My buddy pulled his gun now what??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure, see post #1 of this thread for starters.

You do realize how much of a straw-man that comment is, right?

At last I checked, FL has issued more than 1.3 million CWPs since 1996. There are over 640,000 active FL permits as of 4/30/08. One incident doesn't even begin to make your case for more stringent controls considering how many people with FL licenses actually exercise common sense every day while carrying their guns. Can you say "statistically insignificant?"

Are you sure you aren't a closeted anti?
 
I agree Elza, the only ways to thoroughly screen are invasive, costly, time consuming, and not foolproof. I do not have an answer as to the perfect screening process, but sitting through a class, taking a test, passing a simple background check, and packing a gun seems a little loose to me.

The mentality of some that it can only be handled reactively offers little consolation to the survivors of an innocent bystander killed because Bubba with a CCW decided to save the day by drawing and firing a round when it was not necessary.

You do realize how much of a straw-man that comment is, right?

At last I checked, FL has issued more than 1.3 million CWPs since 1996. There are over 640,000 active FL permits as of 4/30/08. One incident doesn't even begin to make your case for more stringent controls considering how many people with FL licenses actually exercise common sense every day while carrying their guns. Can you say "statistically insignificant?"

You asked, I gave you a place to start. Lets not pretend that this is the only incident in Florida. We both know that there are likely many incidents, both reported and unreported. If you would like to pay me to research it (my going rate is 75.00 per hour with a 2 hour minimum for such tasks) I'll provide a complete six sigma statistical report.

Are you sure you aren't a closeted anti?
Are you sure you are not trying to take this low road and make it personal?

Before we get any further off topic, its nighty night time for me. Good evening all.
 
Are you sure you are not trying to take this low road and make it personal?

Certainly not. Given your comments, I didn't think my question was below the belt, since you kinda opened yourself up to that criticism.

Touche.
 
Moga is right on.

Rooter you do sound an awful like you have been drinking the water in north Jersey.

Mostly, I still can't get over the fact that someone other than my great grandfather used the phrase "hog leg" naturally in a sentence in 2008. ;)
 
More to the point Rooter, in the early 80's the FBI conducted an intense study of several psy profile testing methodologys and arrived at the conclusion that NONE of them could indicate future performance. In specific mention was the MMPI, which is still a fall back for the admn cya types.

Simply stated, it is impossible to predict future behavior. Any and all of those test modalities are at their core subjective as hell and fail to do what they purport. Further, the intrusiveness of such an approach is such that it is on it's face the equivilant of the Jim Crow 'poll tax', serving to discourage the excercise of a civil right.

By the way, you in LE?


See FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 2/82...pps 18 thru 20.
 
I really dont think there is enough info present here to start making justifications or condemnations. Happens here a little too much.

I hate to admit, however, there are a lot of folks that I think should not have a permit to carry a pack of gum. If I feel like Im having a bad day (getting mad or something), I actually take my gun off and leave it at home. I would rather be killed by a mugger (if it comes to that) rather than pull on someone b/c they cut me off in traffic or "look like they are going to mug me". It sounds stupid, I know, but its a choice on my part to regulate my behavior. I only carry if I am going to a place I dont 100% trust (downtown or surrounding areas). Heck there was a story of someone here in Indy (proud and stating it on another forum) that he reached for his weapon (didnt pull it or sweep his shirt aside, but reached for it) b/c a Walmart greeter would not let him leave until he showed him a reciept. Too many are the Rambo, Kill em all and let God sort them out, death before dishonor, paranoid types that have access to not only weapons, but also the ability to carry them. And, unfortunately, this ability to carry gives them a power complex in many cases that is highly unjustified in ANY situation. They believe themselves peace officers, not understanding that the permit is for THEIR defense, not society at large. If the police have no mandate to protect me (as per that supreme court case, I cant remember), then it is not my job to protect society unless something threatens the constitution (which our mandate to protect that as civilians is very well defined)

I am not saying further screening is necessary or less screeening is necessary. However, individuals should take the time to look at their personalities and deem it justifiable for them to have a firearm licence.

To be honest, I feel this sort of arguement and the OP friend's situation/incident gives antis ammunition for their arguements. Too many people on the planet now, and too many ideas of "everyone's out to get me" (a common problem with congested areas). I have learned ways of looking at my environment, but not being paranoid. FROM WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME (this is my OPINION, not fact, so lets keep this civil), the OPs friend was a little jumpy (Ive met folks that own permits that if you let out a loud fart, they would draw). Its not to blame the system or the permit situation, but potentially the person. However, like I said before, there is not enough info posted to give an accurate view of the situation.

Many times, I believe the Anti's have a few points that are true. This will get people angry, but if I have an anti-friend or family member, I ask for their view point and listen to them. I analyze their arguement, then give my view on the issue (not my OPINION on the issue, there is a huge difference). Too many people plug their ears whenever anything anti comes along (doesnt even have to be guns, any politics) and yell at the top of their lungs. Why not keep things "High Road"? The easiest way to combat that which opposes you is to understand it, by knowing their points of arguement as well as your own (I learned that in college-school :D). Know your enemy.
 
Well, we could start with a genetic testing for predisposed mental and political leanings at birth; then destroy the batch that we don't like. What do we do with the few that make it through? Oh I have it, destroy everyone, then there will be no chance that one bad apple will get through.

Come on, the constitution and the law should not discriminate against any group, except those that act against them. Some of us are Alpha Dogs, and we will stare down the bad guys, this is not a mental condition.
 
rooter said:
I agree Elza, the only ways to thoroughly screen are invasive, costly, time consuming, and not foolproof. I do not have an answer as to the perfect screening process, but sitting through a class, taking a test, passing a simple background check, and packing a gun seems a little loose to me.

If you think that is a little loose, try it up here in New Hampshire where the "sitting through a class" and "taking a test" parts are unnecessary. :eek:

rooter said:
The mentality of some that it can only be handled reactively offers little consolation to the survivors of an innocent bystander killed because Bubba with a CCW decided to save the day by drawing and firing a round when it was not necessary.

Your mentality that it should be handled proactively offers little consolation to the survivors of a crime victim murdered because the victim was unable to prove that he would not misuse a concealed firearm and so did not have adequate tools for his own defense.
 
+10 for Moga and Mewachee.

Based on BattleChimp's post, if I were a member of the decision-making council, I would vote that he not have a permit, given his admitted inability to control his emotions, requiring that he self-disarm before driving. Is that reasonable, BCP?

The last thing we need is more government intrusion into determining who can, and who cannot, exercise God-given rights in this country.
 
If you read it all the way through, I did not agree with more or less screening for permits. Like I said about the anti arguement, read/listen to all of someone's arguement before making a comment.

That being said, Then according to my arguement (as I posted), then yes, I should not have a CCW. I dont get angry in traffic, however, we all have bad days. We may be short with people. If I feel that I am having a bad day, I self-disarm. Not too many other people can claim they have enough self control to do so. Its not that I fly off the handle, but I dont want ANY, and I MEAN ANY reason to even draw a weapon in anger. I have noticed in recent posts where people fill their hands, its usually something done in the heat of anger/passion/ignorance, not necessarily in defence. I have filled my hand ONCE for defense. I do not like it. But, I have never filled my hand in anger because of my views as stated in a previous post.

I guess, if I had to take a side (as I seem to be forced to here) about more or less control, then I choose less. Humans should be able to control their tempers/nerves enough to carry a weapon responsibly. Realistically, if they were a jumpy nutcase, screening or not, they would carry anyway, one day pulling a hogleg on a SUV with kids because someone didnt use a turnsignal. Its just like the ridiculous idea of waiting periods for guns: All the most horrific shootings in our country done in states/cities with waiting periods were with guns purchased then waited upon. If someone is going to shoot someone else, nothing will stop them from doing so.

A CCW would allow a jumpy guy to carry legally (nothing wrong so far), but they would be punished the same as a non-ccw-er if its an illegitimate shooting. The only problem, is that if a CCW-er does an illegitimate shooting, then it ruins it for the rest of the CCW community.
 
mewachee said:
Well, we could start with a genetic testing for predisposed mental and political leanings at birth

However, this assumes that the society chooses the right values and views.

For example, the Spartans set a standard, and killed the rest of the children.

And what about me? I'm bipolar. But for the first thirty years of my life, it was an asset. Being tough and contrary got me through living in the home of an alcoholic, a cycle club and as a professional bill collector.

I hate to quote trashy movies, but a fine actor, Richard Crenna is his role of Col. Trautman remarked, "What you call hell he calls home."

Frankly, I needed to be bipolar. My brother, a normal, suffered for many years.

To this debate, what does a differing point of view mean to those with CCW licenses? It means everything.

The OP pulled a firearm. He knows that he is responsible for that firearm, every round, and all provisions of the law which provides him with this privilege.

And you know something, to him, this action might have proved prudent, and I would not second guess those actions or his state of mind. I will add that he also knows he has to carry the full weight of society's laws.

But we don't live in Sparta. We are a society of complex people with adverse opinions.

I would have done nothing. A screaming woman, spinning around in a parking lot, threatening death, with blood and spittle streaming from her lips (excuse me, poetic license) in the act of a deranged townie? BTDTBTTS.

I call that "Tuesday."
 
I wasn't there so I can't really comment on your friend's dilemma. I will say however, that his first instinct should have been to retreat from the threat if possible. If getting in the car, locking the doors and driving away was possible, he should have done that. If not, locking the doors and calling 911 should have been the next step. If she then pulls a weapon, different story.
 
What do you guys think will happen??
It depends on how much he gave away. If he blabbed to the police, oh boy.

1. Pull out all the stops with the best lawyer available and refuse to deal, maybe a prosecutor will decide it's not worth the People's resources;
2. Blab to cops and prosecutor and plea deal, and lose lots of rights.

People that carry guns will lose their rights and threaten my rights by acting in ignorance.
 
Update

My friend talked to a lawyer 1000 bucks to start on case .He did say they keep changing the charges and he was worried they would come arrest him at work.
Found out the woman only could have been charged with battery not assault.

My friend talked to the cops too much about guns what they carry ,what caliber they use and how often they shoot.
 
Your friend needs to sell any other guns he owns or any other property he has of any value to raise the money to pay for a good lawyer. Defending yourself in court is not something you do on the cheap. The possible consequences of no defense or a bad defense will change his life forever.

Jeff
 
The Tourist, complete sarcasm. I stand on the side of God given right, and that society should only take the right if "you" prove your inability to carry exercise such right or follow "good" law.
 
Rooter you do sound an awful like you have been drinking the water in north Jersey.

Actually, the water is very good in north Jersey. It's the politics that are in the sewer.
 
mewachee said:
The Tourist, complete sarcasm.

I'm sorry, but I thought I directed my coments to the real issue when I bold/underlined the words "this privilege." It is my belief that while CCW licenses are a great thing and I wish my state had one, I'm sorry that this concept is viewed as a privilege (which can be taken away) rather than the enumerated right as intended by The Framers.

In point of fact, I thought I had offered the same idea that you wrote.

And let me add another thing, lest I be misquoted for someone other's postulate.

Unless the woman running at the car was Ziva David or Raye Hollitt, I think firearms was a bit over the top.

The woman could have simply been a concerned citizen returning a dropped bottle of Viagra.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top