KC police fire at backfiring van (Open fire on innocent driver)

[shadowrider]

Two Kansas City police officers who thought they were being shot at from inside a van returned fire Thursday night.

Only later did police realize that the van was actually backfiring and the man inside was not armed. He was not injured by the shots fired by police.

Windows of the police car were apparently shot out by the officers as they exited the patrol car.

The officers were dispatched on a report of shots being fired from a white van just before 6 p.m. Thursday on Gregory Boulevard near Interstate 435.

When the officers got to the area they saw a white van parked on Gregory and pulled up near it. As they were getting out of the patrol car they heard the backfiring and fired their weapons. Police are continuing to investigate the incident.


http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/12/2425221/kc-police-fire-at-backfiring-van.html

Only the police should have guns because they're trained to evaluate the situation. :crazy:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Mika]

8. Sig is stupid, because it is incorrect.

Ignorance is bliss. Propaganda is strong.

FYI, Cuba has a very large percentage of the population in the civil militia. They do national training exercises annually. Citizens keep their small caliber arms at home. Former militia members also keep their guns at home.

---

[shadowrider]

9. You're funny

The militia ENFORCES NON-militia members from having weapons. They work for the STATE, NOT the citizenry. The sig line is perfectly correct.

[Mika]

17. Wrong again.

I've lived in Cuba. You?

One needs either a permit to own a gun, or belong to the civilian militia to own a gun in Cuba.

I have experience in this matter, so I'm not going to "debate" it w/you. Its not up to debate. Because certain facts (unknown to you) do exist.

Its simply shameful that the US government bans Americans from traveling to Cuba to see this for themselves, thus keeping Americans wallowing in cold-war era anti Cuban propaganda as exemplified in your sig poster.


Have a good one. :hi:

---

[lawodevolution]

49. If an individual openly disagrees with the Cuban government they

Will not be allowed to own a gun which is typical NAZI style gun control and it is very effective because the people of Cuba are still slaves to their government and the tourists who exploit their poverty

[Chulanowa]

34. No, it's incorrect on a few levels

Hitler never enacted any gun control laws. Germany DID have gun control laws; but they had been passed in the late 1900's, shortly after the solidification of the Wiemar Republic. The Nazis actually liberalized gun laws. In the Wiemar republic, all firearms were tightly controlled; Under the Third Reich, only handguns had any regulations, made certain categories exempt from needing permits for those, lowered the age to buy a gun to 18, and removed all restrictions from ammunition. Later in that same year, laws were passed that prohibited Jews from possessing any form of weapon.

Stalin did introduce gun control measures in 1929; but a repressive tyranny had already been in place for a decade, and the eruption of World War 2's Eastern front a few years later led to the Soviets basically giving everyone guns - which they ended up keeping as part of the USSR's veterans benefits. Post-war Russia was well-armed.

Mika has already explained Cuban gun control to you.

Idi Amin never enacted gun control laws. Even if he had, they would have been rendered moot - much like with the USSR, Ugandans were armed by hte government during hte war with Tanzania. Black market firepower has always been popular in the region. The limits of gun laws in Uganda were British holdovers which amounted to "you need a permit."

Mao Tze Tung also never enacted gun control laws. Yes, private ownership of guns is very illegal in China. However, these laws were passed by the British. A picture of Queen Victoria would look good in your sig picture and would actually be true; but she's white and western, so...

The Khmer Rouge enacted no gun control laws; again, what laws were in place were holdovers from French colonialism; In this case, Cambodians were allowed to have one gun in their homes for the purposes of hunting. Pol Pot's soldiers did confiscate guns while engaging in their purges; this was simple theft to increase their own stocks, however.

Libyan firearms laws are very similar to those of the United States. It amounts to, again, "you need a permit for that."

And you want a surprise? In North Korea, the state arms its own people. Really. Every North Korean is part of the citizens militia, and, being North Korea, they are always on high alert for the inevitable invasion from the US, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, Mozambique, or Mars. Y'see, the people of North Korea are oppressed pyschologically WAY more than they are oppressed physically; the state has no fear of the people having weapons, because one, the full-on military WILL wipe the floor with any revolt (this is true in every state that has a functional military, in fact) and the people of North Korea are so brainwashed and xenophobic that the very idea of turning on the Glorious Leader is completely alien.

Your sig is just a picture of a few tyrants with the assertion that they are proof of something; It omits the other tyrants who actually passed the laws, and ignores the fact that Switzerland actually has more draconian gun laws than either Libya or Cambodia.

[Chulanowa]

44. Er... late 1800's

Meaningful typo, noticed too late to edit. Bah.

[Euromutt]

51. Actually 1919/1920, though

The Weimar Republic didn't come into being until after the ouster of Wilhelm II in November 1918.

Under the terms of the Versailles Treaty, private ownership of firearms was initially prohibited entirely (not that that had a lot of effect on the Freikorps and communists, who routinely engaged in firefights in the street), before being permitted (subject to licensing and registration) from 1928 onwards.

Saying the Nazis' relaxed the weapons laws is a bit of a stretch. They relaxed them for those considered politically reliable, particularly Nazi party members, but they tightened them for "undesirables," so I think it's safe to say that the Nazis most certainly were interested in disarming their political opponents, insofar as those were still at (some degree of) liberty by 1938.

[lawodevolution]

47. Dictators often benefit from gun control measures passed by previous governments

And as you noted they liberalize gun laws for their own kind but not for anyone who is critical of the government.

That is still strong gun control that helps them maintain control.

Here in the US blacks are kept poor by bad social programs and the availability of black markets with products in high demand (drugs). Next if you observe the background check and paperwork to buy guns it appears engineered to disproportionately ban blacks, the total gun bans in Chicago and DC disproportionately banned blacks and this country has a long history of laws aimed at selectively disarming blacks. Thanks to the NRA and constitution blacks still often own guns despite the attempt to selectively disarm them. A dictator would be much more successful at disarming them.

In Cuba they don't allow pro democracy individuals and people like Dr Oscar Biscet to own guns. This is the same kind of gun control that is designed to put guns in the hands of their friends and take them away from folk who differ from them politically.

[Mika]

68. Dr Oscar Biscet is less of an advocate for democracy than Dr Rand Paul.

Plus, in Cuba, persons with criminal backgrounds cannot get a gun, legally. Just like the USA. Dr Oscar Biscet was convicted of aiding and abetting the self declared enemies of Cuba, by acting as an undeclared agent of - and receiving funding - from a foreign enemy state (the US gov) and several Miami based terrorist organizations and individual terrorists (the CANF, Alpha 66, Luis Posada, Orlando Bosch, Santiago Alvarez).

Do a little google hunting using the names of the aforementioned Miami based exile groups and terrorists +terrorism.


www.google.com

---

[lawodevolution]

70. exactly, you just pointed out how gun control aids dictators

"Plus, in Cuba, persons with criminal backgrounds cannot get a gun, legally. Just like the USA. Dr Oscar Biscet was convicted of aiding and abetting the self declared enemies of Cuba"

So, you see how hard dictators block individuals, who can bring freedom to the people and who are critical of their government, from owning guns using gun control. In the USA there are plenty of anti-government groups in which the individual members are able to purchase firearms.

[Mika]

71. Actually I don't see what you "see". Why? Because I've lived in Cuba.

The terrorists based in Miami who pay operatives in Cuba are as wanted in Cuba as Al Queda operatives are in the USA.

You think that those who aid and abet said foreign terrorist interests should be armed? And that a government that controls guns, to the extend that felons aiding and abetting foreign enemies have forfeited their right to gun ownership, is a dictatorship?
:crazy:

Silly me to think otherwise.

There is a wide spectrum of political dissent operating openly and legally in Cuba of indigenous creation and operation. It is only the US paid fake "dissidents" on a foreign payroll who are arrested and tried or deported, just as it is in the US, for operating as unregistered agents of a foreign enemy.

Holding up Oscar Biscet as a torchbearer of freedom and democracy is seriously misappropriating such salutations.


Have a good one. :hi:

---

[onehandle]

14. This room is chock full of right-wing links and imagery.

Funny, that.

[spin]

21. Your perception may be distorted ...

by where you stand. If you stand on the far left side of a line, there are a lot of people to your right.

A high percentage of Democrats own firearms and support RKBA. You might want to chase them out of the party, but then there wouldn't be enough Democrats left to get a dog catcher elected in your home town.





If you examine this graph you will see that a higher percentage of gun owning Democrats own firearms for protection than do for target shooting or hunting. No surprise that you run into some of them in the Gungeon.



Data from http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx

[Chulanowa]

35. Your images prove that you can be in favor of gun ownership without being a right-wing nutball

However it does nothing to prove that there aren't any right-wing nutballs posting here.

[spin]

38. I'm sure some do post here occasionally ...

I sometimes see posters to the gungeon tombstoned that I suspected were far right wing.

[PavePusher]

54. And you don't have to be a nutball to be right-wing...

or right-wing to be a nutball. Gets proved around here every day.

Be careful tossing off aspersions, they have a tendency to bite one on the ass.

[Chulanowa]

57. I don't toss aspersions

I cast asparagus.

[PavePusher]

59. Ah, but can you juggle broccholi? n/t

[SteveM]

73. Umm, are we posters required to prove a negative?...

"...it does nothing to prove that there aren't any right-wing nutballs posting here."

Do you have proof that right-wing nutballs post here? Please provide.

[oneshooter]

79. There have been a few nutballs post here, some are even left wing! n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Hope those cops are suspended or tossed behind a desk.

This guy will probably get a nice settlement. Glad he didn't get hurt.

[Dogtown]

3. Or maybe

cops are getting paranoid because of all the armed he-men out there.....

[shadowrider]

4. So the police are justified to open fire on anyone they THINK may be armed?

Sheesh..

[reggie the dog]

6. gun control is horrible

having millions of armed citizens is not a bad thing, it is the tiny percentage who use their guns in crime that scare everyone, including the cops who probably have been shot at or have had collegues shot up....

[Dogtown]

13. No.

"paranoid"

[benEzra]

5. Violent crime is near a 50-year low at the moment...

so if your thesis were correct, "paranoid" would be the right word indeed.

(I would assume you must be talking about armed criminals, because all the LEO's I've ever interacted with have been very supportive of those of us with state-issued carry licenses.)

[reggie the dog]

7. that's because the cops know that the average armed citizen poses

absolutely no risk to others and may well be able to help others in need thanks to the tool they are carrying

[Dogtown]

15. You missed the point

"Shadow-something" claimed that paranoid cops are an argument for the populace arming themselves; I countered that feeble argument with an equally feeble argument for gun-control.


My point is that there really isn't any kind of gun-grab going on & we have more important issues to worry about.

[shadowrider]

27. Tell me where I said what you said I said, because I didn't

Nowhere did I say people should arm themselves against paranoid cops.

All the OP illustrates is "cops are people too". There are far too many on this forum who argue "only cops should have guns".

[Dogtown]

30. "Only the police should have guns because they're trained to evaluate the situation."

You punctuated the remark with a googly-eyes smilie. I supposed that to mean you feel the argument is fallacious. It is, of course, but your unstated, yet understood, suggestion that the ineptitude of these cops verifies the need for citizens to be armed is just as foolish.

I really don't care if you carry or not. Sometimes it's important to point out that people carry because they WANT to. Anti-gunners object because they WANT to. Neither side really argues from logic or conviction, but because of their emotional stance.

It's a poor basis for discussion and it leads to intellectual dishonesty.

[krispos42]

11. Guns per-capita are about the same as a couple of generations ago

Cop deaths and the overall violent crime rate are down significantly. If the cops are paranoid it's probably because of the way the media flog something to death on 200 hi-def channels.

[Dogtown]

16. Nice graphs

You didn't mention, of course, that of those "guns per capita" there's a metric fuck-ton more of them being carried concealed these days.



Apparently you missed my qualifier of "paranoid cops". It was a joke playing an "Shadow Dude's" ridiculous equivalency statement.


You Gungeoners (on both sides) need to look for something valid to be upset about.

No government body wants your guns, nor are they worried about them.

Sillyboys who pretend to be bad-asses are mostly just silly boys dreaming of being Heroes and really don't threaten the peace.




The whole thing is a non-issue except to those who wish to play the game. So, enjoy yourselves.

[krispos42]

18. There are more being legally carried these days, true...

...but less carried by criminals with criminal intent.

[Dogtown]

19. Begs the point.

They are out there. Police used to know that if you were armed, you had an intent to use that gun. Easier to neutralize.

Now, they can only guess.

None of these arguments are really an issue. In fact, those carrying weapons are, for the most part, merely accessorizing.

Viewing the actual demographic, carriers are usually white guys of a certain age. They are thousands of times more likely to die of a heart-attack than be victimized by gun violence, but you never see anyone selling them portable defibrilizers.

In complete honesty, concealed-carry defeats the purpose of self-defense. Since the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to carry guns, they should carry them. Openly, so in the astronomically rare chance they have to use them, they'd be much more likely to actually engage the weapon without snagging on their belly-flap and shooting themselves in the process.


If someone is all about being situationally prepared, that someone shouldn't be ashamed of they're emotional need.

The 2nd doesn't guarantee the right to hide the fact that you're prepared to do violence, does it?

Make them carry on their belts, in plain sight. My guess is that embarrassment over being giggled at will be the most-effective gun-control.

[benEzra]

20. Thoughts...

Police used to know that if you were armed, you had an intent to use that gun. Easier to neutralize.

No, not the case. My father has a matched set of his-and-hers top-break CCW revolvers that were given to my great-grandfather and great-grandmother as wedding gifts in 1900 (a .32 and a .22). Annie Oakley used to teach carry classes to women as a public service. Heck, concealed carry by women was relatively common in the Victorian era.

No government body wants your guns, nor are they worried about them.

The party platform still calls for a ban on the most popular civilian rifles in the United States (and they are *still* banned in California), and there is still a powerful (if temporarily de-fanged) gun control caucus in Congress. The gun-control lobby is no longer what it was in the early '90s, certainly, but they have not gone away by any means.

Viewing the actual demographic, carriers are usually white guys of a certain age. They are thousands of times more likely to die of a heart-attack than be victimized by gun violence, but you never see anyone selling them portable defibrilizers.

In complete honesty, concealed-carry defeats the purpose of self-defense. Since the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to carry guns, they should carry them. Openly, so in the astronomically rare chance they have to use them, they'd be much more likely to actually engage the weapon without snagging on their belly-flap and shooting themselves in the process.

Open carry is (IMO) tactically a very poor choice, and isn't any faster to draw, if you factor in the necessary retention holster. FWIW, I don't have a belly-flap, and I spent yesterday trail riding with my daughter (beautiful day for it, BTW!), so spare me the sanctimonious stereotyping, please.

Sillyboys who pretend to be bad-asses are mostly just silly boys dreaming of being Heroes and really don't threaten the peace.

Ummm-hmmmm. That's why I carry a S&W Lady Smith, so I can feel like a hyper-macho "bad-ass"... :eyes:



because REAL action heroes carry women's guns, dontcha know...

[Dogtown]

28. Mine is a ported Ladysmith .357.

I'm not going to bother defending my generalities. They were obviously meant to be generalities.

Some Victorian ladies did carry concealed guns. Most of those would not have been considered "ladies" by that civilization, though. Those ladies were generally employed in some occupation that could put them in danger. Cut-purse, for example.

BTW, as many of those "ladies" would have preferred vitriol as a defensive armament as those carrying guns. If you're going to try to cite historical fact, please be factual. I do hope you realize that this isn't "yester-year", though.

Party platforms, btw, are just that. Platforms to suggest to malleable voters that their pet concerns will be catered to. Those platforms seldom provide more than a PR "bandage" on the actual issues.

In fact, most people on both sides of the issue are more concerned with cosmetics than otherwise.

*IMO* as you say. Actually, a border-patrol thumb-break is about as fast, and easily retained, as is likely to be found in a functional rig. If your opinion was practical in real life, all cops would conceal their guns under their uniforms. That's been tried by several departments historically and all found it to be dangerous . Concealment requires extra layers of obstacles between hand and gun. Any such complications make it more difficult and slower to draw effectively.

I'm afraid your opinion isn't based on factuality, but a romanticized ideal.

As to your next point, I'm sorry you let your feelings get hurt by my "stereotype". Be honest, though. The preponderance (that term chosen for it's ironic giggles) of boys at the shooting range are carrying a great deal of extra weight beyond the heft of their weaponry. If you are more svelte (and not just lying, as most "anecdotal" evidence turns out to be) then you are an exception.

Hell, more cops than not have to reach under their bellies to unholster their equipment.

It's been fun, but you'll just scurry to find more "what-ifs" to continue the discussion, and you'll leave the field unconvinced no matter what reality is presented to you. In reality, their are many more threats to your safety that a gun won't remedy, but preparing for a gun-battle is much more romantically satisfying.

Both sides of this disagreement is venomously defended for purely emotional reasons. If it makes you feel good to carry, by all means do so. You have the legal right. It just seems a bit silly to go to all that effort for something you won't ever use.

Be sure to check your aqualung, too. You're much more likely, statistically, to die by drowning in your car than to rescue any damsels with your popgun.

[benEzra]

40. Thanks for the reply; more thoughts:

Some Victorian ladies did carry concealed guns. Most of those would not have been considered "ladies" by that civilization, though. Those ladies were generally employed in some occupation that could put them in danger. Cut-purse, for example.

BTW, as many of those "ladies" would have preferred vitriol as a defensive armament as those carrying guns. If you're going to try to cite historical fact, please be factual.

Vitriol may have been cheaper, but female CCW does indeed go way back---and not, primarily, for women of criminal bent. The idealized helplessness characteristic of some Victorian (and 1950's neo-Victorian) social ideals was not universal across all places and classes.

http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/antique_guns/muff_pistols/muff_pist.html

I do hope you realize that this isn't "yester-year", though.

I do, and concealed carry by licensed non-elites is certainly well accepted in most U.S. states in the 21st century.



I was merely objecting to the idea that this was some modern aberration.

Party platforms, btw, are just that. Platforms to suggest to malleable voters that their pet concerns will be catered to. Those platforms seldom provide more than a PR "bandage" on the actual issues.

Neither the California Roberti-Roos Act nor the 1994 Feinstein law are figments of gun owners' imagination. Such bans *did* pass; the expiration of the Feinstein law in 2004 was a rather close thing, and of course Roberti-Roos is still on the books.

Gun owners tried keeping quiet and simply trusting that "it won't pass, this is America" in 1994, and got shafted. Forgive me if we choose not to facilitate new bans by keeping quiet going forward; that approach didn't work for us in 1994, and it surely didn't work so well for gun owners in the UK, Australia, or Canada either.

*IMO* as you say. Actually, a border-patrol thumb-break is about as fast, and easily retained, as is likely to be found in a functional rig.

A thumb break, and any other Level 1 carry rig, is not a "retention holster" in any modern sense, and offers little protection against a determined grapple; they are mainly aimed at keeping the gun from falling out when moving. I own one, but if I were going to open carry for defensive purposes (which I don't), I would prefer a Level II or III retention holster like police use.

If your opinion was practical in real life, all cops would conceal their guns under their uniforms. That's been tried by several departments historically and all found it to be dangerous . Concealment requires extra layers of obstacles between hand and gun. Any such complications make it more difficult and slower to draw effectively. I'm afraid your opinion isn't based on factuality, but a romanticized ideal.

For an officer in uniform, there's little point; everyone knows police are armed, their uniforms clearly identify them as police, method of carry is generally standardized across a department, and body armor would make it difficult to conceal a full-capacity duty gun under clothing except in the winter anyway. Nevertheless, police officers *do* typically carry any backup guns concealed, and those who carry off-duty generally carry concealed rather than openly.

For me--no uniform, average BMI, ordinary street clothes---appendix carry under a covering garment is as fast as traditional open carry on the strong-side hip; it also has the advantage of being more discreet when not standing upright. I suppose if you limited yourself to strong-side hip carry, a cover garment would make things slower than without, but that is artificially limiting the question.

I would also point out that armed self-defense is not some fast-draw SASS stage, and that there are more important factors determining carry mode than how many hundredths of a second a cover garment slows some static mirror-presentation draw. Your first priority in any altercation (at least as a non-LEO who is not required to stick around) would be to get off the line of force, not to stand still and "slap leather" like something out of a bad 1970's western.

As to your next point, I'm sorry you let your feelings get hurt by my "stereotype". Be honest, though. The preponderance (that term chosen for it's ironic giggles) of boys at the shooting range are carrying a great deal of extra weight beyond the heft of their weaponry. If you are more svelte (and not just lying, as most "anecdotal" evidence turns out to be) then you are an exception.

Eh, my feelings aren't hurt; I was just laughing at your stereotype. I don't know what kind of range you frequent, but I don't hunt and I don't shoot skeet; my crowd is USPSA/IDPA/3-gun, mostly twentysomethings to fortysomethings, with a few spry older guys. Now, while it is probably true that practical shooting tends to not attract people who can't see their shoes, I don't see your stereotype being true here on regular range days, either.

Hell, more cops than not have to reach under their bellies to unholster their equipment.

Again, I'm not sure where you live, but that's certainly not true of my local PD. I can think of one, maybe two older officers that fit your description, but most officers here are pretty fit. Does your department not require fitness quals?

It's been fun, but you'll just scurry to find more "what-ifs" to continue the discussion, and you'll leave the field unconvinced no matter what reality is presented to you. In reality, their are many more threats to your safety that a gun won't remedy, but preparing for a gun-battle is much more romantically satisfying.

Your error here is in assuming that I'm not just as aware of that fact as you are. Of COURSE most threats to one's safety (including most criminal threats) don't involve, or justify, lethal force. But given that this is the Gun Policy Forum, and not the Home Security System Policy Forum, Oleoresin Capsicum Policy Forum, Combatives Policy Forum, Seatbelt Policy Forum, or Diet and Exercise Policy Forum, those things would tend to be discussed elsewhere, would they not?

Both sides of this disagreement is venomously defended for purely emotional reasons. If it makes you feel good to carry, by all means do so. You have the legal right. It just seems a bit silly to go to all that effort for something you won't ever use.

I fully intend never to have to use it, and I certainly hope I won't ever have to. I also hope I never need the fire extinguisher in my trunk (though I *have* used the first aid kit), I hope my doors/windows/other precautions never have to repel a burglar, I hope I don't need my car's airbag, and I hope I don't need my homeowner's/car/life insurance. But given that it is not a huge deal to take those precautions---and in the case of CCW, given that I enjoy shooting and am decent at it---I find they mesh well with my lifestyle. I don't think less of anyone who chooses differently, but it works for me.

Be sure to check your aqualung, too. You're much more likely, statistically, to die by drowning in your car than to rescue any damsels with your popgun.

If I were in the habit of driving through flowing water during floods in hopes of cheating Darwin, you might be right. But as you well know, car drowning death statistics disproportionately select for people who choose to drive dynamically flooded roads, which is indeed a very risky pastime, and one I don't choose to engage in. And likewise, if my purpose in carrying a firearm were to "rescue damsels", then I'd be set up for disappointment. But most "damsels" in my life who are of age can take care of themselves pretty damn well...

[Dogtown]

45. A reasoned response, thanks.

My apologies for being snippy. You can see I've been besieged by those defending their right to carry (a right I completely support, BTW). I allowed myself some undeserved cheap-shots at you because of the scatter-gun approach I've needed for numerous assailants.

You are correct, as far as it goes, about female carry during the Victorian era. Daggers were favored also and a higher proportion of females did feel the need for protection, and rightly so. That was a very dangerous time to be a woman, even more-so than now.

My observation on unfit LEOs is, I feel, more often true than not. I reached maturity in the Midwest, spent my adulthood in the DC area, and retired to Georgia. It's especially true in the South, as is obesity in general. Cultural diet, I suppose. In truth, there are departments that aggressively require fit officers, but in what experience I can relate, those are the exceptions.


My point has not been to carp on shooters. My objection is to those that insist that it's an avocation rather than a hobby. Shooting is a fine hobby, and an enjoyable one. With that thought firmly in mind, *wanting* to carry a gun is understandable and harmless. It can even be (on rare occasions) fortuitous.



I see a vast gulf between your attitude and those that feel they *need* a gun, or are fulfilling some noble service by carrying one. That delusion can and has resulted in calamity.



My examples have been a bit extravagant, primarily to dramatize the foolishness of those convincing themselves they are not just ardent hobbyists. While they generally hold water (even a safe driver could rescue an immature or inexperienced driver that has run afoul of a flash-flood) they were meant to showcase the ludicrousness of pretending you NEED a gun to combat the forces of evil. It is quite true that you're more likely to use your fire-extinguisher than shoot a felon, for example, and you personally are wise to have that more necessary safeguard handy.

I don't have scuba-gear in my truck. I do sometimes arm myself, especially for wilderness hiking. I'm pretty sure I don't harbor vainglorious illusions about it.

Again, apologies for the unwarranted shot across your bow.

[oneshooter]

50. Do you have any proof of that statement.

"I see a vast gulf between your attitude and those that feel they *need* a gun, or are fulfilling some noble service by carrying one. That delusion can and has resulted in calamity."

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[oneshooter]

69. Can you proove it within the rules of DU? n/t

[SteveM]

76. Well, you have such a casual approach to prejudice...

"As to your next point, I'm sorry you let your feelings get hurt by my "stereotype". Be honest, though. The preponderance (that term chosen for it's ironic giggles) of boys at the shooting range are carrying a great deal of extra weight beyond the heft of their weaponry. If you are more svelte (and not just lying, as most "anecdotal" evidence turns out to be) then you are an exception."

Being prejudiced toward white guys, dusted up with the usual fatty stereotypes, is still popular among some rather dated feminists. It's not very becoming, and your "apology" is worthy of any politician's: "I'm sorry you let your feelings get hurt by my 'stereotype.'"

Madam, that IS a stereotype, and one based on animosity. You need to be told that. And you need to own your comments, and not mumble something cute -- and dated.

BTW, at the ranges around here, there are plenty people of color, and "damsels" who are using their "popguns."

[Kennah]

22. Open carry isn't a panacea

Concealed carry makes it harder to guess who's armed and who's not, thus the benefit extends to those who don't carry. Open carry makes it easy to guess.

[Dogtown]

26. Really?

Then no one need carry....

[Kennah]

31. Perhaps ...

... you stopped reading when I mentioned the merits of concealed carry.

[Dogtown]

33. No.

I didn't. I read your suggestions and discounted them because they aren't valid except in your imagination. Mere emotional extrapolation isn't very convincing.

You believe bad-guys are sizing you up to determine if you're armed. In actuality, you're probably not even very noticeable.

The only merit to concealed carry is that some folks like to do it. That's reason enough, I suppose. It doesn't bother me, but I object to all this make-believe reasoning, for and against.


As I've mentioned before, there are many more paramount survival strategies that should be given consideration before lugging around a couple of pounds of normally useless steel, but most of those same folks who claim they need a gun don't even have a basic 1st-aid kit in their vehicles.

Normal folk don't "need" guns, but some *want* them. As long as they behave, they should get to indulge themselves. I'd feel better about it without the grandiose fantasies that often accompany the weapons. I'd also feel better if the gun-haters would admit that a "gun-nut" is not going to murder them in road-rage.



All the emotional hoopla is enervating.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. "Normal folk don't "need" guns". Somehow, I missed your confirmation hearings....

...as you apparently believe you are Secretary of Need.

Are there any other things you deem unnecessary for "normal folk"?


Since you speak of "grandiose fantasies"...


What could be more grandiose that proclaiming that you know where others' needs lie?

[Dogtown]

37. Oh, please.

I'll rephrase it, since you're so obtuse.

You're much more likely to "need" other survival contrivances than a gun.

I'm pretty sure that most gun-toters do not have a fire-extinguisher in the SUV, but they have a .45 and 2 spare clips on their belts. Are you really going to argue that it's realistic?

Again, some of you will construct very elaborate scenarios where you might *need* a gun, but couldn't perform a field-trach on your kid if he aspirates a chicken-bone.

Please don't respond with a claim that you have a field-surgery kit, a fire extinguisher and "jaws-of-life" in your pick-up.

I will believe, however, that you're well-prepared to intercede in any ill-conceived thuggery that may take place at the IHOP....

[Glassunion]

39. Nice straw man... It only took two phrases for you to build him up and knock him over...

Building up: I'm pretty sure that most gun-toters do not have a fire-extinguisher in the SUV, but they have a .45 and 2 spare clips on their belts. Are you really going to argue that it's realistic?

Knocking over: Please don't respond with a claim that you have a field-surgery kit, a fire extinguisher and "jaws-of-life" in your pick-up.

I will believe, however, that you're well-prepared to intercede in any ill-conceived thuggery that may take place at the IHOP....


Not bad... Give yourself a cookie.

[Dogtown]

41. Was too easy, actually.

But that's how it is when you deal with reality rather than fantasy.

Not a "straw man", however. That poster, arguing for the "need" for a firearm was obviously defending his own need. A fairly obvious conclusion; hence, including him in conjecture is reasonable. Let him come back and-honestly-state he doesn't carry and I'll rephrase.

Here's another reasonable conjecture: if he claims he has no pony in this show, he's likely being untruthful.

I'll mention in passing his rather crude attempt at vilifying me by lamely suggesting I've been pretentious in my assertions. If he got humiliated, he called it upon himself.


My point remains unchallenged (nor even addressed in your attempt to obscure it by focusing on the unequal trade of insults): in fact a "normal" person is much more likely to be confronted by some emergency *other* than a firefight, yet those who justify their "need" to carry are totally unprepared for these other life-threatening emergencies.

I've given several (uncontested) examples in this thread. Here's another: one might reasonably expect to observe someone strangling from anaphylactic shock after a bee-sting, yet your ever-vigilant boyscout will get no merit badge because he failed to carry his epinephrine injection.

Statistically, you're much more likely to encounter allergic shock than an armed crack-head or (horrors) a *terrorist*, yet gunnies are prepared for only the less likely threat.

I guess a hypodermic in a pocket is just less glamorous than a finely-tuned Colt, yet it's much more portable and even less likely to wound an uninvolved bystander.

You go ahead an focus on me being mean to the defenseless (ha!) poster you're defending, though. Too bad you're no better armed for the fray....

[benEzra]

42. I believe epinephrine injectors are prescription only...

and in my experience, doctors are unlikely to prescribe them for people who aren't at risk of anaphylaxis or their family members. Are you a current/former LEO or EMT, perchance? If you know how an ordinary, CPR/AED certified non-first-responder (i.e., me) could purchase them legally, I'd be interested in finding out that I'm wrong.

But given that epinephrine injectors and CCW's are generally carried for the personal protection of the carrier or a family member, not strangers on the street, I'm not sure what you're driving at. I didn't obtain a CHL in order to play knight-errant.

[Dogtown]

46. I claim no particular expertise.

I have acquired epinephrine for use to combat shock in rescued animals, but it's possible I managed it "illegally". If memory serves, it was bought along with some other animal medications on the internet.

If you actually are interested in obtaining some for emergencies, (rather than seeking nits in my posts) I'd suggest you ask your PCP. I've found they can be very reasonable about medications that have no abuse potential.

If you are just being objectionable, please refute my example of the fire-extinguisher. Of course, you could suddenly claim to wear one opposite your side-arm, but I bet a true don't believe that gunners who claim a need to carry a gun for defense carry the more needful equipment. It isn't sexy enough.



As I've explained elsewhere, my examples were chosen with some drama in mind, to counter-point the Beau Geste syndrome displayed by many gun enthusiasts.

It really is just a hobby, and few have a legitimate "need" to carry. Wanting to is sufficient reason, we shouldn't need to invent reasons to indulge in a relatively harmless and legal enthusiasm.

I've fended off enough clumsy foils for the day. If you have a reasonable reply I'll respond in the morning, but the issue has been pretty much talked out.

Besides, it's clear that I've made my point about some of you being incapable of grasping simple logic when it comes to championing your fetish.

[benEzra]

53. That's a good idea, actually.

I have acquired epinephrine for use to combat shock in rescued animals, but it's possible I managed it "illegally". If memory serves, it was bought along with some other animal medications on the internet.

If you actually are interested in obtaining some for emergencies, (rather than seeking nits in my posts) I'd suggest you ask your PCP. I've found they can be very reasonable about medications that have no abuse potential.

That's a good idea, actually. AFAIK, no one in my family has any history of anaphylaxis, but I think having epi-pens around is a Good Thing, and they hardly take up any space. I will ask.

If you are just being objectionable, please refute my example of the fire-extinguisher. Of course, you could suddenly claim to wear one opposite your side-arm, but I bet a true don't believe that gunners who claim a need to carry a gun for defense carry the more needful equipment. It isn't sexy enough.

When they make an effective fire extinguisher one can carry in one's pocket, I'll get one. Until then, I have an inexpensive Kidde class B/C dry chemical extinguisher mounted in my car's trunk, next to the emergency kit, that will have to do. Do I need to post pics?

It really is just a hobby, and few have a legitimate "need" to carry. Wanting to is sufficient reason, we shouldn't need to invent reasons to indulge in a relatively harmless and legal enthusiasm.

I'd say that CCW lies on the continuum a little more to the serious side of "hobby" (more Krav Maga than Tai Chi), but I'd agree that "need" is much too strong a term for most people. I also agree that one should not have to show "need" in order to obtain a license, and I believe that jurisdictions that purport to assess "need" tend to give far more weight to wealth and prestige than they do to actual daily risk.

Besides, it's clear that I've made my point about some of you being incapable of grasping simple logic when it comes to championing your fetish.

Re: "gun fetishists", "gun worshippers", "gun totemists", et seq---ascribing sexual, religious, or psychologically deviant motives to arguments one disagrees with reduces a debate to a Jerry Falwell level. Most people here, on either side of the gun issue (or any other issue), can do better than that, IMO.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Your reply to me reflects the inaccuracy of your comments in general

Let me detail your failures:

Not a "straw man", however. That poster, arguing for the "need" for a firearm was obviously defending his own need. A fairly obvious conclusion; hence, including him in conjecture is reasonable. Let him come back and-honestly-state he doesn't carry and I'll rephrase.

Several failures here- The first being the declaration that I was arguing for the need for a firearm. In fact, I argued (and still
maintain) that you are not qualified to judge where the needs of others lie. The second failure comes with your assumption that
I "feel a need" for a firearm. In fact, I do not now own a firearm and have not for years- and have stated so several times
in the past here at the Guns forum. So you are, indeed, indulging in a strawman argument.

Here's another reasonable conjecture: if he claims he has no pony in this show, he's likely being untruthful.

In point of fact, I do have a pony in this show: If at some point in the future I choose to buy a firearm, I would
take it very much amiss if some so-called public servant decides I do not "need" one. Thanks to the McDonald decision,
(and being otherwise qualified), that is no longer lawfully under their remit.

I'll mention in passing his rather crude attempt at vilifying me by lamely suggesting I've been pretentious in my assertions. If he got humiliated, he called it upon himself.

Let me clarify that- by stating it baldly:

You are pretentious- and classist to boot (vide your crack about pickup trucks). And I'll mention in passing that I do
not, nor have I ever, owned a pickup. Are there any other stereotypes or unwarranted assumptions on your part that I could point out?

Why yes, there's a few right here:

My point remains unchallenged (nor even addressed in your attempt to obscure it by focusing on the unequal trade of insults): in fact a "normal" person is much more likely to be confronted by some emergency *other* than a firefight, yet those who justify their "need" to carry are totally unprepared for these other life-threatening emergencies.

I've given several (uncontested) examples in this thread. Here's another: one might reasonably expect to observe someone strangling from anaphylactic shock after a bee-sting, yet your ever-vigilant boyscout will get no merit badge because he failed to carry his epinephrine injection.

Statistically, you're much more likely to encounter allergic shock than an armed crack-head or (horrors) a *terrorist*, yet gunnies are prepared for only the less likely threat.

I guess a hypodermic in a pocket is just less glamorous than a finely-tuned Colt, yet it's much more portable and even less likely to wound an uninvolved bystander.

I have to admit that your last sentence (if little else in that excerpt) is accurate.

That's why I carry several Epi-pens, in both adult and pedi sizes. And an Ambu-bag. And I *do* have a fire extingusher in my vehicle. And, as stated before, no "finely-tuned Colt". Or any other firearm.

Thanks for playing, and do come back when you're a little less prone to assume things not in evidence...

[Dogtown]

65. Whatever.

I find your post tiresome.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. There can be only one answer to that:

I knew iverglas. And you, sir, are no iverglas.

[SteveM]

77. HA! I kind of miss Iverglas. When she pooped, she pooped...

and owned up to it (sometimes).

[burrfoot]

80. +100

Oh, that made me smile. Thanks, F.I. !

:toast:

[lepus]

61. Me, I often carry on the property during hunting season.

We often have issues with road hunters or hunters that do not believe in property rights.

As far as an epi-pen goes, I am wanting to get one for around the house.

I keep bees. While a single sting ain't going to drive me into shock, getting fifty or so might. An epi-pen might get me to the hospital if I screw up bad enough.

The argument your trying to push is that there are so many dangers out there, you should protect yourself against all others first before carrying a firearm is a bit asinine.

You are never going to be absolutely safe, but you can protect yourself from the dangers that you see around you. I have a fire extinguisher in both my truck and kitchen, I belt up when driving, and I am armed when I'm checking out the property.

[Dogtown]

64. You're too focussed on the details.

None of what I said applies to sensible folks like you.

It was aimed at the Junior G-Men amongst us.

[Straw Man]

81. Oh...

None of what I said applies to sensible folks like you.

It was aimed at the Junior G-Men amongst us.

... yeah, THOSE guys. I hate those guys.

[Katya Mullethov]

82. And that's OK

As long as it's ...... "Them".

[safeinOhio]

84. I carry

injectable diphenhydramine, safer with fewer drawbacks than epi-pens. I also carry a small 32 for dogs when walking. Also fewer drawbacks than a cannon. Both have saved me from trips to the ER. Unlike many posters here, I have little or no emotional connections to either.

[PavePusher]

58. As a matter of fact....

I do have well-stocked first-aid kits in all my vehicles and training to use them, along with a selection of small spare parts, tools, TWO medium fire-extinguishers per vehicle (one in front, one in the rear), some extreme conditions survival gear and ALWAYS a full-sized spare wheel/tire combo.

I also generally carry a 1911 .45 in condition One, and two extra magazines. Openly. Never had anyone laugh.

As for the emergency gear, you'll simply have to take my word for it that I have, at one time or another, had a need for every piece of it, to help either myself, or someone I've met.

"Prepared" is not a dirty word, nor is it the product of fevered imaginations.


You came into the conversation liberally sprinkling "generalities", stereotypes, insinuations and out-right aspersions, and when you had them chopped out from under you like so much cord-wood, cast out continued insults and began to whine. I suggest either a more polite and reasoned approach to the conversation, or grow a thicker skin. Preferably both.

[jeepnstein]

63. Preparedness is something that some people...

like to ignore as much as possible. I was watching a NatGeo special on some wahoo driving the Roof of Africa the other night. He took off in a rented Range Rover, didn't have spare parts, recovery gear, or much else. He did have a satellite phone so he could call AAA. Then he proceeded to destroy the driveline in a Rover, which is no small feat. I mentioned to my wife at the beginning of the show that at a minimum I'd be carrying a spare axle and some u-joints on that trip. When our intrepid explorer finally trashed his Rover she looked at me and said "How'd you know that was going to happen?"

[Dogtown]

66. Good for you!

:patriot:

[X_Digger]

48. Actually, a DOJ funded interview of inmates showed that to be true..

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOSPI91.PDF

Criminals do tend to avoid those they know or have reason to believe are armed, and they fear a confrontation with an armed citizen more than a police officer. Home burglaries in places with fewer bars to gun ownership are generally lower than in areas with strict control, and there are fewer 'hot' burglaries- aka robberies while a resident is home.

[PavePusher]

56. "Police used to know that if you were armed, you had an intent to use that gun."

Really? When was that? Where?

And the Government does not have the Right, nor have I delegated it the power, to dictate how or what I carry for self-defence.

P.S. Open Carry is undergoing a rapid resurgence across the country. You haven't been paying attention.

P.P.S. "belly-flap"... how third-grade are you? Stereotyping is a few doors down the hall... to THE RIGHT.

[Euromutt]

72. Ever hear of a "Terry stop"?

Police used to know that if you were armed, you had an intent to use that gun. Easier to neutralize.

Now, they can only guess.

Under the SCOTUS' ruling in Terry v. Ohio, a law enforcement officer can search you for weapons if he can articulate a reasonable suspicion that your behavior was consistent with intent to commit an offense. The precondition being that your behavior is indicative of intent to commit an offense; in the case of John W. Terry, it was that he and an associate appeared to be casing a store for an armed robbery.

Funny thing is that the rule of thumb used to be that carrying a firearm openly was considered an indication that you had no intent to commit a malicious act with the weapon in question. The primary reason that concealed carry has become more popular is due to the tendency among members of the general public (whom some refer to as "the sheeple," but frankly, I consider any argument that relies on comparing the general public to livestock to be flawed from the start) to call the police at the mere sight of an openly carried firearm, even absent any clear threat to public safety. Your prediction about giggling being the general reaction to open carry has already been demonstrated to be incorrect before you made it.

They are thousands of times more likely to die of a heart-attack than be victimized by gun violence, <...>

How about other forms of violent crime; the kind committed with blades, bludgeons, or hands and feet?

<...> but you never see anyone selling them portable defibrilizers.

The word you're looking for is "defibrillator," and the term "portable" is rather relative. Most AEDs are about as portable as a laptop computer, mostly due to the size of the battery required; their weight and (more importantly) size don't allow them to be carried in a belt holster.

Speaking for myself, though, I've taken CPR training, including the basics on using an AED (there's honestly not much to it, since the machine does almost all of the work), and I do take note in public buildings whether there are any mounted on walls, etc. And I don't know that other carriers have not done the same; got any evidence to that effect? (By which I do mean evidence; not guesses, surmises, conjectures, etc. unsupported by any data.)

[benEzra]

83. I'm AHA CPR/AED certified as well. (n/t)

[SteveM]

75. More problems, here...

"...carriers are usually white guys of a certain age..."

What, pray tell, is the relevancy of this statement? Would you feel better if they were "black guys of a certain age?"

"..they'd be much more likely to actually engage the weapon without snagging on their belly-flap and shooting themselves in the process." Is this commentary on data that you have not presented, or some extension of your "white guys of a certain age" stereotype?

"If someone is all about being situationally prepared, that someone shouldn't be ashamed of they're emotional need." Well, what is that need? Please explain with information/studies explaining what those need(s) are (there are studies out there, BTW).

"The 2nd doesn't guarantee the right to hide the fact that you're prepared to do violence, does it?"

The 2nd Amendment doesn't address your "fact" anymore than it addresses the "fact" of ANYONE prepared to do violence. So what is your point?

"Make them carry on their belts, in plain sight. My guess is that embarrassment over being giggled at will be the most-effective gun-control."

Ah, there you are wanting to "make them" do something. Frankly, I choose not to wear in plain sight, but you can advocate for open-carry if you wish.

You know, for someone who thinks there are more important issues, why do you persist with lines of argument which seem to carry far more baggage than the usual gun-control views?

[spin]

23. So why do you hang out here?

If you have little or no interest in the subject what's the attraction?

[Dogtown]

29. I don't.

I spotted the link on the "discussion" page and clicked on it. Mostly because it's an ant-cop tag and I *am* interested in police abuses.

Apropos that story, it would have to be a very untrained and over-reactive police officer that mistook an engine back-firing with gun-fire. That point is under-scored by them shooting out their own windows.

I will occasionally try to draw any rabid argument back to reality; hence, my comments on the current fad of gun-slinging. I don't care if folks do or don't carry, but I do object to being told that a mule is a circus-pony.

[safeinOhio]

85. We could use more thoughtful posters

like you. Thanks for dropping in. If you have a thick skin, you'll be able to take the wrath of the zealots if you don't toe the official line.

:toast:

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. I rather doubt he'll be back. The factose intolerant tend not to do well here.

The ones who do somehow manage to stick around come in a few types:

*The 'evangelical' gun controllers who are out to save society.

*The flat-out gun haters who usually have problems controlling their temper.

*The "Gun Guys" sort who claim to own guns and plump for 'reasonable' and 'common-sense' new gun control laws.

You can tell them because they seem somewhat reasonable at first glance but come across as a little 'off' after a while.
They tend to be evasive when asked direct questions.

They're like North Korean or Tea Party propagandists: They think they're quite conivincing but really only have credibility
with those who already agree with them...

[PavePusher]

55. Ah, true colors begin to show.

Insinuations and accusations.

And you don't even have the courtesy to get someones name correct. I think you're done here.

[SteveM]

74. Boy, do you ever miss the point...

"No government body wants your guns, nor are they worried about them."

Actually, AG Holder last year called for re-reinstatement of the so-called assault weapons BAN, the Democratic Party Platform still calls for an assault weapons BAN, and Obama has a track record calling for even more extensive BANS.

These are hard facts, Dog-dude. You cannot airily rise above the fray with comments like "silly boys," or "non-issue."

It is an issue and you cannot run from it; hell, you can't even present facts to show gun-control is a "non-issue." Don't be so smug.

[Chulanowa]

43. I laugh at the Nugentian Gundamentalists with gusto... but that's just stupid

[DCKit]

10. I've got a picture of 'roid- raging Gomer and Goober in my head. n/t

[jeepnstein]

12. A while back...

a couple of officers died in an ambush that started just like that. It wasn't a backfire that day.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/two-more-police-officers-killed-two

Walk a mile in a cops shoes and you'll figure out quickly that they get to make very quick decisions that everyone in the world gets to pick apart at their leisure.

[Flyboy_451]

24. You beat me to it...

A little insight for those that are not from the KC area. This particular area is a high crime area with a high concentration of gang activity. The officers were responding to a "shots fired" call, which puts them on edge even more. They made a decision based on a situation with incomplete and possibly intentionally false information. The adrenaline rush that takes place in a high stress situation, coupled with incomplete information can easily lead to mistakes and wrong decisions. Keep in mind that if the officers had been right and failed to act accordingly, there is every possibility they could be killed. This puts them in a bad position from the outset. They have the choice of acting to preserve their own safety, or erring on the side of caution and possibly paying for it with their lives.

There is always an outcry from various parts of the general public when law enforcement makes an error. While I do not excuse these errors, I do ask that you keep in mind that, frequently, the information provided in a news story does not represent full information of the situation, and that if you are not familiar with the decisions that we face on a daily, and even hourly, basis, your opinion may indeed be far from reality. Law enforcement tends to be held to the impossible standard of ALWAYS acting correctly in any given situation. Ask yourself how well you would perform with similar standards in as many stressful situations, making decisions in a split second.

Jeepenstein, this was not directed at you, only picking up where you left off, and injecting a little reality to the situation.

JW

[Kennah]

25. Ambushes aren't new

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr#ucr_leoka

Table 19, Circumstance at Scene of Incident

1991 - 11
1992 - 7
1993 - 5
1994 - 8
1995 - 14
1996 - 6
1997 - 12
1998 - 10
1999 - 6
2000 - 10
2001 - 9
2002 - 17
2003 - 9
2004 - 15
2005 - 8
2006 - 10
2007 - 16
2008 - 6
2009 - 15

[Dogtown]

32. Neither are engine back-fires.

They're even more common than ambushes. I would think that common-sense as well as training should help discriminate.

I don't remember ever being trained to counter an ambush by shooting up my own equipment, though. It seems counter-productive.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

78. But think of the caliber of that tailpipe!! 60 mm?!