cup of coffe and a 45 ?

Godfather.

FiveB247x wrote:

I'm not saying people aren't entitled to have guns in accordance with the 2nd amendment or gun laws we already have, but in all honesty, why is it necessary it walk everywhere with a gun... or even in this small circumstance, a starbucks? How is this relevant or necessary in any manner? What possible good comes from this for our society?

Godfather. wrote:

wow !...there's a big picture here,can you see it ?
it may not matter to you but to some people it dose, why is your way the correct way ?

Godfather.

I have agreed with the starbucks issue but those people were just making a point,
their own reason's or way to deminstrate their willingness to hold onto their freedoms.

Godfather.

Pepe Silvia

i don't see the need to parade the gun around. like unung, i think, said about people who feel the need to carry all the time may need some sort of help. why the need to draw attention to and spotlight it?

i just don't think there's an actual need for the majority to carry a gun around all the time, i think there's a better chance someone might try to take it from you than you using it in self defense.

gimmesometruth27

Pepe Silvia wrote:

i don't see the need to parade the gun around. like unung, i think, said about people who feel the need to carry all the time may need some sort of help. why the need to draw attention to and spotlight it?

i just don't think there's an actual need for the majority to carry a gun around all the time, i think there's a better chance someone might try to take it from you than you using it in self defense.

yeah imagine the irony if someone takes your gun off of your person and shoots you with it...you would have contributed to your own death..

gimmesometruth27

Godfather. wrote:

I have agreed with the starbucks issue but those people were just making a point,
their own reason's or way to deminstrate their willingness to hold onto their freedoms.

Godfather.

i have the freedom to hire a cheep hooker in nevada too, that does not mean it is a good idea...

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

i don't see the need to parade the gun around. like unung, i think, said about people who feel the need to carry all the time may need some sort of help. why the need to draw attention to and spotlight it?

i just don't think there's an actual need for the majority to carry a gun around all the time, i think there's a better chance someone might try to take it from you than you using it in self defense.

yeah imagine the irony if someone takes your gun off of your person and shoots you with it...you would have contributed to your own death..

I doubt that the starbucks would be robbed if there were 2 or 3 guy's having coffe with a weapon on there hip .
with public transportation there is no need to own a car either, better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Godfather.

Pepe Silvia

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

i don't see the need to parade the gun around. like unung, i think, said about people who feel the need to carry all the time may need some sort of help. why the need to draw attention to and spotlight it?

i just don't think there's an actual need for the majority to carry a gun around all the time, i think there's a better chance someone might try to take it from you than you using it in self defense.

yeah imagine the irony if someone takes your gun off of your person and shoots you with it...you would have contributed to your own death..

or shoot someone else or follow you somewhere and take it from you....i just don't see what is being accomplished by it. and before anyone says it's their right to bare arms that doesn't make it practical. i knew a guy that had jobs where they had to transport a lot of money, haha that sounds shady but it was a legal job. anyway, he carried and i can understand that (also he had a concealed permit and didn't draw attention to the fact that he had a gun on him) but a lot of these people what's the point other than 'hey, look at me! i'm a bad muthafucka!'

you can't be on your guard 24/7 and i'm sure there's a sizable demographic of people who are doing it because of self esteem issues, just get a pretty girl to talk to him and distract him, hit him when his backs turned....it's like someone walking around with a large wad of bills in his hands (no monica jokes), eventually someone is gonna think they are a perfect mark and take it from them

Pepe Silvia

Godfather. wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

i don't see the need to parade the gun around. like unung, i think, said about people who feel the need to carry all the time may need some sort of help. why the need to draw attention to and spotlight it?

i just don't think there's an actual need for the majority to carry a gun around all the time, i think there's a better chance someone might try to take it from you than you using it in self defense.

yeah imagine the irony if someone takes your gun off of your person and shoots you with it...you would have contributed to your own death..

I doubt that the starbucks would be robbed if there were 2 or 3 guy's having coffe with a weapon on there hip .
with public transportation there is no need to own a car either, better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Godfather.

tell that to bernard goetz

gimmesometruth27

Godfather. wrote:

better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Godfather.

that was my philosophy when i carried around an AED every day when i was an Athletic Trainer at a high school...i guess it depends on the tool in question..

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

I have agreed with the starbucks issue but those people were just making a point,
their own reason's or way to deminstrate their willingness to hold onto their freedoms.

Godfather.

i have the freedom to hire a cheep hooker in nevada too, that does not mean it is a good idea...

cheep ? save your penny's son and buy top of the line

Godfather.

youngster

FiveB247x wrote:

What if you want to go to the gun range before your trip and you leave from an airport?

It's all for the same basic reason, it is for everyone's best interest and welfare.

No one is saying you're not entitled to have a gun in accordance with the 2nd amendment, but there are circumstances which dictate its use, necessity and being in public.

youngster wrote:

What if I am on my way back from the gun range and decide I want a coffee? Should I leave my gun in the car where it could get stolen?

Well common sense prevails on that issue.

puremagic

As a gun owner, I don't have a problem with people owning guns. I do have a problem with people being able to openingly carry guns in light the the shoot first laws.

Even more disturbing are the stand your ground laws that have expanded the shoot first laws. I shouldn't have to worry about someone's state of mind when they got up in the morning and strapped on their gun. These laws give citizens more rights than police officers to kill another person.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00735.html


The Shoot-First State

Sunday, May 1, 2005

LET'S SAY that you're behind the wheel and think someone wants to carjack your automobile and cause you bodily harm. Or suppose you get into a dispute with another shopper over a place in the supermarket's checkout line, and the shopper's aggressive behavior causes you to fear imminent peril. In both cases, you could -- and common sense suggests that you should -- retreat or back away from the scene if it can be done safely. But in Florida under a measure passed overwhelmingly by the state legislature last week, you would no longer have a duty to escape or retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. The bill, signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Jeb Bush (R), will allow people in Florida -- without fear of criminal prosecution or civil action -- to shoot, stab or pummel to death anyone who causes them to fear for their lives outside of their homes, on the street, or in their cars or businesses. It's called the "Castle Doctrine," meaning your body, not just your home, is your castle and that you can stand your ground and meet force with force virtually anywhere if you reasonably believe injury or death might occur. A retired police officer in St. Petersburg, writing in the St. Petersburg Times, described the legislature's bill as the "citizens' right to shoot others on the street if they feel threatened" and asked, "Are they nuts?" That, we cannot answer. ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07 ... gewanted=1

15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense

Published: August 7, 2006

In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder. ...

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them. ...

Godfather.

puremagic wrote:

As a gun owner, I don't have a problem with people owning guns. I do have a problem with people being able to openingly carry guns in light the the shoot first laws.

Even more disturbing are the stand your ground laws that have expanded the shoot first laws. I shouldn't have to worry about someone's state of mind when they got up in the morning and strapped on their gun. These laws give citizens more rights than police officers to kill another person.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00735.html


The Shoot-First State

Sunday, May 1, 2005

LET'S SAY that you're behind the wheel and think someone wants to carjack your automobile and cause you bodily harm. Or suppose you get into a dispute with another shopper over a place in the supermarket's checkout line, and the shopper's aggressive behavior causes you to fear imminent peril. In both cases, you could -- and common sense suggests that you should -- retreat or back away from the scene if it can be done safely. But in Florida under a measure passed overwhelmingly by the state legislature last week, you would no longer have a duty to escape or retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. The bill, signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Jeb Bush (R), will allow people in Florida -- without fear of criminal prosecution or civil action -- to shoot, stab or pummel to death anyone who causes them to fear for their lives outside of their homes, on the street, or in their cars or businesses. It's called the "Castle Doctrine," meaning your body, not just your home, is your castle and that you can stand your ground and meet force with force virtually anywhere if you reasonably believe injury or death might occur. A retired police officer in St. Petersburg, writing in the St. Petersburg Times, described the legislature's bill as the "citizens' right to shoot others on the street if they feel threatened" and asked, "Are they nuts?" That, we cannot answer. ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07 ... gewanted=1

15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense

Published: August 7, 2006

In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder. ...

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them. ...

I'm NOT disagreeing or agreeing with this florida law but wonder what promped Jeb to inact such a law ?
I'm guessing that some people got tired of being a victim and when they did fight back they were sued by
their attacker, my old gf worked for a law office and told me a little about this kind of thing happening from
time to time.

Godfather.

FiveB247x

But if you follow this logic to its end, isn't one of the reasons why people get guns in this circumstance so they won't be a victim? Seems like it's playing both sides of the card.

Also, if everyone used their right to bear arms and got a gun, doesn't it pretty much completely under-mind the point for getting one?

Godfather. wrote:

I'm NOT disagreeing or agreeing with this florida law but wonder what promped Jeb to inact such a law ?
I'm guessing that some people got tired of being a victim and when they did fight back they were sued by
their attacker, my old gf worked for a law office and told me a little about this kind of thing happening from
time to time.

Godfather.

Godfather.

FiveB247x wrote:

But if you follow this logic to its end, isn't one of the reasons why people get guns in this circumstance so they won't be a victim? Seems like it's playing both sides of the card.

Also, if everyone used their right to bear arms and got a gun, doesn't it pretty much completely under-mind the point for getting one?

Godfather. wrote:

I'm NOT disagreeing or agreeing with this Florida law but wonder what prompted Jeb to enact such a law ?
I'm guessing that some people got tired of being a victim and when they did fight back they were sued by
their attacker, my old gf worked for a law office and told me a little about this kind of thing happening from
time to time.

Godfather.

my honest opinion is if everybody carried a gun there would be less rape's and muggings a over all decrease
in violent crime's..but maybe not.
I agree with a back ground check,anybody who is a felon should not own gun's.

Godfather.

puremagic

Godfather. wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

But if you follow this logic to its end, isn't one of the reasons why people get guns in this circumstance so they won't be a victim? Seems like it's playing both sides of the card.

Also, if everyone used their right to bear arms and got a gun, doesn't it pretty much completely under-mind the point for getting one?

Godfather. wrote:

I'm NOT disagreeing or agreeing with this Florida law but wonder what prompted Jeb to enact such a law ?
I'm guessing that some people got tired of being a victim and when they did fight back they were sued by
their attacker, my old gf worked for a law office and told me a little about this kind of thing happening from
time to time.

Godfather.

my honest opinion is if everybody carried a gun there would be less rape's and muggings a over all decrease
in violent crime's..but maybe not.
I agree with a back ground check,anybody who is a felon should not own gun's.

Godfather.

Rape, murder and muggings are crimes of surprise attacks where a person carrying a gun 98% of the time could not initially react sufficently to shoot the attacker. The shoot first laws allow people to kill without consequences based on feelings. With these laws, there is no line to be crossed to stop a person from 'finding a reason' to kill another person because of feelings. As a gun owner, this means I could create a situation to provoke what I consider a threatening situation and be justified in killing a person.

FiveB247x

I actually believe the opposite, if everyone had a gun, we'd see more violence. And looking around our society, just because people don't have a criminal record, doesn't mean they have common sense or smarts enough to walk around with a gun and not have things occur.

Godfather. wrote:

my honest opinion is if everybody carried a gun there would be less rape's and muggings a over all decrease
in violent crime's..but maybe not.
I agree with a back ground check,anybody who is a felon should not own gun's.

Godfather.

Godfather.

well I saw a program on the documentary channel about Switzerland (I think it was Switzerland) and every
person after high school have to do a few years in the Swiss Military,they are issued a gun and after leaving the military they are to keep them, home invasions are minimal.

Godfather.

FiveB247x

I don't deny that, but two points : 1 - military people are probably more responsible than an average joe with a gun - whether for their home protection or in public. 2 - we are not switzerland. we have a different culture and lifestyle.

Godfather. wrote:

well I saw a program on the documentary channel about Switzerland (I think it was Switzerland) and every
person after high school have to do a few years in the Swiss Military,they are issued a gun and after leaving the military they are to keep them, home invasions are minimal.

Godfather.

keeponrockin

It's such a difficult situation. Nobody can deny that more guns=more murder, but at the same time, I'm not sure how taking away guns would help.

Was it Chris Rock that suggested instead of outlawing guns, taxing the shit out of ammunition and make it SUPER expensive. The scary part, it almost seems like a reasonable suggestion...

FiveB247x

In my opinion, we should have like a ban on guns for like 2- 3 years. Anyone caught with one will be prosecuted and have it taken away. This would help get rid of the criminal aspects and generic "bad" parts of the issue. Then once this set ban passes, allow people to either re-submit for licenses and if pass, they get them back. It controls the negative aspects, yet rewards the good side in the long term and benefits society as a whole. The fact is, with any right we have, sometime we have to "make-do" or "give up some" to get it back even better in the long term.

keeponrockin wrote:

It's such a difficult situation. Nobody can deny that more guns=more murder, but at the same time, I'm not sure how taking away guns would help.

Was it Chris Rock that suggested instead of outlawing guns, taxing the shit out of ammunition and make it SUPER expensive. The scary part, it almost seems like a reasonable suggestion...