RE: US Navy Shootings. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

EdBowie -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 4:40:10 AM)

Copy-catting in reaction to media sensationalization of previous shootings seems a likely answer to 'what did they want to achieve?'.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Another element was the perpetrators wanted to achieve something

What is it that they want to achieve? Why is butchering a whole load of strangers seen as contributing to this end?

Whatever it is that they wish to achieve, it seems that it is worthwhile enough to them that they will probably forfeit their lives for it. If it was merely notoriety, well there are easier and less destructive ways of achieving that for their allotted 15 minutes.

Why do they use guns rather than say a bomb, which is a far more effective way of killing people en masse, a method that offers potential evasion from capture too?

Why do they use a culturally approved method - guns - rather than a culturally disapproved method like suicide bombing?

ETA I'm not sure I know the answers to these questions, or if they are the correct questions to be asking, but continually re-hashing the same barren ground as these gun related threads seem to, seems pointless to me




Kirata -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 4:46:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Would you agree that Americans, more than other people, tend to see security of self and property as a personal responsibility as opposed to an area that the State should provide, consistent with their views on personal responsibility and a minimalist State generally

Well except for a few, I don't know how "other people" think. But I'd have to say not entirely. Most Americans want good policing, want to be able to depend on their police, and want safe neighborhoods as much as anyone else. But we recognize that, when seconds count, the police are unlikely to arrive in time. So in that sense, yes, I think many if not all Americans tend recognize that as a practical matter their safety is partly their own responsibility.

K.



tweakabelle -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 5:14:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Copy-catting in reaction to media sensationalization of previous shootings seems a likely answer to 'what did they want to achieve?'.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Another element was the perpetrators wanted to achieve something





This might account for a few incidents, but hardly for all of them. Another problem with this explanation is that if fails to account for the lack of copy cat incidents outside the US. If copy cats were the explanation, one would expect to see this pattern replicated overseas.



jlf1961 -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 6:26:21 AM)

quote:

Aaron Alexis tried to buy assault rifle but was unable to

Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis tried to buy an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week after test firing one, but the store wouldn't sell it to him right away, CBS News has learned.

The reason for the refusal isn't clear.

Alexis then purchased a shotgun he used in his rampage, sources tell CBS News.

The owners of two gun stores in Virginia told CBS News Alexis would have been able to buy an AR-15, he just wouldn't have gotten it right away.

Anyone can buy the assault-style weapon in Virginia, but the dealer would have to observe the laws of the buyer's home state.

It appears unlikely Alexis was a Virginia resident. His last reported full-time residency was in Texas.

If the buyer is an out-of-state resident, the dealer would then ship the weapon to the buyer's home state where a background check would be conducted. At the time of purchase in Virginia, however, the buyer would have to show two proofs of residence with matching addresses and then a proof of citizenship. This is all according to federal law when it comes to sales of the AR-15, which are administered by the ATF.


Source


Kinda throw3s a monkey wrench in the "Everyone can buy an assault rifle in the US" argument out the window dont it.

Someone asked if the naval yard is a gun free zone, why were the guards armed.

A maximum security prison is a gun free zone, yet some of the guards are armed with guns. The county court house here is a gun free zone, but they are armed deputies at the security check point.

A military installation is a gun free zone unless your duties require you to carry a side arm or a rifle, such as guard detail. Those are the only personnel who carry firearms.

To continue:

Schools are gun free zones, police enter schools with firearms.

Many stores are gun free zones, which means even with my permit to carry, I cannot take a gun into those establishments, but police can.

See the trend here?



igor2003 -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 8:04:58 AM)

--FR— (thoughts inspired by one of tweakabelle’s post, but not directed at it.)

The root causes of so many mass shootings, I think, are multiple and can’t be placed at the feet of any one cause, and to try to point your finger at any one thing and try to change it and it alone, especially to the detriment of legal, law abiding citizens, is unfair, is not going to work, and is going to be met with great resistance.

Mental health issues do seem to be a large factor in the mass shootings. Availability of guns is another. Soft targets, or gun free zones, seems to factor in, as well as other assorted issues, some of which are more pertinent to some shootings than to others.

One thing that is rarely even touched on, when causes or roots of mass shootings is discussed, is how the first amendment might factor in to the equation.

Sixty to eighty years ago mass shootings were a rare occurrence. What was happening in the entertainment media at that time? Cowboy movies and TV shows were common. Gunsmoke, The Rifleman, Rawhide, Have Gun Will Travel, Bonanza, High Noon, Roy Rogers, Hoppalong Cassidy, the Lone Ranger, and many other shoot-em-up shows were the “in” thing. The stars of those shows were the “heroes” of the day. There were lots of blazing guns and shoot outs. And the good guys in the white hats always won. Mass shootings were rare in spite of the popularity of guns. One of the favorite toys for little boys (and some girls) was a toy six shooter.

But what is the media like today? There is Gangster rap where carrying a gun and shooting your rival “just because” is glorified. Blood and guts video games. Games where it is popular to “be” the bad guy and fight the cops and you get points for “killing” them. Little boys no longer settle for cap guns…they want the real thing.

Is it really any wonder that when someone with existing mental issues “snaps”, they turn to what is popular and ingrained in the media of the day?

The anti-gun people seem to see the gun as being the only common denominator in the shootings, and they are willing to tread all over the second amendment to try to end the gun violence. But what about making some changes to the first amendment? Is there a possibility that changes need to be made there as well? And would the people that are so eager to mess with the second amendment be just as willing to make changes to the first amendment if it means fewer mass shootings?

And when people have mental health issues of any kind, should it be a law that authorities be notified? In the interest of public safety, should that person’s personal freedom be trumped? Sex offenders are required to register and their location is a matter of public record for reasons of public safety. Would it not also be a matter of public safety to let it be known where all the “nut cases” are located?

So what is the answer? Trying to “fix” any one of the causes of mass shootings by treading on the rights of law abiding citizens is a dangerous and slippery slope. Is removing or abridging the rights of millions of citizens necessary and desirable to try to stop the shootings? Is re-writing the Constitution the answer? I hope not. But it almost seems that to get the results that some people want, the only answer is to start taking away the rights granted to the United States citizens through Constitution, a few at a time. Or are mass shootings and similar events the prices paid for those freedoms and rights? I have a hard time seeing any middle ground.



MasterCaneman -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 8:40:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

And they wouldn't have to have their weapons with them at all times. How hard is it to decentralize storage and have them near their work stations? Put a gunsafe in the CO's or chief NCO's office and you maintain control.

Weapons are kept locked in the armory and under the supervision of of an officer and a staff nco...Is it possible that there is a reason for this?

Of course. Carrying around a long arm is a PITA when you're performing your normal duties. Regulations stipulate that weapons and ammunition be kept safely stored. My argument is that by decentralizing the safe storage areas, you make the weapons that the personnel are trained to operate are more accessible to them in cases like this. I put this forward as a cost-saving measure: each member of the armed forces cost the taxpayer a lot of money to train, and to have them shot down like fish in a barrel is counterproductive.

They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency.



DesideriScuri -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 8:44:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
The anti-gun people seem to see the gun as being the only common denominator in the shootings, and they are willing to tread all over the second amendment to try to end the gun violence. But what about making some changes to the first amendment? Is there a possibility that changes need to be made there as well? And would the people that are so eager to mess with the second amendment be just as willing to make changes to the first amendment if it means fewer mass shootings?


You're talking about changing an Amendment. That would require another amendment. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be amended, just stating the monumental task it would be.

quote:

And when people have mental health issues of any kind, should it be a law that authorities be notified? In the interest of public safety, should that person’s personal freedom be trumped? Sex offenders are required to register and their location is a matter of public record for reasons of public safety. Would it not also be a matter of public safety to let it be known where all the “nut cases” are located?


There is a huge difference between "nut cases" and most people with "mental health issues of any kind."

http://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20111019/use-of-antidepressants-on-the-rise-in-the-us
    quote:

    About 11% of Americans aged 12 or older take antidepressants, including many who have not seen a mental health professional in the past year, according to a new federal report.
    The report by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics also says that the rate of antidepressant use in the U.S. has increased nearly 400% since 1988.


http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-America/index.shtml
    quote:

    Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.
    Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness.


I'm sure this information on one-quarter of the population wouldn't be used for any non-safety uses. You are, too, right? lol

I understand the point, and see the benefit to an extent, but it's an invasion of privacy that I wouldn't want.

Would you want your fetish to be broadcast to your local police (let alone State or National LEO's)?

quote:

So what is the answer? Trying to “fix” any one of the causes of mass shootings by treading on the rights of law abiding citizens is a dangerous and slippery slope. Is removing or abridging the rights of millions of citizens necessary and desirable to try to stop the shootings? Is re-writing the Constitution the answer? I hope not. But it almost seems that to get the results that some people want, the only answer is to start taking away the rights granted to the United States citizens through Constitution, a few at a time. Or are mass shootings and similar events the prices paid for those freedoms and rights? I have a hard time seeing any middle ground.


Is there a problem? Certainly. Is removing guns from law-abiding citizens the answer? I certainly don't think so. There have been many different options bandied about on the gun/anti-gun threads here. An improved mental health system would help, but it would only help those who used it. Increased storage requirements would help, but would that solve all the problems? Nope. Improved background checks would help, but even those won't solve the issue.

It's a complex issue, and will require a solution that encompasses several different strategies.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 10:45:30 AM)

A yes or no flag in a national database for the purpose of determining background checks gives no details. Your credit report invades your privacy more than it would. If it is kept at yes or no, and proceedings allowed to be brought before a judge in the case of exceptions, then I do not see where it would be much of an issue. The ones that would oppose are the ones that would oppose any law no matter how common sense because their cry is "if we allow this then eventually they will take all our guns", which I hear a lot around the Missouri area I am in living in now.

If the yes or no flag in a national database were in place, and the background check tied into it, would it have averted this shooting or others?

I am with Tweak on this and we need to find productive ways to make it safer. Ways that are not extreme, nor would cause a challenge with substance to the 2nd amendment.



BamaD -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 10:54:43 AM)

n



DomKen -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 11:10:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A gun free zone means no guns. There were people carrying guns, they were some of the people shot as the shooter took their weapons...

According to Yahoo News (quoted previously) and NBC you're making shit up again.
    None of the fatalities is reported to be military personnel. The rest of the injured individuals suffered non-life threatening injuries and are expected to recover. ~NBC
According to CBS, all of the dead were office workers and none of the wounded were military personnel.
    In addition to those killed, at least three people - a police officer and two female civilians - were wounded. They were listed in stable condition and were expected to survive ~CBS
Unless all three sources are in error, no military personnel were either wounded or killed.

K.

So? Civilian employees and contractors are still under the authority of the base command and would not be allowed to carry weapons unless the admiral in charge lost his mind.



DesideriScuri -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 11:23:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
A yes or no flag in a national database for the purpose of determining background checks gives no details. Your credit report invades your privacy more than it would. If it is kept at yes or no, and proceedings allowed to be brought before a judge in the case of exceptions, then I do not see where it would be much of an issue. The ones that would oppose are the ones that would oppose any law no matter how common sense because their cry is "if we allow this then eventually they will take all our guns", which I hear a lot around the Missouri area I am in living in now.
If the yes or no flag in a national database were in place, and the background check tied into it, would it have averted this shooting or others?
I am with Tweak on this and we need to find productive ways to make it safer. Ways that are not extreme, nor would cause a challenge with substance to the 2nd amendment.


A yes or no flag for what? Mental health issues? Is everyone suffering from depression a high enough risk that they are barred from their right to own a firearm? Same for an Exhibitionist? A Voyeur?

There are people who are suffering from mental health issues that should be prevented from gaining access to a firearm. That isn't in question. But, what mental health issues will flag that? How will one get the flag removed after successful treatment of the problem?

If a person tries to get a gun after they get flagged (which is the case here), that purchase could be prevented. However, if the guy was set on this, then all he had to do was knife the guard, and then he'd have the guard's gun(s) like he did anyway. The spree continues.

The Sandy Hook nutjob stole his Mom's guns. No flags would have prevented that. Even if you flag her because of him, his mental health issues were after the guns were already owned.

My concern is that any blanket "mental health" flag would remove the rights of law abiding citizens. I do not support a blanket solution for that. I do support some sort of solution that takes mental health into account, though. The problem is, what counts?



BamaD -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 11:39:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

A yes or no flag in a national database for the purpose of determining background checks gives no details. Your credit report invades your privacy more than it would. If it is kept at yes or no, and proceedings allowed to be brought before a judge in the case of exceptions, then I do not see where it would be much of an issue. The ones that would oppose are the ones that would oppose any law no matter how common sense because their cry is "if we allow this then eventually they will take all our guns", which I hear a lot around the Missouri area I am in living in now.

If the yes or no flag in a national database were in place, and the background check tied into it, would it have averted this shooting or others?

I am with Tweak on this and we need to find productive ways to make it safer. Ways that are not extreme, nor would cause a challenge with substance to the 2nd amendment.

It could have prevented him from getting the shotgun.
Though with the apparent surprise he had going for him a knife might have gotten him the handguns.



BamaD -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 11:42:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
A yes or no flag in a national database for the purpose of determining background checks gives no details. Your credit report invades your privacy more than it would. If it is kept at yes or no, and proceedings allowed to be brought before a judge in the case of exceptions, then I do not see where it would be much of an issue. The ones that would oppose are the ones that would oppose any law no matter how common sense because their cry is "if we allow this then eventually they will take all our guns", which I hear a lot around the Missouri area I am in living in now.
If the yes or no flag in a national database were in place, and the background check tied into it, would it have averted this shooting or others?
I am with Tweak on this and we need to find productive ways to make it safer. Ways that are not extreme, nor would cause a challenge with substance to the 2nd amendment.


A yes or no flag for what? Mental health issues? Is everyone suffering from depression a high enough risk that they are barred from their right to own a firearm? Same for an Exhibitionist? A Voyeur?

There are people who are suffering from mental health issues that should be prevented from gaining access to a firearm. That isn't in question. But, what mental health issues will flag that? How will one get the flag removed after successful treatment of the problem?

If a person tries to get a gun after they get flagged (which is the case here), that purchase could be prevented. However, if the guy was set on this, then all he had to do was knife the guard, and then he'd have the guard's gun(s) like he did anyway. The spree continues.

The Sandy Hook nutjob stole his Mom's guns. No flags would have prevented that. Even if you flag her because of him, his mental health issues were after the guns were already owned.

My concern is that any blanket "mental health" flag would remove the rights of law abiding citizens. I do not support a blanket solution for that. I do support some sort of solution that takes mental health into account, though. The problem is, what counts?


Depression shouldn't count, but hearing voices should.



DomKen -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 2:04:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency.

And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons.



EdBowie -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 2:18:47 PM)

That would account for the increase in them.


Does the media overseas run incessant footage of shootings from years ago, leaving the 'Live!' and 'Breaking News!' tags up as they do here?

Do they talk about the 'epidemic' of schoolyard/workplace shootings based on the fraction of a percent that actually makes up the problem? Do they talk about 'studies' that list every incident of a police officer or store owner shooting a criminal during a crime in progress as 'acquaintance shootings'?

And do they create cults of personality around the shooters by sensationalizing the most mundane aspects of their life into 'warning signs' and symbols of being 'dangerous'?



quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Copy-catting in reaction to media sensationalization of previous shootings seems a likely answer to 'what did they want to achieve?'.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Another element was the perpetrators wanted to achieve something





This might account for a few incidents, but hardly for all of them. Another problem with this explanation is that if fails to account for the lack of copy cat incidents outside the US. If copy cats were the explanation, one would expect to see this pattern replicated overseas.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 3:08:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
A yes or no flag in a national database for the purpose of determining background checks gives no details. Your credit report invades your privacy more than it would. If it is kept at yes or no, and proceedings allowed to be brought before a judge in the case of exceptions, then I do not see where it would be much of an issue. The ones that would oppose are the ones that would oppose any law no matter how common sense because their cry is "if we allow this then eventually they will take all our guns", which I hear a lot around the Missouri area I am in living in now.
If the yes or no flag in a national database were in place, and the background check tied into it, would it have averted this shooting or others?
I am with Tweak on this and we need to find productive ways to make it safer. Ways that are not extreme, nor would cause a challenge with substance to the 2nd amendment.


A yes or no flag for what? Mental health issues? Is everyone suffering from depression a high enough risk that they are barred from their right to own a firearm? Same for an Exhibitionist? A Voyeur?


These questions are best left to a panel of healthcare professionals to determine.

quote:


There are people who are suffering from mental health issues that should be prevented from gaining access to a firearm. That isn't in question. But, what mental health issues will flag that? How will one get the flag removed after successful treatment of the problem?


Easy to update database that medical professionals would have access to, and depending on guidelines they would update them at the appropriate times.

quote:


If a person tries to get a gun after they get flagged (which is the case here), that purchase could be prevented. However, if the guy was set on this, then all he had to do was knife the guard, and then he'd have the guard's gun(s) like he did anyway. The spree continues.


Knifing the guard would be a lot more difficult. These are not things to completely prevent, but make it more difficult and hopefully safer.

quote:


The Sandy Hook nutjob stole his Mom's guns. No flags would have prevented that. Even if you flag her because of him, his mental health issues were after the guns were already owned.


You are correct it would not work there, but would it have helped in the Navy Yard shooting is the question.

quote:


My concern is that any blanket "mental health" flag would remove the rights of law abiding citizens. I do not support a blanket solution for that. I do support some sort of solution that takes mental health into account, though. The problem is, what counts?



Medical professionals in the mental health area would be needed to work that out. If the flags only hit what that panel, or whatever determines then it would be law abiding citizens that needed their rights temporarily suspended. What is determined to be flagged or not should be in the law and not something that can be changed unless a new law is passed. You could also put an expiration on the law so that it can be checked to see if it has actually helped.



jlf1961 -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 3:13:48 PM)

Well the people that only see the gun as the common denominator in these mass shootings are correct. Guns are psychic creatures who take over the minds of their owners.

My 12 gauge keeps telling me to hunt the asshole who created "here comes Honey boo-boo" and fill his ass with rock salt and ghost pepper flakes.



leonine -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 4:11:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

Sixty to eighty years ago mass shootings were a rare occurrence. What was happening in the entertainment media at that time? Cowboy movies and TV shows were common. Gunsmoke, The Rifleman, Rawhide, Have Gun Will Travel, Bonanza, High Noon, Roy Rogers, Hoppalong Cassidy, the Lone Ranger, and many other shoot-em-up shows were the “in” thing. The stars of those shows were the “heroes” of the day. There were lots of blazing guns and shoot outs. And the good guys in the white hats always won. Mass shootings were rare in spite of the popularity of guns. One of the favorite toys for little boys (and some girls) was a toy six shooter.

But what is the media like today? There is Gangster rap where carrying a gun and shooting your rival “just because” is glorified. Blood and guts video games. Games where it is popular to “be” the bad guy and fight the cops and you get points for “killing” them. Little boys no longer settle for cap guns…they want the real thing.

Is it really any wonder that when someone with existing mental issues “snaps”, they turn to what is popular and ingrained in the media of the day?



And yet, we have just the same games and most of the same TV shows here and in much of Europe, but shooting rampages are extremely rare.

I'd be tempted to put it down to gun control, but when Michael Moore looked into this (from an unashamed anti-gun agenda) he had to admit that Canada has as many guns as the US (and, of course, the same media culture) but a fraction of the shootings. He couldn't explain it either.



Nosathro -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 5:20:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

So we have yet another mass killing of helpless people in a gun-free zone,

GUN FREE ZONE! When will stop making shit up!

A gun-free zone, that's right. Lowercase. As in a location where for whatever reason the carrying of firearms is forbidden.

Let's not go through the Gun Free School Zones Act again. That rabbit ain't in the hat anymore.

K.



So you make up these definitions to justify your arguments[sm=lame.gif]



popeye1250 -> RE: US Navy Shootings. (9/18/2013 5:29:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

Aaron Alexis tried to buy assault rifle but was unable to

Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis tried to buy an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week after test firing one, but the store wouldn't sell it to him right away, CBS News has learned.

The reason for the refusal isn't clear.

Alexis then purchased a shotgun he used in his rampage, sources tell CBS News.

The owners of two gun stores in Virginia told CBS News Alexis would have been able to buy an AR-15, he just wouldn't have gotten it right away.

Anyone can buy the assault-style weapon in Virginia, but the dealer would have to observe the laws of the buyer's home state.

It appears unlikely Alexis was a Virginia resident. His last reported full-time residency was in Texas.

If the buyer is an out-of-state resident, the dealer would then ship the weapon to the buyer's home state where a background check would be conducted. At the time of purchase in Virginia, however, the buyer would have to show two proofs of residence with matching addresses and then a proof of citizenship. This is all according to federal law when it comes to sales of the AR-15, which are administered by the ATF.


Source


Kinda throw3s a monkey wrench in the "Everyone can buy an assault rifle in the US" argument out the window dont it.

Someone asked if the naval yard is a gun free zone, why were the guards armed.

A maximum security prison is a gun free zone, yet some of the guards are armed with guns. The county court house here is a gun free zone, but they are armed deputies at the security check point.

A military installation is a gun free zone unless your duties require you to carry a side arm or a rifle, such as guard detail. Those are the only personnel who carry firearms.

To continue:

Schools are gun free zones, police enter schools with firearms.

Many stores are gun free zones, which means even with my permit to carry, I cannot take a gun into those establishments, but police can.

See the trend here?

Jlf, I don't want to play that game, I'm carrying.
I don't ever want to get what must be a "sinking feeling" in your stomach as you hear multiple shots go off in a store and ten minutes earlier you tucked your .45 under the seat of your vehicle because the store had a "No Firearms" sign on the front door.
Odd how one's rights can end as you walk through a commercial business doorway.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625