to address, ya know, a question actually directly related to the topic of the thread:
. . . any rational, logical reason to oppose permitting the same freedoms routinely practiced outside college campuses to also apply on campus.
Still no takers?
Oh, and interesting how no one wants to address, ya know, a question actually directly related to the topic of the thread:
. . . any rational, logical reason to oppose permitting the same freedoms routinely practiced outside college campuses to also apply on campus.
Still no takers?
================================================
Sure, why not just allow each University or College to set its own policy regarding firearms on their campus?
“Heckler” rises to my challenge –
“…I like the idea of 8-hours of training, a background check, et cetera and wonder if such provisos might be expanded to all firearms owners.”
With…
…I need to ask why you feel this would be necessary. “
I guess it’s because legislatures and the NRA agreed it’s a good idea.
“It’s not like we have a lot of people dying from negligent discharges or something.”
I’m really not an expert. (I’m an agnostic on the issue, remember?) Perhaps you should ask Plaxico Burress how his career’s going these days. Seems pretty dead to me.
“Compare the number of accidental firearms deaths with the number of “legal” gun owners in this nation and it’s such a tiny percentage….”
Compare the number of people in this nation with the number of muggers.
A similar “tiny percentage,” huh?
“…not to mention it would serve as a handy means of creating a registry of gun owners.”
Ah, but you did mention it, didn’t you?
And the fact is the NRA is cool with 8-hour training, background checks, and required training for Concealed Carry applicants.
Did the NRA sell you out, “Heckler?”
Yeah, probably.
Just so more guns would be sold.
So don’t go after me. You’re better off attacking Wayne LaPierre.
Wayne LaPierre?
He sounds French.
The Virgin Prophet “Nathaniel” responds –
“It is not the definition of vigilante I have a problem with.
It is your misapplication of it to a person carrying concealed legally and defending themselves legally which is the problem.
Perhaps you care to explain what it is about someone who is legally carrying concealed and legally defending themselves from death or serious harm which makes them a vigilante?”
So, after the VaTech shootist finished popping caps in your classroom, you’d hide under your desk ’til the cops arrive?
Thanks for clearing that up.
Monkey says -”And the fact is the NRA is cool with 8-hour training, background checks, and required training for Concealed Carry applicants.
Did the NRA sell you out, “Heckler?””
They’re cool with the training for concealed carry holders. You said for ALL gun owners. I answered the question from that perspective. There is a big difference.
So your whole 2:14 post is essentially crap.
Monkey
Pop a Xanas dude, you’re not making any sense.
“GMC70,” posting on the tax-payers’ dime –
“. . . any rational, logical reason to oppose permitting the same freedoms routinely practiced outside college campuses to also apply on campus.”
I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but I really, rilly, like the concept of an 8-hour competency course, background check, and law enforcement officers knowing who the Concealed Carriers are. Me and Wayne LaPierre are philosophical butt-buddies on this issue.
But if I don’t want people to carry guns into my business or my home or my university, who are you to prevent me from saying,
“Yeah, Larry, the keg’s out on the patio and I’d just as soon you not bring the sawed-off shotgun out there.”
Even if it might mean “GMC70″ is lurking outside waiting to break into Larry’s car to get a “crime gun.”
“If it hasn’t happened yet, it will.” Right?
Gee, “Heckler” –
I thought the NRA promotes itself with all those Hunters’ Safety courses.
Yikes. That looked like “Strike Four” to me.
MonkeyHawk,
It is also perfectly legal to defend the lives of others as well.
You do grasp the difference between stopping an active shooter from killing others and if the shooter had gotten away hunting him down?
Your idiocy knows no bounds.
Brian: Yes, I’ve been to Heathrow a few times plus Gatwick and Glasgow (Paisley) air ports. COP means “Constable on Patrol” and only UK “special” squads are armed, the local “bobbies” aren’t.
All this talk about a vigilante is simply a feeble attempt to distract from the real topic.
Sorta like talking about whether you want Obama to succeed or not, regardless of what he is planning and doing.
Back to the topic…..
The Virgin Prophet “Nathaniel” obviously hasn’t been paying attention –
“It is also perfectly legal to defend the lives of others as well.
You do grasp the difference between stopping an active shooter from killing others and if the shooter had gotten away hunting him down?
Your idiocy knows no bounds.”
Careful, boy, about spewing attacks of boundless idiocy.
Have I said anything in this thread against Concealed Carry?
Have I advocated anything against, y’know, the thread topic’s discussion of Concealed Carry on campus?
Nothing except, for me, it seems absurd.
For me.
Somebody pops caps in students heads down the hall and you go out there with you gun drawn… fine with me. But there’s likely another “Nathaniel” out there ready to shoot at some guy wielding a handgun and you’ll take your chances.
Me, I’ll be hiding under my desk.
Me, I might get shot by the original attacker but I won’t attract fire from someone who thinks anyone with a gun is the enemy.
Sorry, boy, but I sorta like those odds.
“It’s like saying that because one human is killed by a shark out of the millions of people swimming in the ocean every year, beachgoers should be allowed to secretly carry hand grenades.”
No, it’s more like saying that 16,000 people are murdered every year, hundreds of thousands more are assaulted, raped, and robbed, so law-abiding people should be allowed to carry firearms to defend themselves.
“sursum
Posted May 4, 2009 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
Brian: Yes, I’ve been to Heathrow a few times plus Gatwick and Glasgow (Paisley) air ports. COP means “Constable on Patrol” and only UK “special” squads are armed, the local “bobbies” aren’t.”
I took your use of the word cop to be synonymous with ‘law enforcement officer’ like it is used by most people. As you note, there are law enforcement officers in the UK that are armed regularly, and indeed, there are armaments available to all “bobbies” on short notice if needed.
“Monkeyhawk
Posted May 4, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
…Me, I’ll be hiding under my desk.
Me, I might get shot by the original attacker but I won’t attract fire from someone who thinks anyone with a gun is the enemy.
Sorry, boy, but I sorta like those odds.”
Fair enough. That is why I like concealed carry. People like you are free to choose to hide under their desks and hope not to attract attention of a criminal.
But, under concealed carry folks who don’t like the odds that the criminal will just pass them by and who are licensed to CC have the choice to defend themselves and others.
Monkey says “Gee, “Heckler” –
I thought the NRA promotes itself with all those Hunters’ Safety courses.”
They do.
But they don’t support legislation making training for ALL gunowners mandatory.
There’s a difference. Can you grasp that?
Your chances each year of being a victim of crime:
1 in 200
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeOneYearofData.cfm
That should read:
Your chances each year of being a victim of Violent crime:
1 in 200
Your chances each year of getting struck by lightning:
1 in 280,000
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_pls/probability.html
1,408,337 Violent Crimes in the US, in 2007.
No, it’s more like saying that 16,000 people are murdered every year, hundreds of thousands more are assaulted, raped, and robbed
============================================
USA! USA! USA!
Just to keep things in perspective….
An American is 3 times more likely to die of the flu in an average year than to be murdered with a gun.
But many people who carry guns for self-defense don’t get flu shots.
Oh, and interesting how no one wants to address, ya know, a question actually directly related to the topic of the thread:
. . . any rational, logical reason to oppose permitting the same freedoms routinely practiced outside college campuses to also apply on campus.
Still no takers?
Let me take a stab at it? As to the topic of letting college kids carry for most of them its a moot point cause you have to be 21 to have a CC. letting those otherwise I have no problem with. On the other hand your argument about treating adults like children that can apply to many issues the most obvious would be drinking, but also include smoking weed, playing dice, cards or consenting sex between adults, in fact most victimless crimes. I also know more than once on this blog you’ve made proclamations about how corrupt, tyrannical etc the government is. Yet you make your living be the enforcer of those laws you calm deny adults freedom. I would assume that you must enjoy your job because you could certainly make much more money not being a prosecutor.
“Monkeyhawk
Posted May 4, 2009 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
…“Still, I like the idea of 8-hours of training, a background check, et cetera and wonder if such provisos might be expanded to all firearms owners.””
______________________________________-
Of course you do, Monkeyhawk.
Any other provisions of the Bill of Rights need training before citizens can exercise them? Maybe we should have required seminars before being allowed to exercise our First Amendment rights.
Of course you’d be in favor of the NRA teaching gun safety in the schools. They have the best course for school children going.
Would you recommend different courses for those people that collected guns vs. those that used shotguns for trap shooting? Would re-enactors with their black powder muzzle loaders be required to go to the same course that recreational target shooters go to?
Just wondering.
Strike five…
We need more Flu Control!!!
And that’s fine with me, “brian_nuevo” –
Tell that to the Virgin Prophet and “GMC70″ and the others who have tried to attack my position.
Come up firing! Channel your inner Clint Eastwood and munch on your hotdog while wiping out the scum.
I, personally, don’t think I’m up to the test.
Even if I could go full Annie Oakley and shoot the middle of a quarter tossed in the air, I’m not sure I’d have the cajones to stand up to a nut and effectively put him down before he put me down.
That’s just me.
Hell, I forget to bring my cell phone along too many times; if I always had it on my hip, I’d consider myself a tad obsessive.
The Concealed Carry obsessionists remind me of that old Bill Cosby routine about how he’d taken a few karate lessons and started walking in bad neighborhoods with $10 bills hanging out of his pocket, just for the chance to use his new-found skill.
It’s comical, really, the way the gunnies have piled on me today.
I’m really, rilly, not the guy for NRA members to attack. I’m a strict constitutionalist and have no problem with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I’m on record on WE Blog many times addressing the whole “…shall not be infringed” argument.
But if the NRA supports competence training, a background check, and registry of gun-owners to sell concealable weapons, who am I to to disagree with them?
Sounds like “infringement” to me, but the NRA is okay with it.
So it goes.
I’m the only realist in this argument.
As I’ve pointed out, so many hypotheticals are presented so I simply approach — personally, mind you — how I assess those hyoptheticals.
I’ve attacked no one in this discussion.
I’ve simply shared my personal feelings about guns in American society. And look at all the hissy-fits I’ve engendered from some of the regular CONs who post to this forum!
Either they’re not paying attention or they don’t understand their own arguments.
“HLP” asks –
“Any other provisions of the Bill of Rights need training before citizens can exercise them?
I dunno if they still require it, but when I was in school I had to take a Constitution class.
So, to answer your question, yeah. Sorta.
I’m not sure “Freedom of the Press” requires training in how to ink a plate of type, but that’s about the only other constitutional right dependent on an inanimate object.
“Would you recommend different courses for those people that collected guns vs. those that used shotguns for trap shooting? Would re-enactors with their black powder muzzle loaders be required to go to the same course that recreational target shooters go to?
Just wondering.”
Frankly, I think it probably wouldn’t be all that bad an idea if taxpayers would agree to fund it.
Are you willing to pay more taxes for gun school? Just wondering.
And I think you would agree a student’s parents should be allowed to opt out. Just wondering.
Did you protect the puppy last Thursday when your quack doctor wife gave you a day off?
Want to reschedule our lunch meeting?
(Same terms as you agreed to before.)
“Arguments that imply concealed-weapons carriers are only capable of making campuses safer also (irritatingly) suggest that every single permit holder is the flawless version of Wyatt Earp, the type of shooter who will brandish a firearm only to uphold the law and protect helpless saloon girls from the whims of psychotic banditos.”
I’ve never read such a claim from anyone who supports concealed carry.
I have heard, and read statistics regarding the crime rates of gun permit holders. These stats are readily available on many state web sites, and show a much lower crime rate for gun permit holders then the overall average.
But then, Katy Steinmetz doesn’t appear to want the facts to interfere with her opinion on the matter.
“If the only reason for carrying guns is protection, why aren’t we discussing less lethal means of defending oneself?”
For the same reason chemotherapy is used to treat a cancer patient, instead of giving them an aspirin.
The gun is the most effective, and affordable means of self-protection.
brian” Heathrow isn’t the UK like JFK isn’t America. Years ago when flying down from Fankfurt to Rome I was astounded to see cops at the ready with machine guns in the airport where they made sure you actually touched your luggage on the tarmack after it had been cleared but before it was put on board. The same thing in Rome and only then was I aware of my surroundings. People from all over the troubled middle-east fly regulary into those ports, also in those days two terrorists bands were around. In Germany, the Bader Mienhoff Gang and in Italy the Rose Brigade. I also noticed 3 Asian guys wearing Mao suits aboard my flight. In light of those circumstance being armed or having others armed to defend me made sense. Heathrow nowadays unfortunaltely has the same problem. I refuse to accept and will resist that middle, normal, everyday America is in that category. The NRA nonwithstanding.
“Why does a woman scared for her safety need to have a gun instead of a can of pepper spray?”
Pepper spray vs a gun?
No contest.
Attacker with gun wins every time.
Do you want a mediocre means of self-defense, or the means that works the best?
Maybe pepper spray is good enough for Katy Steinmetz. That’s her choice.
As for protecting myself and my clan, I choose the best means of self-defense – the gun.
Hank, Ive had the same argument with GMC of all people that your having with monkeyhawk before. I think all the CC laws except Vermont and Alaska are unconstitutional. having to pay a fee and take a class to do what the constitution says can do is an infringement on the 2nd amendment
Oh, and the first thing Wyatt Earp did as Marshall of Dodge City was… ban guns.
Damned lib.
He did the same in Tombstone also, then murdered 4 people for violating that law
I read that the 3-trigger double barrel 10 gauge used in “Tombstone” was authentic.
What a blast!
Wyatt Earp had to ban guns because people would get unruly waiting in line at the outhouses.
and Earp also got fired from the WPD for embezzling fines he collected
Sure, I’ll rescedule lunch, I could fly into the Allen county airport next Saturday, could you pick me up or should I borrow the airport courtesy car?
The Oklahoma ‘puppy’ has a ‘forever’ home in Texas. I was able to arrange it through emails.
Call my wife a ‘quack’ again and I’ll come over to your house some evening to meet your wife so I’ll be able to intelligently include her into our little discussions.
He11, I might drop by anyway just to be socialalbe, what’s a good time most nights?
Do criminals register for a firearm and take training classes when they obtain said firearm?
Hey TomPaine,
I don’t mind a CC license with certain requirements as long as it is a ’shall issue’ vs. ‘may issue’ law.
But if I don’t want people to carry guns into my business or my home or my university, who are you to prevent me from saying,
“Yeah, Larry, the keg’s out on the patio and I’d just as soon you not bring the sawed-off shotgun out there.”
—–
Your call, MH. And I’ve never argued otherwise. Certainly any person has the authority to bar firearms on their property.
It’s also not the subject at hand. It’s not “your” university (presuming we’re speaking about state/public universities here; I think for private institutions, there is a difference). I can certainly understand not wanting to talk about the subject at hand, from your perspective.
But try. It’ll do you good.
Then I ran across this tid-bit: I’m a strict constitutionalist . I know it’s trite, but – LMAO. Damn – I nearly had to strap myself in the chair, I was laughing so hard. You’re a lot of things, MH, but a strict constitutionalist is NOT one of them.
And you’re rapidly working on the golden sombrero, an “0-fer” on the day. Pity.
This from sursam struck me as odd:
The two biggest cons perpertrated on any nation have been done right here and it’s damages society at rate unheard of elsewhere in the western/ civilized/advanced world. The NRA and the AARP.
The NRA – OK, I might disagree but I can understand the claim.
But – the AARP?
Really? The American Association of Retired Persons?
THIS is the perpetrator of social chaos? AARP? Darn those blue hairs – in their dreaded Rascals!!!
;-)
This from sursam struck me as odd:
The two biggest cons perpertrated on any nation have been done right here and it’s damages society at rate unheard of elsewhere in the western/ civilized/advanced world. The NRA and the AARP.
The NRA – OK, I might disagree but I can understand the claim.
But – the AARP?
Really? The American Association of Retired Persons?
THIS is the perpetrator of social chaos? AARP? Darn those blue hairs – in their dreaded Rascals!!!
;-)
This from sursam struck me as odd:
The two biggest cons perpertrated on any nation have been done right here and it’s damages society at rate unheard of elsewhere in the western/ civilized/advanced world. The NRA and the AARP.
The NRA – OK, I might disagree but I can understand the claim.
But – the AARP?
Really? The American Association of Retired Persons?
THIS is the perpetrator of social chaos? AARP? Darn those blue hairs – in their dreaded Rascals!!!
;-)
Triple post?! How did that happen?
Sorry all.
Guess I’m just trying to drive up the WEblog’s numbers . . .
Of course if any of you had been on campus recently, you’d know that concealing firearm in what they are wearing today……
Oh I agree AARP has caused much harm in promoting endless Government programs for the ‘poor senior citizens.’ (Even though demographics show today’s seniors are far from being the poorest segment.)
Social Security solutions proposed over the last 40 years have been smashed by AARP. Any generational sharing of the burden of fixing the SS shortage was opposed. Their solution – No benefit cuts, and Tax increases for the younger working generations.
ME, ME, ME. No concern apparently for kids or grandkids.
And prescription drug benefits? More give aways, even while SS and Medicare problems were ignored.
Off topic, whoops!
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 4, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Permalink
And that’s fine with me, “brian_nuevo” –
Tell that to the Virgin Prophet and “GMC70? and the others who have tried to attack my position.
Come up firing! Channel your inner Clint Eastwood and munch on your hotdog while wiping out the scum.
I, personally, don’t think I’m up to the test.
Even if I could go full Annie Oakley and shoot the middle of a quarter tossed in the air, I’m not sure I’d have the cajones to stand up to a nut and effectively put him down before he put me down.
—————————————–
Would you not even defend your wife or children? (If you have any.)
“HLP” shares –
…I’ll rescedule lunch, I could fly into the Allen county airport next Saturday, could you pick me up?
Sure. Lemme know your ETA and what you’re flying. No problem.
Good news about the puppy.
“Call my wife a ‘quack’ again and I’ll come over to your house some evening to meet your wife so I’ll be able to intelligently include her into our little discussions.
He11, I might drop by anyway just to be socialalbe, what’s a good time most nights?”
Every night is a new adventure. You’ll have to be more specific. And the lady in my life would probably call your chiropractor wife a quack, too.
And I’m sorry, but anyone who dismisses bacteria, viruses, and genetics in favor of chiropractic’s belief all diseases are the result of “subluxations” of spinal vertebrae cause disease is pretty quacky.
“subluxations” of spinal vertebrae cause disease is pretty quacky.
_______________________________
I’m not sure if calling a mans wife a quack is helpful or smart.
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 4, 2009 at 2:31 pm | Permalink
But if I don’t want people to carry guns into my business or my home or my university, who are you to prevent me from saying,
“Yeah, Larry, the keg’s out on the patio and I’d just as soon you not bring the sawed-off shotgun out there.”
————————————
Shotguns are tough to conceal, but if someone was carrying a concealed handgun, how would you stop them?
“JimJohnson” tries another hypothetical –
“Would you not even defend your wife or children? “
Who knows what I’d do in that situation?
I’d like to think I’d stand between the shooter and my loved ones. I can’t guarantee, given this is all about your fantasy, I wouldn’t become a victim of my superstitious fear of getting shot.
Unlike your cocksure confidence you’d be all Steve McQueen in such a situation, I have my doubts. I’d like to think I’d be a hero but I don’t need to go 24/7 with iron strapped to my hip before I think I’d respond appropriately.
You need your concealed handgun to check the mail on the porch, I guess. I’m not that much of a fraidy cat.
Different strokes, and all that…
“fleettwood
Posted May 4, 2009 at 4:44 pm | Permalink
“subluxations” of spinal vertebrae cause disease is pretty quacky.
_______________________________
I’m not sure if calling a mans wife a quack is helpful or smart.”
Most good quack recognize and can acknowledge their own quackery.
Jimbo,
“Shotguns are tough to conceal, but if someone was carrying a concealed handgun, how would you stop them?”
Gee, a whole new market for metal detectors, which I’m sure somebody is sewing up as we speak!
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 4, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Permalink
“JimJohnson” tries another hypothetical –
“Would you not even defend your wife or children? “
Who knows what I’d do in that situation?
I’d like to think I’d stand between the shooter and my loved ones.
***Wouldn’t do any good. Even your fat Monkey a*s wouldn’t stop the tiniest caliber. A 22 would likely go thru you and strike whatever was behind you. 38 cal or higher, no question.
I can’t guarantee, given this is all about your fantasy, I wouldn’t become a victim of my superstitious fear of getting shot.
Unlike your cocksure confidence you’d be all Steve McQueen in such a situation, I have my doubts. I’d like to think I’d be a hero but I don’t need to go 24/7 with iron strapped to my hip before I think I’d respond appropriately.
***It’s a question of being prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones. I don’t care what you choose to do or not do. As a ’strict constructionist’, you shouldn’t care what others do either.
You need your concealed handgun to check the mail on the porch, I guess. I’m not that much of a fraidy cat.
***It’s not about fear at all. It’s about being prepared. As a matter of fact, I carry maybe once or twice per week, not counting the piece in the glove box. Rarely do I carry when getting the mail, unless I happen to be carrying at the time I come home.
Your chances of being a victime of a violent crime in 2007 were roughly 1 in 200 as I pointed out above. (BTW, the US average and KS average is about the same 1 in 200)
When the downside risk is bodily harm or even death, 1 in 200 is not a risk I take lightly.
Jed
Posted May 4, 2009 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
Jimbo,
“Shotguns are tough to conceal, but if someone was carrying a concealed handgun, how would you stop them?”
Gee, a whole new market for metal detectors, which I’m sure somebody is sewing up as we speak!
========================================
Naw, a simple Red Circle No Gun sign is all ya need.
GMC70: The AARP is a sales arm of a private insurance company who pass themsleves off as a group of health care professonals looking out for old codgers, which would include me. Their only aim is to sell life/health insurance and fight universal coverage (hence causing harm) with their folksy ads. Look closely at the literature or TV ads where the disclaimer is posted. One day I’ll go in the milk and dairy lobby who had posters in classrooms actually telling kids how much fatty, cholesterol and chemical induced toxic beef and milk to ingest, every day. And the schools bought it!
*New* Smith & Wesson Handgun for Liberals
This is great, just what all the liberals need.
I’d even consider helping some liberals here on the WeBlog with the purchase cost I think.
http://www.masscops.com/forums/firepower/74179-new-smith-wesson-handgun-liberals.html
“Naw, a simple Red Circle No Gun sign is all ya need.”
Jim, that stops um dead in their tracks every time!!!
Clearly, the standards for who should be allowed to carry concealed are far too lax.
There are at least 5 posters here who have absolutely no business carrying guns.
Jimbo,
“Naw, a simple Red Circle No Gun sign is all ya need.”
Yeah, the last one of those I saw had a bullet hole in it, no doubt from one of you CCers protecting yourselves from it.
“There are at least 5 posters here who have absolutely no business carrying guns.”—BlowJb
And I’ll bet your history would not permit you to obtain a CCW.
Hey, BlowJb….I have one.
Look, there’s one of them now!
I don’t need a gun.
I’m a likable person who no one would want to hurt. SO, I don’t have to go about in fear all the time.
I would venture you can’t obtain one….remember the questions on the form.
They have to do with mental stability and criminal history among other unsavory aspects.
And while I won’t say I don’t like you….I will say I detest what you stand for.
And I don’t “go about in fear all the time”…..but, I CAN carry a firearm if I like, and do when I like. That’s what freedom and the Constitution are all about.
BlueJay
Posted May 4, 2009 at 9:44 pm | Permalink
I don’t need a gun.
I’m a likable person who no one would want to hurt. SO, I don’t have to go about in fear all the time.
========================
Funny, even if BJ was likeable, how ignorant is this dead beat who thinks 1.5 million crime victims in the US each year are NOT likeable people?
I think you’re right Box, I doubt if JR is qualified to get a permit.
But who cares? I got mine!
Say JR, were these four women not likeable?
http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/798768.html
Police arrest suspect in four rapes at two apartment complexes
Say JR, all these people assaulted last week, they were not very likeable?
http://projects.kansas.com/crime/offense/aggravated%20assault/
May 3: aggravated assault
E. Zimmerly and Waverly
May 3: aggravated assault
3900 block of E. Cessna
May 3: aggravated assault
2000 block of S. Broadway
May 3: aggravated assault
W. Central and West St.
May 3: aggravated assault
1000 block of S. Meridian
May 2: aggravated assault
600 block of S. Edwards
May 2: aggravated assault
3200 block of E. Harry
May 2: aggravated assault
4900 block of E. Lincoln
May 2: aggravated assault
1400 block of N. Waterfront
May 2: aggravated assault
8400 block of E. Harry
May 2: aggravated assault
2800 block of E. Ninth N.
May 2: aggravated assault
1000 block of S. Vine
May 1: aggravated assault
1500 block of N. St. Francis
April 30: aggravated assault
2700 block of N. Bluff
April 30: aggravated assault
1400 block of N. Harding
April 30: aggravated assault
800 block of S. Apache
April 30: aggravated assault
1300 block of S. St. Francis
April 29: aggravated assault
600 block of N. Broadway
April 29: aggravated assault
1700 block of N. Spruce
April 28: aggravated assault
1600 block of N. Green
April 28: aggravated assault
2300 block of S. Mcadam
April 28: aggravated assault
900 block of N. Westlink
April 27: aggravated assault
1500 block of W. Pawnee
April 27: aggravated assault
800 block of E. Second
Say JR, are 1 in 3 women in Wichita NOT likeable?
And JR, there’s a 1 in 6 chance it could happen to YOU!
http://www.wichitasac.com/
Someone you know has been affected by sexual violence.
Whether you know it or not.
One in three woman and one in six men are victimized.
Maybe JR doesn’t like firearms because he IS a perpetrator (????). They are a potential work hazard for him, uh?
Wait….actually that was a dumb thing for me to say about JR….he’s too lazy to get out and commit crimes unless the opportunity just presents itself.
Like stealing bags of dirt.
“Jim”? Meet Bawks.
Bawks? This is “Jim”.
Huddle together. Look out under “Jim”’s bed though bawks.
He’s a wetter.
BJ is soooo likeable.
Nobody would want to harm him.
Only unlikeable people become victims of crime.
——————————————-
BlueJay
Posted May 4, 2009 at 9:44 pm | Permalink
I don’t need a gun.
I’m a likable person who no one would want to hurt. SO, I don’t have to go about in fear all the time.
Next time there’s a crime spree in a neighborhood near you, just smile and be nice and likeable.
Then you’ll be safe, in your own lil fantasylandworld.
“Next time there’s a crime spree in a neighborhood near you, just smile and be nice and likeable.”
Well, we now know why Jimbo is so afraid of a crime wave and all his neighbors and anyone even slightly darker than his sheet.
See, and this is one of those issues I really, rilly, don’t get about CONs.
They seem to be so afraid.
One of the seminal moments in Michael Moore’s “Sicko” is when the French guy observed, “In America people fear the government; in France the government fears the people.”
CONs tend to conjure up all sorts of made-up scenarios that will make them victims, but turn around and attack “Libs” for playing the Victim Card.
If one were to read through all the posts in this thread (horrors!!) they’d see I’ve posted nothing that contradicts official NRA policy efforts. But, since I’m considered a “Lib” the CONs attacked and attacked and were quashed.
A lot of petards were hoisted, and a lot of CONs went with them.
“See, and this is one of those issues I really, rilly, don’t get about CONs.
They seem to be so afraid.”—Monkey
There is a lot you “don’t get” Monkey
It’s not fear, it’s responsible preparedness.
It’s accepting that responsibility instead of always wanting to place it on others.
And it’s the courage to do so
Maybe you should work on your social skills bawks.
You and the other paranoid cons I mean?
My read here is there is good reason to believe you are people who pretty quickly make enemies that would want to hurt you. That’s what you need to work on.
“My read here is there is good reason to believe you are people who pretty quickly make enemies that would want to hurt you. That’s what you need to work on.”—BlowJb
Speaking for yourself there BlowJb?
Do you want to hurt me?
Is that another of your impotent threats?
It doesn’t work with me, I’m ready for ya.
WHY WOULD A COLLEGE KID NEED TO CARRY A GUN???
Shades of the Carr Brothers but with a distinctly different outcome. Because a college kid had a gun.
College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader
Posted: 4:53 pm EDT May 4, 2009
Updated: 6:41 pm EDT May 4, 2009
COLLEGE PARK, Ga. — A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.
Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.
“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.
TOM JONES: College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader
Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.
“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.
Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.
That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.
The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.
“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.
A neighbor heard the shots and heard someone running nearby.
“And I heard someone say, ‘Someone help me. Call the police. Somebody call the police,’” said a neighbor.
The neighbor said she believes it was Lavant, who was found dead near his apartment, only one building away.
Bailey said he is just thankful one student risked his life to keep others alive.
“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.
One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.
Police said they are close to making the arrest of the second suspect.
……….i mean why the hell would you even think of bringing a gun to a birthday party……………
From a commenter at Free Republic-
Today we might have been reading about a mass rape and massacre committed by men with semi auto assault pistols. The media would be outraged, the Bradys and Obamapods would be all over the media screaming for more gun control. Because an armed citizen defended himself and others, we will never know if the gunmen intended a massacre. Since no massacre occurred there is no outrage, no big headline, just business as usual. Pro gun forces get no credit for 10 lives saved by the liberal propagandists, who simply have to wait a little while longer to get their headline.
MonkeyHawk,
What world of self denial are you living in?
First, you categorize the posts of others by calling them trolls and you label them with names.
Second, you misapply terms like vigilante to those that carry concealed.
Third, you speculate on the motivations of the NRA and gun manufacturers negatively in regards to Concealed carry with little to no actual proof.
Fourth, you question the motivations of those conservatives who carry concealed by saying they are afraid and “conjure” up scenarios to be afraid of.
You are the typical left wing liveral idiot who has nothing but personal attacks, false claims on the motivations of those who carry concealed, and you refuse to argue about this in any reasonable fashion.
You would rather portray those you disagree with as being afraid or fearful.
And then you claim to be indifferenct on the subject? An agnostic?
You are anything but that.
BlueJay,
Do you think it was Heather Muller’s fault for getting raped and then killed by the Carr Brothers because she was not “likeable?”
You would tell H.G., the lone survivor, that she should have been more likeable and that it was her friends fault that the Carr Brothers raped and killed them so brutally?
Jed,
“Yeah, the last one of those I saw had a bullet hole in it, no doubt from one of you CCers protecting yourselves from it.”
I suppose you would be willing to tell us the location of this sign so we can see it for ourselves?
Just another one of your made up anecdotal stories which you have for everything…
MonkeyHawk,
“And I’m sorry, but anyone who dismisses bacteria, viruses, and genetics in favor of chiropractic’s belief all diseases are the result of “subluxations” of spinal vertebrae cause disease is pretty quacky.”
Nice Strawman argument made by an ignorant idiot.
Chripractors, and my mom, do not “dismiss” bacteria, viruses, or genetics.
My Mom even has a degree in genetics along with the other half dozen and her doctorate.
Once again, you have no clue what you are talking about.
MonkeyHawk,
“Have I said anything in this thread against Concealed Carry?”
Not directly. Instead you go the cowardly route of merely mocking those that do carry concealed, calling them vigilantes, and making snarky comments on the subject.
“Have I advocated anything against, y’know, the thread topic’s discussion of Concealed Carry on campus?”
Pretty much, yes. When you question the need for it, question those who do it, mock those who do it, and constantly give your reasons for not doing it….
“Somebody pops caps in students heads down the hall and you go out there with you gun drawn… fine with me. But there’s likely another “Nathaniel” out there ready to shoot at some guy wielding a handgun and you’ll take your chances.”
Not really. You act as if everyone who carries concealed has never even thought that anyone else does or might even be responding to an active shooter as well.
Those of us who carry concealed, or at least all the people I have met and teachers too, have been taught and know about accessing the situation first.
You act as if we will blindly be shooting our guns at anything and everything that moves.
This is your mischaracterization and another example of how you attack concealed carry in an indirect way.
“Me, I’ll be hiding under my desk.”
Of course.
“Me, I might get shot by the original attacker but I won’t attract fire from someone who thinks anyone with a gun is the enemy. ”
Once again, another mischaracterization on your part. Those who carry concealed do not think that anyone with a gun is the enemy.
“Sorry, boy, but I sorta like those odds.”
Good for you.
I think it is irresponsible and terribly cruel of you to bring the name of that unfortunate woman here and make her part of your argument Nathaniel.
But I doubt you stopped to think about that.
Shame on you.
The Virgin Prophet “Nathaniel” accuses –
“You are the typical left wing liveral idiot who has nothing but personal attacks, false claims on the motivations of those who carry concealed, and you refuse to argue about this in any reasonable fashion.”
Boy, you really need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Yeah I’m a
liberal“liveral” on a lot of issues, but I have nothing against carriers of concealed handguns. I just think they’re silly and self delusional.Personally, I can’t think of any situation in which introduction of another gun improves conditions so I choose not to carry one.
I have shown several “what if?” scenarios Concealed Carry advocates conjure up to rationalize and justify their perceived need the world is just too scary and threatening for them to not carry a firearm everywhere they go.
I have supported policies promoted by the NRA which involve training and background checks to help assure gun-carriers demonstrate a modicum of competence, sanity, and responsibility.
And still you attack me for no other reason than you think I’m a
liberal“liveral.”I really don’t see the threat to you posed by my sharing my personal motivations for not carrying a handgun everywhere I go. I cannot for the life of me understand why you think it’s somehow a threat to you or your constitutional rights.
You seem far more obsessive/defensive on this issue than reality would seem to dictate. If I were to say I choose not to ride horses because I tend to bump my balls on the saddle, someone like you would accuse me of trying to confiscate everyone’s horses. Then you would attempt to accuse me of living in a state of denial.
You know: arguing in reasonable fashion.”
Daniel,
“Sure, why not just allow each University or College to set its own policy regarding firearms on their campus?”
For starters, their would be no continuity then.
There must be dozens of different schools all across Kansas let alone the entire country.
You expect someone to then know the laws of every individual school they might happen to be going to carrying concealed?
This is why many states try to pass a state law on weapons so that if someone happens to be driving through wichita they are not instantly turned into a criminal because they were not transporting their firearm in accordance with wichita law.
Leave it up to the states where it is at now.
It is already annoying enough just trying to keep track of all the state laws regarding concealed carry when someone travels out of state let alone each and every individual schools…
BlueJay,
You did that when you made such an absurd claim about being likeable to avoid criminals.
You should be ashamed.
I did not invoke anyone’s local personal tragedy Nathaniel.
Stop and think now and again.
“Heckler” notes –
“One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery.”
So the shooters weren’t all that great shots.
Good for the “one female student” for surviving the mayhem. But the Virgin Prophet insists I am in a state a denial when I bring up one of my personal reasons for choosing not to carry a handgun around wherever I go. Because I’m considered a
liberal“liveral.”BlueJay,
When you make absurd abolute claims, yes you do.
You should stop and think.
You claimed that people should be likeable to avoid criminals.
Would you say that to the survivor of the Carr brothers?
Yes or No?
I guess that is as close as Nathaniel gets to apologizing for his thoughtless post.
You truly are your father’s son. And that is as much an indictment of him as it is you.
Shame.
BlueJay,
Once again, you are the one who is making the absurd claim that being “likeable” is what keeps you from being targeted by criminals and that those who are not likeable are targets.
All of a sudden, your stupid claim doesn’t look so brilliant when a real victim is used to compare it too.
Yes, you should be ashamed.
It is too bad you are too obsessed with your pride top admit your statement was stupid.
You USED a local tragedy to try and rationalize your abnormal paranoia, social dysfunction, and attendant need to be armed even at a picnic Nathaniel.
If you can’t see that that is wrong?
Never mind.
But still, shame on you.
BlueJay,
I used a local tragedy to show how your claim about being likeable stopping criminals or not being likeable making one a victim is absurd.
If you can’t grasp that then you are an idiot.
Shame on you.
And I mean no offense, but DO need to point out that the “need” of some to go about armed at all times IS a distinctly minority position. That is just a matter of easily observable fact. Like any minority, individuals may vary.
It is my observation that with rare exception, the posters here advocating conceal carry present a poor case for themselves. I think that their need to carry is more a function of personal psychosis.
BlueJay,
And that is nothing more than your biased opinion based on little to no fact. (The last paragraph)
” I think that their need to carry is more a function of personal psychosis.”
chucklesnort.
This from he who would be King of his own personal fantasy land. phuq
MonkeyHawk,
“….but I have nothing against carriers of concealed handguns. I just think they’re silly and self delusional.”
You have nothing against them… but you call them silly and self delusional?
You seem to go out of your way to not only call those who carry concealed every name in the book you can think of, but you attempt to falsely categorize them and their motivations as well.
If you were trying to have any kind of reasonable discussion where you are nothing more than an agnostic and indifferent on the issue you wouldn’t be doing such things.
Your comments go beyond being indifferent and they demean those who carry concealed. You do not attempt to explain why you think what you do either. It is nothing more than purely childish name calling.
“Personally, I can’t think of any situation in which introduction of another gun improves conditions so I choose not to carry one.”
That is fine. Just know, that simply because YOU can’t think of one doesn’t mean such situations do not exist. Several examples have already been provided in this thread.
“I have shown several “what if?” scenarios Concealed Carry advocates conjure up to rationalize and justify their perceived need the world is just too scary and threatening for them to not carry a firearm everywhere they go.”
Once again, calling the world too scary and threatening for concealed carry people is nothing more than a slander on those that do.
“I have supported policies promoted by the NRA which involve training and background checks to help assure gun-carriers demonstrate a modicum of competence, sanity, and responsibility.”
Ok… so what?
“And still you attack me for no other reason than you think I’m a liberal “liveral.””
Nice strawman. I have clearly outlined my “attacks” on you and why. You convienently didn’t reply to 80% of my post.
“I really don’t see the threat to you posed by my sharing my personal motivations for not carrying a handgun everywhere I go.”
You are not only sharing your motivations. You claim to know the motivations of those that do carry concealed and post falsehoods about them. It is not so much a threat to me, but merely my pointing out what you are doing.
“I cannot for the life of me understand why you think it’s somehow a threat to you or your constitutional rights.”
I don’t and nothing I posted said this. nice strawman.
“You seem far more obsessive/defensive on this issue than reality would seem to dictate.”
Really? My merely pointing out the continued posting of falsehoods and lies by you makes me obsessive and defensive?
Why is it that you feel you must say such lies about those who carry concealed?
Wow, “Nathaniel” –
You’re really in a huff today, aren’t you?
Here I am, taking the NRA’s tack on Concealed Carry (this thread’s topic) and you keep trying to play yourself the victim.
Nowhere in any of my posts on this topic have I expressed any wish to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. But you keep nitpicking a word here or a comment there to try to portray yourself a victim of my supposed “hate.”
Look. If you hitched up a Howitzer to the trailer hitch of your pick-up and hauled it around every time you went to Dillon’s I’d think you were pretty absurd. Me? I wouldn’t do that. But nothing I’ve posted in this thread is either an attack on you or anything other than how I approach the issue.
Get a grip, boy.
We basically agree on this thread’s topic. But you keep trying to pick a fight.
It’s not rational.
It’s not logical.
It’s borderline insane.
I haven’t proposed or advocated any public policy that’s not on the books. You passed the test, the cops know where you live, and you can choose to avoid any store or place that chooses to not want concealed handguns on their premises.
I can live with that.
I don’t sit in my room and conjure up “what if” arguments to persuade me or justify my strapping on heat every time I leave the house. You do.
Fine.
Someday your worst (best?) fears might come true and you can cap some terrorist in a mall and reconcile your need to be armed wherever you go.
Me? I’m not that worried about it and choose to live my life differently.
And you hate that don’tcha, boy?
Nothing odd about that, right?
MonkeyHawk,
And there you go again…
“You’re really in a huff today”
Has nothing to do with the subject, just another lame attempt by you to mischaracterize my emotions rather than discuss the subject.
“…and you keep trying to play yourself the victim.”
No where here have I tried to play myself as a victim. I am merely pointing out the falsehoods of the things you keep posting.
It doesn’t make me a victim, it is my pointing out what an idiot you are.
“But you keep nitpicking a word here or a comment there to try to portray yourself a victim of my supposed “hate.””
Nitpicking? Why do you feel you have to label those who carry concealed by calling them vigilantes or afraid?
You are the one playing the word games, I am just pointing it out. That is not nitpicking. That is your being dishonest.
“Get a grip, boy.”
Stop posting lies and mischaracterizing those you disagree with.
“I don’t sit in my room and conjure up “what if” arguments to persuade me or justify my strapping on heat every time I leave the house. You do.”
Yet another false assessment on what I do.
“Someday your worst (best?) fears….”
And yet another lame attempt to characterize my thoughts in a dishonest way. Suggesting that such things would be my “best” fears.
No wonder your father calls you “Boy,” boy –
You’ve spent the morning virtually humping my leg like a desperate puppy. To no avail.
I’m sorry my personal choice to not pack heat everywhere I go somehow seems to you an attack. (Well, not all that sorry. It seems pretty kookie to me.) But I can live with our respective choices of lifestyle.
Somehow, for some reason, you can’t.
MonkeyHawk,
“No wonder your father calls you “Boy,” boy –”
Again, has nothing to do with the subject. Yet again you must resort to making this personal.
“You’ve spent the morning virtually humping my leg like a desperate puppy. To no avail.”
And what does that say about you having to reply to me each and every time?
Alas, this is yet again nothing more than another one of your attempts to chracterize me and my posts in a demeaning way rather than try to respond to my points.
“I’m sorry my personal choice to not pack heat everywhere I go somehow seems to you an attack.”
Another strawman argument. No where did I say that your choice was an attack on me. It is the constant name calling, false characterizations, and lies you say which I point out.
“Somehow, for some reason, you can’t.”
Again, yet another strawman. It is your distortions and lies that I am pointing out, not your personal choice which I have any problem with.
“#
It is my observation that with rare exception, the posters here advocating conceal carry present a poor case for themselves. I think that their need to carry is more a function of personal psychosis. (My last paragraph)
#
Nathaniel
Posted May 5, 2009 at 11:11 am | Permalink
BlueJay,
And that is nothing more than your biased opinion based on little to no fact. (The last paragraph)
And you then put on a clinic to prove me right.
There is simply no one suffering more of a personal psychosis, or at the very least a severe neuroses, than BlowJb.
Disturbingly interesting is that anyone would pay him any attention more than a corner street psychotic.
“Boxlock20″ needed only 24-and-a-half hours to conjure a riposte –
“Disturbingly interesting is that anyone would pay him any attention more than a corner street psychotic.”
And yet, here you are.
Monkeybrains spews out a response:
“And yet, here you are.”
I see you can’t afford the time to actually respond to the crap you dumped out here, but you can come up with that lame response to Boxlock…