Terrorists In WI Assault Citizens With Violence And Extortion

reply to post by Curiousisall


Actually I agreed you have the right to deny guns on your property. All I wanted was clarification on what you thought. I mean this is supposed to be a discussion forum. Part of having a discussion is trying to understand the other person's point of view.

I'm sorry you can not tell the difference between a question and an attack. If you had given your interpretation as asked, instead of claiming people were twisting your words and attacking you, the whole thing would have ended a lot faster.

You have every right to any belief you want. I also have the right to ask that you explain those beliefs, so that I better understand them. By answering people that ask you to explain a belief you might find that people agree with you, or even change someone's mind.

I guess I should burn my ankle holster, since the constitution doesn't give me the right to ANKLE CARRY. May as well toss out the shoulder bag too, since it doesn't allow me to OFF BODY CARRY, either.

Dang! This thread (and the whole pro-/anti- gun argument, for that matter) is like scrubbing a dirt floor. It just ain't getting anywhere.

reply to post by tjack


Now come on Tjack, he didn't go so far as to say people couldn't carry. He just said we were paranoid and fetishistic for wanting to carry. He made it abundantly clear that he is not anti-gun.

He believes he has the right to keep a gun under his register to protect his business. He also believes that people he is comfortable with should be allowed to carry. The rest of us he doesn't trust to shoot straight or understand when the use of force is appropriate and safe.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by tjack

 

Now come on Tjack, he didn't go so far as to say people couldn't carry. He just said we were paranoid and fetishistic for wanting to carry. He made it abundantly clear that he is not anti-gun.

I get it now. You all just want to fight so baddly that making things up is just part of the game for you? I never said anyone was anything for wanting to carry. NOT ONCE.

I said that I did not agree that it was all that normal to feel you need to be openly armed at family dinners and childrens parties and EVERYWHERE ELSE YOU GO.

You just twist and twist and twist.

He believes he has the right to keep a gun under his register to protect his business. He also believes that people he is comfortable with should be allowed to carry. The rest of us he doesn't trust to shoot straight or understand when the use of force is appropriate and safe.

Also NOT WHAT I SAID, NOT ONCE, NOT ANYWHERE.

I said that I have no way of knowing if each and every stranger that comes through my door can shoot straight or use their gun properly so I do not need them bringing their guns onto my property. They can take them anywhere else they want.

Tell me gun accidents never happen. Tell me everyone that owns a gun is a perfect handler.

Stop changing what I say just to find an argument. I also never said I was a "he."

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

Actually I agreed you have the right to deny guns on your property. All I wanted was clarification on what you thought. I mean this is supposed to be a discussion forum. Part of having a discussion is trying to understand the other person's point of view.

Please. Pay attention because I specified "you" as in a group of people on this board and "you" YOURSELF. In fact I used that word to delineate between the two. If you wanted clarification, why did you keep asking me to show you where it denied anything when I never said it did?

I'm sorry you can not tell the difference between a question and an attack. If you had given your interpretation as asked, instead of claiming people were twisting your words and attacking you, the whole thing would have ended a lot faster.

A question is a question. What you kept doing was quoting me and then asking me to prove something else. If you would have just read my answer the first time instead of repeatedly asking me to back up something I never said, this could have ended a lot sooner.

You have every right to any belief you want. I also have the right to ask that you explain those beliefs, so that I better understand them. By answering people that ask you to explain a belief you might find that people agree with you, or even change someone's mind.

You asked me to explain my belief. I did. You then kept asking me to prove something completely different. I have no idea what your game is there.

reply to post by tjack


Does it give you the right to have an RPG? Does it give you the right to have biological weapons? Does it give you the right to have nuclear arms? Or is it a little vague like I said and that is ALL I SAID?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by tjack

 

Now come on Tjack, he didn't go so far as to say people couldn't carry. He just said we were paranoid and fetishistic for wanting to carry. He made it abundantly clear that he is not anti-gun.

He believes he has the right to keep a gun under his register to protect his business. He also believes that people he is comfortable with should be allowed to carry. The rest of us he doesn't trust to shoot straight or understand when the use of force is appropriate and safe.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm just completely frustrated by the constant arguing over semantics that has occured in this thread... "I said KLEENEX, not TISSUE!!" "I said PUBLIC TRANSIT, not THE BUS!!"

Makes my head want to explode!

reply to post by tjack


If people would just read plain clear English, understand it, and respond to it with plain clear English that would not be a problem. I have not argued over semantics. I said some things and the whole bus has spent the entire thread arguing semantics with me instead of even discussing the topic of the thread.

I guess it is my fault I said two things.

reply to post by Curiousisall


You know what your problem is, you probably do not realize the laws in regards to private property.

If you do not post signs on your property to not trespass, you do not have the right to stop people from entering.

See, that is why they call it breaking and entering when someone enters a private establishment when there is a locked door.

The same can be said of a private business that is open to the public. Unless you provide a lock (sign or statement) that provides the public entering your private property, they are not breaking your RIGHTS.

Growing up in the country, if you do not want people to enter your private property, you are REQUIRED to post no trespassing signs every so often.

The SAME applies to YOU.

Sorry, but you are the one being ambiguous and misrepresenting your position which is causing all the problems with the miscommunication here.

Sorry, let me say it again. If you DO NOT place a lock (sign, communication, whatever) on your door, it is not unlawful for anyone to enter your property with a gun.

Clear enough?

reply to post by Curiousisall


Part of the confusion may come from the fact that part of my first response this morning was in regards to a post I failed to quote.

You said in another post,

Always leaving out the "well regulated militia" part for some reason. Why do all the 2nd ammendment cheerleaders keep quoting PART of it?

5 men that want something to eat may or may not be a well regulated militia but then I gues they would have some form of regulations I could look at.

I responded to that with the bit about the second ammendment being considerred an individual right in all but three percent of court cases decided on the issue. I should have quoted it directly and placed it before the question about right to carry.

However all I originally asked was how carry was not covered if the word bear is in the ammendment. You gave the snarky attack comment about rereading the post. You made it an argument over the semantics of a single word. All you had to do was say I said ______ and I believe it is because of ______ instead you wanted to complain about twisted words and being attacked.

The second time I asked,

If you have the right to bear arms, why can you not open carry. How does it not allow you that right?

Once again you made it about semantics. Your response was that it was a false question that had nothing to do with what you said. Despite your assertion, the fact is, the second question is directly related to the statement you made. I guess it is my fault you made it about semantics and refused to clarify your point.


Maybe, the problem comes from our interpretations of the ammendment. I personally believe the word bear means that we have the right to carry our arms about our body. Since the guns of the time were not readily concealable, I take that as meaning they agreed with open carry.

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Curious to know, how many of you family restaurant gun toters have ever used your gun in a family restaurant before...just curious? Or for that matter, a bank, a grocery store, a walmart, a dairy-queen, etc etc...I really am just curious. Nothing against the 2nd Amendment here, just curious.

ColoradoJens

I have actually been in at least three situations that required me, or someone I was with, to pull a gun for protection. One was out side of a bank as a child. A man threatened to kill me and my mom, with a knife, if my dad didn't hand over his paycheck. My dad's revolver made him change his mind.

According to a study published in 1997 guns were used about 2.5 million times a year to prevent crime. According to another study done in the 1980s 60% of felons said they would avoid targeting people they knew had a gun. 40% of felons, in the same study, said they had avoided a target because they "thought" the person had a gun. Another study from the 80s revealed that 57% of felons were more worried about running in to an armed target than the police.

Let us not forget that in 2000 the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that every day 550 rapes and 1,100 murders were prevented by the use of a handgun. In less than 0.9% of those cases was a shot fired.


Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter
Rossi, Aldine, 1986

The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997: National Institute of Justice, Research Report, July 1985,
Department of Justice

National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun
supply

edit on 28-9-2010 by MikeNice81 because: fix a statistic

Mikenice, thank you for that response. At least three? Have there been more? In each case, what was the outcome? Thanks again and I understand the logic of your argument, I am solely curious because I have never spoken to anyone or heard first hand accounts (other than media presented) of these situations. I know they occur, so it's good to hear a first person account. Thanks.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I wanted to add to that discussion.

See, statistics are almost impossible to come up with where a crime was stopped by someone that defends themselves or where just the presence of an armed individual thwarted a crime. That is why it is easier to show what happens when the populace becomes unarmed. There you can show the crime rates increase.

Earlier in the thread mnemeth posted a video that goes over this if you are interested in hearing the discussion on crime that is thwarted by armed citizens.

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

I am a responsible gun owner.I am also a grandmother.
I know how to properly handle firearms.Some of my
grandchildren can break down a rifle,put it back together
and shoot dinner as well!

I am very good at reading the odds on a craps table. I have been outrageously successful. I know I can win at it because I learned from a master (my dad) at a young age. I also know that if something does indeed go wrong, I am losing my money and that's it. Would hate to have the conscious knowing my gun accidentally went off and killed a three year old eating ice cream. Accidents do happen. Minimizing them seems to make sense.

ColoradoJens

Guns do not go off while they are in a holster. You would have to pull the gun from the holster and pull the trigger. The chances of a legally carried gun going off in a restaraunt are nearly 0%.

When you break down the statistics a child is more likely to choke to death on their food than die from an accidental discharge. They are more likely to get run over as a pedestrian, and more likely to die from a fall or serious burn incident.

I suggest you do a little research on how guns work. It might make you a little less scared of them.

Thank you for the assumptions. It still amazes me what people deduce. So, by saying there is a potential of an accident in a crowded eatery with many children about, you deduce I am scared of guns and that I need to "reasearch how guns work." Based on my feelings about property owners rights, do you assume I do not own a gun or for that matter know how to use it? "The chances of a legally carried gun going off in a restaurant are nearly 0%" - what does this mean? In all circumstances? and what is nearly 0%? Do gun accidents not occur?

Q: If your child were going to spend the night with a friend, would you feel more comfortable sending them to house A, where you know the family keeps guns, or house B, which has a swimming pool in the backyard? Many would choose B - why? Because people know that there is a potential with a deadly weapon that something may go wrong...however the statistics, as you seem to know, prove that more kids die in swimming pools that gun accidents. What's the point? Both kill people in accidents, there are just more swimmers.

Finally, just thinking Hollywood Westerns here, but weren't there many Westerns depicted (may not be true) where the men had to leave their guns outside an establishment? Don't know why that popped into my head.

ColoradoJens

Originally posted by tjack

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
~snip~

No. One does NOT choose to disarm legally armed citizens. You are WRONG. One may choose to enforce a policy on their private property, as it is their RIGHT, to EXCLUDE those with guns. The person with the gun may AGREE to their policy, again, based upon their RIGHT, and VOLUNTAIRLY CHOOSE to remove said gun OR go to an establishment that ACCEPTS this via THEIR rights. NO ONE has disarmed anyone.

Also, why did you choose to personally attack me regarding what I am or am not interested in? It was telling that I asked a question regarding those here, on this forum; you responded I should look up the stats on people using their guns to defend themselves because that will show me. Please, provide said info if you want. I was asking those who are participating in this discussion. How can a person on the internet deduce who someone is after posting a few comments and questions? I hope I don't do that.

ColoradoJens

Ok, I'm sorry you feel I attacked you, that was not my intent. I apologize for my smart-ass remark regarding your interests, I don't know who you are or what you're into. However, the tone of my post was fully inspired by the tone of yours. I took a bit of offense at your "gun toters" comment, we all know that's a bit of a dig, and the connotations it evokes.

And you're correct, there is no "literal" disarming going on, a bit of semantics there. She requires her customers to disarm themselves. OK? Anyway, I think you and most others get my drift. You asked why one, not the other, and that is why.

You also asked how many of us "gun toters" have "used our guns" in self defense, and I answered. Yes, I was flip, and I apologize again for that.

The fact remains, there are wolves in peoples clothing out there. Predators who will kill you without a thought. I choose to do more than "hope" I don't encounter one. And I encourage all others to choose as I do. THAT was my point. THAT is what I hope and pray someone on the fence about whether or not to arm and take responsibility for their own defense, gets due consideration.

Now that I have fully "gone ass" and haven't contributed much regarding the original purpose of this thread, I would like to change my direction and voice my opinion.

Given the limited information in the City of Madison News Release, I don't believe the men should be charged with DC, since no law was violated. I also think that some re-training might be in order to ensure the local PD responds appropriately. Constitutionally speaking.

edit on 28-9-2010 by tjack because: felt like it

You're right, my original wording choice was bad. I apologize for that. And thanks for the response. I think one of the interesting things about this thread is that the original point, which you note in the above post, is that some re-training of the police is needed...This example is one of many where the police seem to employ an "arrest first, ask questions later" approach which makes me and everyone else here sick.

The discussion regarding personal property rights seems also to be in general agreement in that it is an owners right to post and not have weapons on the premesis. Most of all of our remaining dialogue has been spent on personal opinion as to whether one choice is better than the next. I agree with you that DC is silly when no crime was committed and that what they were doing was fully legal.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by ColoradoJens


When I say at least three, I mean three that, with a more complete understanding of the law, were completely justifiable. I feel they would have met all of the requirements for use of force according to state law. At one time there were things like the "duty to retreat" that I did not know.

Another of the incidents that I felt was justified happened in my own front yard. Here is a direct quote from another thread,

I know I protected my own home recently with my gun. In doing so I was protecting the safety of my wife and child. A guy attending a party at a neighbor's house got mad because I called the cops to break up the party. He pulled his truck in to my front yard and hopped out with a baseball bat. I walked out on the porch and informed him the cops had been called he needed to leave. He continued to advance. I fired a warning shot in to the dirt. I told him to drop the bat and lay on his face. The cops showed up and hauled him away.

That is a simplified version. The details go a little deeper. He was screaming threats as he approached the house. Before that he had been driving back and forth in front of the house spinning tires while playing extremely loud music.His actions escelated from annoying, to threatening, to imminent danger because he pulled out a clubbing weapon. Since he was approaching the house with a weapon and threatening to come inside to inflict harm I had the right to prevent the invasion. Some would claim I should have waited for him to try entering the house, however I felt his actions proved he planned on carrying out his threats.

It isn't like people read in books or what you see in movies. To be as cool and collected as those guys would require that you are a little mentally off. Your mind is racing because you know that you have to justify every step you take, plus you are constantly having to calculate the true risk to those around you. Even if you shoot and kill a mass murderer waving a knife, any bullet that strikes a bystander can land you in legal trouble. You have to calculate the chances that you will get off in any civil trial that may follow.

You hae to think of all of those things while trying to handle a firearm as your heart rate steadily climbs. As your heart rate climbs your fine motor skills fade. You can even have trouble with your breathing and vision. So even after you get all of the other decisions and worrys out of the way your body ramps up for the fight or flight response.

It is scary, but if you have taken the time to train and become familiar with your weapon it is entirely possible to pull it all off. Because once muscle memory kicks in and you committ the training takes over.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by tjack

 

If people would just read plain clear English, understand it, and respond to it with plain clear English that would not be a problem.

Funny, I haven't had any problems understanding you or anyone else on this thread. Not sure what to tell you there.

I have not argued over semantics.

Would "pedantic" be more a appropriate word choice? (get it? the irony?)

I guess it is my fault I said two things.

Oh, WAH! Just stop all ready!

FYI, there is a very troll-like pattern to your posts, but for the record, I'm not accusing you of being one. All I'm saying, that based on all of your replies which I have read, to me, you're coming across very troll-like, and it's annoying. To me. Just sayin'.

I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt though, you're obviously very passionate about your beliefs. As are most legally armed citizens. We have more in common than we have in difference, I'd imagine.

reply to post by ColoradoJens

Thank you for the assumptions. It still amazes me what people deduce. So, by saying there is a potential of an accident in a crowded eatery with many children about, you deduce I am scared of guns and that I need to "reasearch how guns work."

Well I made the assumption because most gun owners I know would know that a gun in a holster does not go off on its own. That gun is not going to just randomly fire a round while it is sitting in your holster. If you pull out a gun and try to confront a bad guy you could accidentally shoot a kid. If you pulled an antiuqe, or a gun not in operable shape, out and slam it on the floor it might also go off. However, any modern and well maintained gun, the type recomended for carry, is designed not to go off when it strikes the floor.

Based on my feelings about property owners rights, do you assume I do not own a gun or for that matter know how to use it?

It had nothing to do with your feelings in regards to property owner's rights. It was about you hating to think your gun might magically decide to shoot somebody.

"The chances of a legally carried gun going off in a restaurant are nearly 0%" - what does this mean? In all circumstances? and what is nearly 0%? Do gun accidents not occur?

It means that by all accounts and in every study I have read there has never been a mention of a gun accident in an eatery. Gun accidents do happen. They can happen to anybody. However, if you are carrying appropriately the chances of an accident are virtually zero. I use words like virtually and zero because I do not doubt the idiocy of my fellow humman being.

Plexico Burress showed what could happen when you carry a gun in the lose waist band of sweat pants without a holster. The gun slipped out of his waist band and he tried to catch it. The result was he grabbed the trigger and shot himself in the leg. If he had been carrying in a family eatery it could have been a problem. However, he was not carrying legally or in a family eatery.

Most accidental discharges are negligent discharges. They come from people handling firearms in a negligent manner. It isn't the gun's fault that the owner does something stupid. If some one is properly carrying a firearm in a holster that is properly fitted to the gun, properly secrured to their person, and covers the trigger, then the chance of an ND or AD is nearly zero.

If my child goes to a home with guns I will check on how they are secured. I don't want them in a home where dad leaves his colt just laying on a book case. I don't want them in the yard with a pool if the gate isn't locked. The point is to make sure their is adult supervision in both cases. Neither one has to be a scary proposition.

Finally, just thinking Hollywood Westerns here, but weren't there many Westerns depicted (may not be true) where the men had to leave their guns outside an establishment? Don't know why that popped into my head.

Well we have that same rule at educational institutions, and post offices, we see how that works out for them. Their is a low occurence of crime involving guns according to studies. However, when that crime is committed it tends to be magnified in severity.

I didn't mean to be offensive in my assumptions. I was just trying to be helpful based on past experiences.

Do you own a gun? Have you taken a basic pistol safety course or any other type of training?

reply to post by tjack


Look at it from where I am sitting. Here is my first post in this thread.

Originally posted by Curiousisall

Originally posted by slinger

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I know I never leave to go to a restaurant without some sort of firearm by my side.

If you do or don't is not the issue, the 2nd amendment to the constitution is! If I wish to its my right!

No it is not.

Your right to carry a gun stops at the front door of my restaraunt.

Am I wrong? Is anything I said not correct? A dozen pages of "We are not saying you are wrong, just that you are not right" later and I am the troll?

I was just pointing out that, AS WRITTEN IN THE OP, there are restrictions about private property. Even the OP has been arguing with me over this one simple, AND STILL CORRECT statement. I am the troll?

Can you look at this from where I was sitting for a moment?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Well I made the assumption because most gun owners I know would know that a gun in a holster does not go off on its own.

Kind of part of why I feel the way that I do. Not everyone is SMART ENOUGH to handle a gun safely. Holsters do not make responsible owners.
Gun goes off in Wal-Mart checkout line.
Gun goes off in Galatoire's during Friday lunch
Gun goes off in Charlotte 3rd-grade classroom
I am sure everyone in this thread is nothing but the most responsible gun owner on the planet. However, the real world is full of idiots and many of them eat out.

reply to post by Curiousisall


That guy at Walmart should have been approached by security or the police should have been called earlier. That is a failure on Wal-Mart's part as well. If you see somebody playing with a firearm then action should be taken. The proper authorities should be notified to handle it. That guy was risking the safety of multiple people.

I am not saying he was less than 100% guilty for his actions. I am saying that Wal - Mart failed on their part as well. If I had seen that in my establishment I would have called the police. Depending on how likely I thought he would be to become irate and start firing, I might approach him myself and ask him to leave and not retrn. I wouldn't deny the others the right to carry.

Just my take on things.

The lady that dropped her gun was an idiot. I would be willing to bet it wasn't holstered that it was loose in her pocket book. If she wanted to carry a gun in a purse she should have bought a purse designed for that. There are at least a dozen different ones out there.

These incidents are extremely rare, but they do happen. That is why I said virtually zero. It is also why I said I'm not worried about my gun going off.