• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Another Second Amendment win in California

TheRedWorm said:
I'm honestly not seeing many other reasons besides self defense for a concealed carry. At least, that's the reason I'd carry...
Click to expand...

Some California counties have really got themselves in a jackpot wrt concealed carry license issuance post Heller and McDonald, for a couple of reasons.

First up, in a survey of successful applicants (through California's public record disclosure law) in certain counties were Self Defense was stipulated in the counties written policy as not constituting good cause for license issuance, some applicants that were issued carry licenses used that exact good cause in their applications. In cross checking names with donor lists for the sheriff in question campaign disclosures (Sheriffs are elected officials, not appointed as Chiefs of police are) there is usually overlap...

The other problem is that in both SC decisions, Self Defense was specifically cited as being the intrinsic part of the right to keep and bear arms - not hunting or militia membership or skeet shooting.

Because California law makers have pretty much had a free hand to abridge the right of firearms possession at will w/o consequences, the two recent 9th circuit decisions, along with the failure of Alameda county to stop gun shows at the county fair property, and even Harrot v. King in '96:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/harrott_v_kings.txt

Have thrown state legislators a fastball they're not accustomed to facing, and they're not liking it much and have already stuck their figurative foot in their mouth in a couple of cases being litigated right now - stay tuned for future developments and disappointed politicians.
 
An FFL I know couldn't get one with "self defense" on the form. But he got one approved when he put in that it was needed to protect his cash when leaving the gun shows with full pockets.

Protecting property vs protecting people?

Or has it always been a from of graft?
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
An FFL I know couldn't get one with "self defense" on the form. But he got one approved when he put in that it was needed to protect his cash when leaving the gun shows with full pockets.

Protecting property vs protecting people?

Or has it always been a from of graft?
Click to expand...

Its called arbitrary and capricious.
 
BStrong said:
First up, in a survey of successful applicants (through California's public record disclosure law) in certain counties were Self Defense was stipulated in the counties written policy as not constituting good cause for license issuance, some applicants that were issued carry licenses used that exact good cause in their applications. In cross checking names with donor lists for the sheriff in question campaign disclosures (Sheriffs are elected officials, not appointed as Chiefs of police are) there is usually overlap...
Click to expand...

Curious.
 
The Ninth Circuit seems to be trying to establish that people have the right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If that isn't a clear expansion of the traditional meaning of the Second Amendment I don't know what is.
 
newyorkguy said:
The Ninth Circuit seems to be trying to establish that people have the right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If that isn't a clear expansion of the traditional meaning of the Second Amendment I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
The second amendment is mute on the topic, so I'm not sure how you're so certain that it's a "clear expansion of the traditional meaning". If you decide that concealed carry is untraditional, then that means open carry is traditional and that therefore, people in Cali have the constitutional right to open carry loaded firearms.
 
The Norseman said:
The second amendment is mute on the topic, so I'm not sure how you're so certain that it's a "clear expansion of the traditional meaning"...
Click to expand...

A clear expansion of the legal meaning. Courts have never held that people have the right under the Second Amendment to carry concealed guns.

Where the armed-with-a-gun advocates are going with this is, if concealed carry is a Constitutional right then municipalities and states have no right to restrict it. You can't limit a right.
 
newyorkguy said:
The Ninth Circuit seems to be trying to establish that people have the right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If that isn't a clear expansion of the traditional meaning of the Second Amendment I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

If you read the 9th decision from the San Diego case, they also cited the fact that in the state of California, the open (not concealed) carry of an unloaded firearm is a crime under state law - that law was enacted last year after a series of protests where firearms owners met in public places with holstered unloaded handguns in plain view.

The Black Panthers set in motion the state to ban the open carry of loaded firearms when they protested at the state capitol, armed:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...lcmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZP8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1072,5010951

Reagan couldn't sign the loaded carry ban fast enough. Can't have uppity armed blacks running around loose.
 
newyorkguy said:
A clear expansion of the legal meaning. Courts have never held that people have the right under the Second Amendment to carry concealed guns.

Where the armed-with-a-gun advocates are going with this is, if concealed carry is a Constitutional right then municipalities and states have no right to restrict it. You can't limit a right.
Click to expand...

I believe they can and should, within reason.

The problem in California has been that in many areas if you're not white, well off and contribute to the campaign chest of local politicians your chance of getting a carry permit in any of the major metros is -0-, no matter your real world need.

Background checks, pictures and prints, classroom instruction, range instruction, qualifying on the live fire range with annual or semi-annual requals all make sense and should be policy, but million dollar liability polices and "average police response time" justifications are silly and unconstitutional.

It should be noted also that 42 of the 50 states have gone "shall-issue" for carry permits, and the 8 states that haven't are the outliers, not the reverse.
 
BStrong said:
...The Black Panthers set in motion the state to ban the open carry of loaded firearms when they protested at the state capitol, armed:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...lcmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZP8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1072,5010951

Reagan couldn't sign the loaded carry ban fast enough. Can't have uppity armed blacks running around loose.
Click to expand...

Come on. Uppity blacks? The Black Panther Party was a revolutionary group advocating the armed overthrow of the United States government. They also advocated killing white police officers in black communities as they were "agents of oppression," sent there by the racist state to keep black people down.

Remember, Off the pigs!
 
BStrong said:
Background checks, pictures and prints, classroom instruction, range instruction, qualifying on the live fire range with annual or semi-annual requals all make sense and should be policy ...
Click to expand...

I'm completely on board with wanting anyone who is carrying a gun to have been taught how to safely handle that firearm, mainly because i don't want to accidentally get shot. Background checks - great. Pictures and prints - I have to think about that a little more. Though not a hardcore libertarian I feel unease about innocent people being fingerprinted and this being kept on record. Pictures I don't have such an issue with. You need one to get a drivers license, so why not to carry a gun concealed?

Where i have more of an issue is with mandatory classroom instruction and range qualification. These things are costly. This cost is naturally borne by the person wanting to carry a gun, right? That means that, with taxes and fees and licensing and who knows what else, the government at whatever level has a way to place de facto gun control on poorer communities by simply pricing them out of the opportunity of qualifying for a permit.

The irony of this is, it is those people living or working in poorer, higher crime areas that are more likely to need a concealed weapon for self defense. I can't see this as being in any way fair or reasonable.

It's a sticky issue. The first thing I did when I decided I was going to be handling a gun in any way was book instruction with a qualified teacher to make sure i didn't accidentally shoot myself, someone i care about, or any random stranger. However, I was fortunate in being in a financial position to do that, whereas many people simply are not. Should we be willing to accept disqualifying people from being able to defend themselves based on their income?
 
The Norseman said:
The second amendment is mute on the topic, so I'm not sure how you're so certain that it's a "clear expansion of the traditional meaning". If you decide that concealed carry is untraditional, then that means open carry is traditional and that therefore, people in Cali have the constitutional right to open carry loaded firearms.
Click to expand...
.
Only the Men In Black could carry a Kentucky Long Rifle concealed in their form fitted uniforms!
 
"...defend themselves based on their income? "
.
It really comes down to that. The obviously needed courses in firearm safety and when it is legitimate to use one cost the taxpayer.
Most taxpayers have zero interest in a firearm, much less toting one around on the odd chance it might be used, and would not find financing courses a legitimate use of their taxes.
Possibly schools, which pay the state for the privilege, can teach the needs to the applicant.
 
newyorkguy said:
A clear expansion of the legal meaning. Courts have never held that people have the right under the Second Amendment to carry concealed guns.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. As others have pointed out, it's places like California and New York who require concealed carry permits in order to bare arms. If they allowed open carry, then they likely could make more onerous requirements for concealed carry. But because they make it illegal to open carry they can't restrict concealed carry any more than is proper.

So it's not an expansion at all, it's preventing an end around of established law.

EDIT: To clarify what I 'fixed' was the actual implication of what aspect of the 2nd Amendment was being violated. That sentence is still factually incorrect.
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
The Ninth Circuit seems to be trying to establish that people have the right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If that isn't a clear expansion of the traditional meaning of the Second Amendment I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

You could easily argue that it's an expansion of the intent of the second amendment, if that's your bag. I don't know how successful this would be but it is legitimate to question what the authors had in mind when they wrote the text. They probably didn't have in mind a firearm with a barrel of less than 5" and an ammo capacity of 17 rounds, for example.

However, I don't think you could fairly say that it's a clear expansion of the meaning of the second amendment, if by 'meaning' we are actually referring to the message carried by the words themselves. It's pretty clear cut that the second amendment allows people to bear arms. Carrying a concealed weapon is clearly caught under the definition of 'bearing' a firearm.

Rather than saying that concealed carry falls outside of the second amendment, which is a dead-end to any dialog because it simply does not, the discussion should rather be about what limits can / should be legally placed on concealed carry.
 
newyorkguy said:
Come on. Uppity blacks? The Black Panther Party was a revolutionary group advocating the armed overthrow of the United States government. They also advocated killing white police officers in black communities as they were "agents of oppression," sent there by the racist state to keep black people down.

Remember, Off the pigs!
Click to expand...

I remember it very well, much more so than you might realize.

The local environment at the time this went down was chock full of nuts from every side of the political spectrum, from Minutemen and the Klan (yeah, the Klan was in California) to every type of leftist from Trotsky to Stalin to Mao, Anarchists, and just plain pissed off people.

Without overstating it, and I'm absolutely no fan of any armed nut, in certain communities at the time, LEO's were much more prone to use force, up to lethal.

Some of the causation in both Oakland and S.F. that brought about the Panthers was the fact that if you were a young black guy, it didn't take much in either city for you to end up in the tank with a busted head and a felony charge (not just blacks either. there was a local case involving the HA's where the DA charged a member for breaking the leg of a LEO - cop claimed he witnessed the angel do it with a coke bottle...tv news footage of the incident showed the angel in question being clubbed on the head by an OPD officer, and when the 6' 8", 300 or so pound angel fell on the other officer, that's how the officers leg ended up being broken.)

It had been the law prior to the Panthers' day trip to the capitol that unless otherwise restricted by local ordinance, an individual could openly carry a loaded handgun on their person - not in SF or LA, but in many other places people could and did - leading to shock on the part of Los Angelenos or SF residents that went up the gold country, but it was legal.

What the Panthers pulled in Sac, was street theater of the highest order, and it did exactly what it intended, which was garner publicity.

They eventually devolved into a flat-out criminal operation, that's an absolute truth, but they were also on the receiving end of massive local, state and federal scrutiny, not all of it Constitutional or legal, and the fact that they were black, outspoken and armed made them an enemy of the public order even if their only public act would have been the free food program for the community that was one of their earliest programs.

Contrast what the history was of the Panthers v what the history was of other armed subversive groups of the era, and especially look at the reaction of the FBI was to the various players - the FBI had eyes and ears in the Klan and didn't do much of anything when the Klan killed blacks or white civil rights volunteers, even to the point that they had CI's in the actually criminal acts.

As to the Panthers, they had CI's that initiated criminal activity, that resulted in either the local agency or the feds going in w/ blazing guns.

I'm not making any excuses for the scumbags, but it's important to note the differences between the enforcement actions against white organized subversive scumbags and black organized subversive scumbags.
 
I Ratant said:
"...defend themselves based on their income? "
.
It really comes down to that. The obviously needed courses in firearm safety and when it is legitimate to use one cost the taxpayer.
Most taxpayers have zero interest in a firearm, much less toting one around on the odd chance it might be used, and would not find financing courses a legitimate use of their taxes.
Possibly schools, which pay the state for the privilege, can teach the needs to the applicant.
Click to expand...

Yep, publicly funded firearm instruction probably is a low priority for most people, at least until we've sorted out our publicly funded reading/writing/math/physics/everythingelse instruction!

A theory test would be lots cheaper and there are many online ways of administering this at virtually no cost, but it has all the pitfalls of not verifying the identify of the person taking the test and the lack of actually handling a gun. Perhaps online learning materials and a low-cost written test performed at some public venue or something similar?

The big problem here is that reading about gun safety doesn't actually mean you're capable of practicing it when you have a gun in your hands, so there is a real need for a practical element. This is the costly part.

I sometimes wonder if the county or state police shouldn't offer rock-bottom priced (or even free) firearm instruction to those who want the concealed carry permit. After all, it's the cops who end up spending time and money investigating and clearing up the mess after something goes wrong. You'd think they had a vested interest in ensuring that everyone who wants to carry a gun got all the instruction they could ever want or need to make sure they weren't blowing holes in things unnecessarily.
 
newyorkguy said:
A clear expansion of the legal meaning. Courts have never held that people have the right under the Second Amendment to carry concealed guns.
Click to expand...
The manner in which firearms are carried is irrelevant to the concept of carrying a firearm in the first place (so far) according to the USSC. It has been left up to the states to decide whether or not firearms can be carried openly or concealed and under what circumstances.


Where the armed-with-a-gun advocates are going with this is, if concealed carry is a Constitutional right then municipalities and states have no right to restrict it. You can't limit a right.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you're focusing on concealed carry as opposed to carry in general; does concealed carry concern you? I find it ironic that, in our country's history early on, open carry was the only way to carry and anyone found to be carrying a firearm concealed was automatically under suspicion that they were up to no good. Otherwise, why would you hide it? Now people freak the hell out when a person is lawfully carrying openly and would rather force lawful gun owners to conceal their firearm. Except, of course, when they freak the hell out about lawfully carrying concealed too. One might come to the conclusion that some people are going to freak out regardless of how the firearm is carred; just that it is carried at all.
 
newyorkguy said:
The Ninth Circuit seems to be trying to establish that people have the right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If that isn't a clear expansion of the traditional meaning of the Second Amendment I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

The irony here is that the traditional meaning of the amendment doesn't pertain to the private ownership of firearms, despite the pro-gun lobby's interpretation of it. So you could say this is less a win for the second amendment and more a win against public safety and security, courtesy of the gun nuts.
 
Bardy said:
...

The big problem here is that reading about gun safety doesn't actually mean you're capable of practicing it when you have a gun in your hands, so there is a real need for a practical element. This is the costly part.
Click to expand...
.
Yes!:p One of the funnier Big Bang Theory episodes has Penny take Leonard to a shooting range, and he says "He knows how to handle a gat. He's done a lot of Grand Theft Auto gaming." Bang! Bullet meets foot! :D
There's too many of these innocents wandering around.
.
I sometimes wonder if the county or state police shouldn't offer rock-bottom priced (or even free) firearm instruction to those who want the concealed carry permit. After all, it's the cops who end up spending time and money investigating and clearing up the mess after something goes wrong. You'd think they had a vested interest in ensuring that everyone who wants to carry a gun got all the instruction they could ever want or need to make sure they weren't blowing holes in things unnecessarily.
Click to expand...
 
newyorkguy said:
Where the armed-with-a-gun advocates are going with this is, if concealed carry is a Constitutional right then municipalities and states have no right to restrict it. You can't limit a right.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the multiple replies, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you on this point (from a ruling on gun control):


District of Columbia vs Heller said:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
Click to expand...

EDIT: To fix some horrible overuse of commas and such.
 
Last edited:
The Norseman said:
... Now people freak the hell out when a person is lawfully carrying openly a...
Click to expand...
.
I have. Freaked out, that is.
There is no need to carry a firearm openly in this society.
Only potential hotheads, in my view, looking for trouble do that.
 
I Ratant said:
There is no need to carry a firearm openly in this society.
Click to expand...

I would argue there is no legitimate reasons to conceal carry either, given all the other practical solutions one can use to protect themselves against whatever bogeymen that the gun nuts are raving about these days. Why must society pay for their stupid hobby?
 
Mudcat said:
I would argue there is no legitimate reasons to conceal carry either, given all the other practical solutions one can use to protect themselves against whatever bogeymen that the gun nuts are raving about these days. Why must society pay for their stupid hobby?
Click to expand...
.
I have no real problem with concealed carry... there are legitimate reasons for such... transporting funds being the obvious one.
But I feel any personal need to carry concealed other than for the job is just ego.
 
BStrong said:
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Madigan

Moore v. Madigan.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must be having a dumb moment as I seem to be missing your point. From what I can see, this decision basically agrees that restrictions may be placed on concealed carry, subject to an appropriate level of scrutiny (which the absurd Chicago laws failed to demonstrate.) As far as I'm aware, this is in line with other constitutional rights, which may also be limited according to appropriate levels of scrutiny.

What am I missing?
 
I Ratant said:
.
I have no real problem with concealed carry... there are legitimate reasons for such... transporting funds being the obvious one.
But I feel any personal need to carry concealed other than for the job is just ego.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, tell that to my wife who was accosted in a dark parking lot of a local hardware store by four guys. Luckily a good samaritan intervened before much of anything happened, but posts like this seem to ignore that:

a) people alone are vulnerable
b) bad things can happen even in otherwise safe areas
c) bad guys don't hang around and wait for you to call the cops - they take action to prevent you from doing so
d) if you do manage to contact 911, the cops do not yet have transporter technology and there will be a potentially fatal delay until help arrives
d) advice to turn your back on a criminal and run away is absurd unless people start wearing shirts with their 100-yard track times printed on them

There are very real reasons to concealed carry, particularly (but not exclusively) for women, particularly (but not exclusively) at night. Neither my wife nor any other person should feel that they as a law-abiding citizen are not able to safely go about their daily business without any means to defend themselves should the worst happen.

Saying there are no real reasons to carry a firearm for self-defense is pretty insulting to those people who have suffered from horrendous crimes for lack of a gun, or who have only avoided such because of a gun. Sure, the chances of a horrible crime happening to any particular individual may be low, but that's not a great comfort to the person lying in a hospital bed or the morgue because they're the unlucky person it happened to.
 
Last edited:
Bardy said:
With all due respect, tell that to my wife who was accosted in a dark parking lot of a local hardware store by four guys.
Click to expand...

With all due respect it isn't a very smart idea to be leaving your place of work alone at night, be you male or female.



Bardy said:
Saying there are no real reasons to carry a firearm for self-defense is pretty insulting to those people who have suffered from horrendous crimes for lack of a gun, or who have only avoided such because of a gun. Sure, the chances of a horrible crime happening to any particular individual may be low, but that's not a great comfort to the person lying in a hospital bed or the morgue because they're the unlucky person it happened to.
Click to expand...

Saying that there is a reason to carry a firearm for self-defense is pretty insulting, period. The odds of a horrible crime happening to any one person is very low, and by being smart you can reduce those odds to practically zero.
 
I saw a guy waving a tire iron out the window of his car for that very reason!
.
Brings to mind what to say to the LEO if stopped.
LEO. "Do you have any weapons in the car I should know about?"
Me..."I'm an engineer. I can make anything into a weapon."
and then.. "My, those cuffs are cold, and tight!"
 
Mudcat said:
The irony here is that the traditional meaning of the amendment doesn't pertain to the private ownership of firearms, despite the pro-gun lobby's interpretation of it. So you could say this is less a win for the second amendment and more a win against public safety and security, courtesy of the gun nuts.
Click to expand...
Is the US supreme court part of the pro-gun lobby? Such a strange comment in light of the recent supreme court ruling regarding the second amendment.
 
Mudcat said:
With all due respect it isn't a very smart idea to be leaving your place of work alone at night, be you male or female.

Saying that there is a reason to carry a firearm for self-defense is pretty insulting, period. The odds of a horrible crime happening to any one person is very low, and by being smart you can reduce those odds to practically zero.
Click to expand...
Okay. You consider people who wish to carry firearms to be stupid and unthinking of possible consequences, regardless of circumstances. It's too bad that you wish to denigrate people. Are you reacting out of fear?
 
Mudcat said:
With all due respect it isn't a very smart idea to be leaving your place of work alone at night, be you male or female.
Click to expand...
Yes, no one who is not a criminal should be allowed out on the streets at any time, and all rape victims were 'asking for it'.
 
Mudcat said:
With all due respect it isn't a very smart idea to be leaving your place of work alone at night, be you male or female.
Click to expand...

She wasn't leaving work. She was travelling to the hardware store at 5:15pm (by which time it was already dark). Of course, in your world it may make perfect sense that adults not be able to walk the streets of their small, otherwise safe town as soon as the sun sets. In the realm I inhabit, called 'reality', there is a general acceptance that citizens should have an expectation that they not have to travel in packs or barricade themselves in their homes at night for safety, but that they should be able to carry the means of ensuring their personal safety while they lawfully do their grocery shopping on a late winter afternoon.. And, of course, this assumes that all crimes occur after dark.


Saying that there is a reason to carry a firearm for self-defense is pretty insulting, period. The odds of a horrible crime happening to any one person is very low, and by being smart you can reduce those odds to practically zero.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but i have a problem accepting that this isn't some kind of performance art disguised as forum posting. First, let's skip the implicit accusal in your post that victims of horrible crime generally found themselves to blame because they weren't acting smart ('well, if she was going to go there at that time of night, she should have expected to be raped!').

Secondly, you apparently are happy that as long as the odds of being a victim are low, then people should be quite happy to disarm themselves and accept that if they are the ones unlucky enough to be on the receiving end, then that's just their bad luck. After all, in a country of 175 million women, if only 0.01% suffer from a horrendous incident, then those 17,500 women should just accept a good gang-raping, and they shouldn't complain about being defenseless because the chances of it happening to them were actually pretty low! Certainly they were low enough to justify ensuring that the unlucky women it happened to had no way in which to resist.

I'm very sad to say that the impression I get from your post is that you think you are coming at this from a position of moral authority in that you want to make society safe, but your attitude shows an utter scorn and disregard for the safety of the actual individuals who make up that society, particularly in cases where, according to your own murky guidelines, they have not acted 'smart' enough for you. Your attitude is disgusting and personally offensive to anyone who has ever suffered from a violent crime.

I hope all women are reading this - Mudcat's advice if you are a woman - don't go grocery shopping at your neighbourhood strip mall in your small, safe town if the sun has set. If something bad happens to you, it's your own fault for not acting 'smart'. Also, woe betide you if you wish you had the means to protect yourself - then you're being insulting! To someone. Somehow.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and those of you who aren't lucky enough to live in a generally safe area, especially those of you who live in areas with high crime rates - did you know if you were smart, you could reduce your chances of being a victim to practically zero? That's right - high rates of violent crime in your neighbourhood are probably the result of victims acting stupidly, nothing more. If people weren't so stupid in your area, there wouldn't be so much crime!
 
Last edited:
:clap::clap::clap:
Bardy said:
She wasn't leaving work. She was travelling to the hardware store at 5:15pm (by which time it was already dark). Of course, in your world it may make perfect sense that adults not be able to walk the streets of their small, otherwise safe town as soon as the sun sets. In the realm I inhabit, called 'reality', there is a general acceptance that citizens should have an expectation that they not have to travel in packs or barricade themselves in their homes at night for safety, but that they should be able to carry the means of ensuring their personal safety while they lawfully do their grocery shopping on a late winter afternoon.. And, of course, this assumes that all crimes occur after dark.




Sorry, but i have a problem accepting that this isn't some kind of performance art disguised as forum posting. First, let's skip the implicit accusal in your post that victims of horrible crime generally found themselves to blame because they weren't acting smart ('well, if she was going to go there at that time of night, she should have expected to be raped!').

Secondly, you apparently are happy that as long as the odds of being a victim are low, then people should be quite happy to disarm themselves and accept that if they are the ones unlucky enough to be on the receiving end, then that's just their bad luck. After all, in a country of 175 million women, if only 0.01% suffer from a horrendous incident, then those 17,500 women should just accept a good gang-raping, and they shouldn't complain about being defenseless because the chances of it happening to them were actually pretty low! Certainly they were low enough to justify ensuring that the unlucky women it happened to had no way in which to resist.

I'm very sad to say that the impression I get from your post is that you think you are coming at this from a position of moral authority in that you want to make society safe, but your attitude shows an utter scorn and disregard for the safety of the actual individuals who make up that society, particularly in cases where, according to your own murky guidelines, they have not acted 'smart' enough for you. Your attitude is disgusting and personally offensive to anyone who has ever suffered from a violent crime.

I hope all women are reading this - Mudcat's advice if you are a woman - don't go grocery shopping at your neighbourhood strip mall in your small, safe town if the sun has set. If something bad happens to you, it's your own fault for not acting 'smart'. Also, woe betide you if you wish you had the means to protect yourself - then you're being insulting! To someone. Somehow.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and those of you who aren't lucky enough to live in a generally safe area, especially those of you who live in areas with high crime rates - did you know if you were smart, you could reduce your chances of being a victim to practically zero? That's right - high rates of violent crime in your neighbourhood are probably the result of victims acting stupidly, nothing more. If people weren't so stupid in your area, there wouldn't be so much crime!
Click to expand...
:clap::clap::clap:
 
I Ratant said:
.
I have. Freaked out, that is.
There is no need to carry a firearm openly in this society.
Only potential hotheads, in my view, looking for trouble do that.
Click to expand...

= cops, farmers, ranchers, hunters, and security folks.

Yep, crazy folk.
 
Mudcat said:
With all due respect it isn't a very smart idea to be leaving your place of work alone at night, be you male or female.
Click to expand...
I am sure we could ask you a LOT of questions that would reveal you indulge in all kinds of risky behaviors wether you know it or not, and would be quick to rationalize any pointed out to you that have greater risk that what we are talking about here . . .




Saying that there is a reason to carry a firearm for self-defense is pretty insulting, period. The odds of a horrible crime happening to any one person is very low, and by being smart you can reduce those odds to practically zero.
Click to expand...

Risk =/= Crisis.

Risk deals in the incidence rate of crisis, which if it is not zero will mean that someone somewhere became a statistic.

Do you think the families of the people killed feel the way you do about statistics?

If you lost both your feet in a rare accident or to a rare disease would you feel offended when someone sought a cure, or vaccine, or a way to error proof the process that lead to the accident?

This ought to be good if you actually choose to respond in any meaningful way here . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom