.

If you have ever been to VB recently, I'd want a gun too. That's where people from the ghetto go for vaca.

Key,

I guess you used your right to not own a firearm? You obviously enjoy using your first amendment right. Racism is everywhere and it comes in all colors. The vast majority of us are not racist, but we get lumped into that category because we own guns. You should loosen up and not be so racist. There's good in just about everyone. It's your choice whether to see it or not.

If he offered 15% to all who served in the military.... or who donated blood...or had a food drivegoing...I could repect this "gimmick".

Sorry...the place looks like a dump...

If the sign just says "Gun" Bring a toy gun in and demand your discount!

Free security.

Well, 15% discount, so he is losing money.

"You're either on one side or the other and it seems like more politicians are against us rather than for us.

So ... there is no middle ground? If you don't carry a gun you are automatically opposed to the entire Second Amendment?

An we wonder why this country is in trouble. Sheesh!

All these people have been finger printed, and passed all local, state, and Federal FBI background checks... including myself... It's all the people who DON"T have a permit are the ones I worry about!!!

RI Mom, I'll keep an eye out for a pizza joint in RI that is offering discounts to all whiny crybabies! I'll give you the 411 if I find one.

"Not everyone who owns a gun is dangerous,"

Thankfully he didn't give a percentage.

1.20 Blue

We're smart enough in RI to know when a gun gimmick is worthless.

Also...we make FANTASTIC pizza...

Our Federal Hill is a gourmet delight place to enjoy a group of restaurants, pizzarias, and markets that don't need 15% discounts to attract discriminating diners.

We aren't the ones whining about guns... Mr.Jay Lanze has the booger in his brain about this.

RI,

If you knew the laws at all, you would know that it is illegal to consume alcohol and be in possession of a firearm. Notice that not one single person in there was consuming alcohol.

What's the betting line on how long before an accidental discharge? Even hard-core gun proponents hate it when people show up with loaded guns in their store: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKbgirZaXnc

ngiotta. True. There are anti-gun nuts too.

RI Mom

The owner is threatened that 90% + of Americans are for universal gun controls, and an overwhelming majority of Americans want restrictions on semi-automatics or their capacity magazines.

Where does this crap come from 90%+? I can't find anyone from Texas that is for any knid of gun control, unless you are getting confused about the "Real" gun control.

1. Use both hand for a firm grip.

2. Proper stance is crucial.

3. Slowly squeeze the trigger so as not to jerk the gun off target.

4. Hit waht you aim at.

A word of caution to RI Mom, I suggest that if you are uncomfortable being around guns that you do not visit us here in NH. More of us are armed than you would suspect. I am often armed when out in public but not that you would notice. Why? I find it personally far more reassuring that I am at least a bit prepared should I encounter a need to defend myself or those in my care. And yes, I am prior military and I am trained on several weapon systems and methods of both defense and offense. In the many years that I have carried a gun in the US I’ve only had one occasion to draw my weapon. That was to defuse a situation where a drunk was beating up his girlfriend and then threatened those of us who would intervene. He was held at gunpoint until the arrival of the local police. While it was not my job to lock him up I felt a moral obligation to save the life of the defenseless victim. Fortunately for the attacker he very early recognized the real probability of my preparedness to use deadly force. I too am for background checks for all who would own a gun. Too bad we couldn’t do that for the irresponsible parents that raise gang bangers. I am also for stricter penalties for those that commit crimes – both with and without guns. For some reason our society has gotten to the point that spending time in prison is not thought of as quite so bad anymore. Personally I believe prison should be a severe penalty not someplace we send people to be rehabilitated. You can’t rehabilitate if someone was not habilitated in the first place. I am not for registering any weapon with any government official. While the present administration may not try to gather up all guns, the next one or the one after that may. Once the weapons are registered they certainly can’t be un-registered. We’ve seen that scenario play out in many other countries. You are also wrong about an overwhelming majority of Americans want restrictions on semi-automatics high capacity magazines. Those who actually bother to educate themselves find out the government statistics on weapons used in crimes indicate we should be banning blunt objects such as hammers over firearms. As someone who also does some of their own home repairs I am not inclined to register my hammer either.

So ... there is no middle ground? If you don't carry a gun you are automatically opposed to the entire Second Amendment?

Looks that way, doesn't it?

An we wonder why this country is in trouble. Sheesh!

One of many reasons, IMO. Wish there was more middle ground; I'm a 2nd amendment supporter and gun owner, yet I could talk about some limits on gun types with reasonable people who know something about guns - same goes with "high-capacity magazines," too. But according to many Viner's the fact that I'm a gun owner automatically puts me in the "gun nut" category (see R.I. Mom for example). So I know how you feel; not sure what to do about it though.

RI,

"Total murders1"

Alaska 29

Arizona 339

Arkansas 153

California 1,790

Colorado 147

Connecticut 128

Delaware 41

District of Columbia 108

Georgia 522

Hawaii 7

Idaho 32

Illinois3 452

Indiana 284

Iowa 44

Kansas 110

Kentucky 150

Louisiana 485

Maine 25

Maryland 398

Massachusetts 183

Michigan 613

Minnesota 70

Mississippi 187

Missouri 364

Montana 18

Nebraska 65

Nevada 129

New Hampshire 16

New Jersey 379

New Mexico 121

New York 774

North Carolina 489

North Dakota 12

Ohio 488

Oklahoma 204

Oregon 77

Pennsylvania 636

Rhode Island 14

South Carolina 319

South Dakota 15

Tennessee 373

Texas 1,089

Utah 51

Vermont 8

Virginia 303

Washington 161

West Virginia 74

Wisconsin 135

Wyoming 15

Virgin Islands 38

Also, you need to add in the nearly 500 murders for Chicago into the IL total for 2011. Chicago data was not reported to the FBI.

To everyone who has expressed anger and shock over this business owners decision, and the choice these gun owners made to carry, I would like to say the following,

The owner gave a discount to carrying customers, the owner is not giving a discount to customers who commit murder, mass shootings, threaten other customers, fire their guns without just cause, or who handle their firearms in an unsafe manner (with the exception of the lady whose hands are too full to carry a pizza, the others are holstered.

So I must ask, why the uproar? These customers drove to his store without running anyone over, opened his door without smashing it in anyone's face, and carried a gun without harming anyone.

I repeat, no one was hurt, no one was in any more danger than they usually face driving to an establishment and consuming a high cholesterol food.

Why the rage against these gun owners?

Why the rage against this store owner?

Who is more of a danger? A citizen following the law and practicing proper firearm safety? Or you folks with the hate and the rage?

Can't we all just enjoy our pizza calmly? If the gun owners are responsible enough to refrain from shooting off their guns, can not you refrain from shooting off your mouth?

Thank you,

(a reader wishing for a calmer community)

RI,

If DAWG knew anything... DAWG would look up this Pizza Joint.... and see the BEER menu...then DAWG might find a photo of all the patrons drinking MILK

A person can be inside a place of business that sells alcoholic beverages while in possession of a firearm. A person must secure that firearm and not be in possession of a firearm if they are going to consume alcohol. How about the Democratic Utopia of Chicago where the Police union fought to allow their officers to be on duty with less than a .08 BAC? How does that make you feel. The cops are allowed to drive and carry their guns while under the influence. 1 of those it is illegal for citizens to do, but give a person a badge and they can do both. Makes sense right?

RI,

No business owner in their right mind would collect and store a patron's firearm so they can consume alcohol. They would then be responsible for giving it back to the patron and therefore liable for some kind of accident whether vehicular or gun related. By secure, I mean unloaded and locked in a glove box or safe within the vehicle or left at home if the plan is to have a drink. Some of the things us law abiding think about unlike the gang bangers and other criminals that roll around drunk or high.

RI,

You really are dense aren't you. If anyone has an alcoholic beverage then they can't have a firearm on there person whether loaded or unloaded. Also, the business owner could get into legal trouble if they serve someone with a firearm. Possibly lose their liquor license.

"it is illegal to consume alcohol and be in possession of a firearm"

Isn't that a restriction on the right to bear arms? The NRA should be championing a beer and bullets convention. Might thin out the breed.

RI Mom

Your hatred of guns is very evident. Let me give you some friendly advice.....get over it. Guns are not going anywhere nor is any significant gun control legislation going to pass. You can cry all you want over the issue but it nor any of you other anti gun "nuts" are going to get your way. Just admit defeat with some dignity and go on to some other silly liberal agenda.

RI Mom,

I am wondering if you have any experience that takes you away from you little safe spot in RI? I am asking because the typical liberal agenda is derived from Idealistic notions where "the world would be a better place if only this or that were so". Yes, I would have to agree except the world will not allow us they Utopia some people long for.

For example take a look at Mali where the Extremest Muslim just left a place where the Islamic laws were imposed and left behind a pool of blood and suffering. The world is much more complicated than anything that could be found in RI.

I recently had a nephew who was murdered on his front porch who lived two blocks away from the University in Baton Rouge. He was having a smoke before bed when two (black) men walked out of the darkness and demanded to enter his home where his young wife and three week old son were. He ran for the door and was shot in the back. He managed to close the door as he was dying.

The boy was 23, a musician, songwriter, and a pacifist. These gunthugs are still loose in Baton Rouge and have committed cruel murder of an unarmed father. He is a hero in having saved his family, but unfortunately he will never see his son or the son see his father.

I have a CHL which means several things. I am a solid citizen without criminal record, and I am expected to uphold my self in a higher degree of responsibility. Criminals who are loose on the streets are there because of liberals letting them out of jails with soft laws and punishments. Chicago is not the bloody city it is because of the number of guns there, it is so because of the number of criminals walking the streets.

If the cops would actively hunt these people down, stop them on the streets and search them and whenever a gun is found, throw away the key to the jail after you lock them up. If they resist, shoot them down and use the carcass for fertilizer on Lake Shore Drive.

Lazarus

I bring a very big 'gun' withme everywhere I go. If they start offering discounts for people carrying I'll be one rich dude! ;)

Are you certain there are laws against drinking while in possession of a gun? I've never seen such laws.

It's certainly not true in Texas - remember Dick Cheney drinking and shooting his attorney friend in the face?

Assuming Dawgfan's statistics are correct about homicide rates per state, I took it one step further and calculated the murder rate per square mile, that is divide the homicide rate by the square milage of the state. So for instance Chicago being listed as a land area of 234 square miles, and last years homicide statistics being 500 (+), that would yield a statistic of 2.14 homicides per square mile. As a size comparison Washington DC is listed as 68.5 square miles.

Rhode Island - 1,214 square miles - homicide rate .01 per square mile

Alaska - 663,268 square miles - homicide rate .000043 per square mile

Texas - 268,581 square miles - homicide rate .004 per square mile

Michigan - 96,716 square miles - homicide rate .01 per square mile

Illinois ( without Chicago ) - 57,680 - homicide rate .01 per square mile

This means Rhode Island has the same murder rate as Michigan and Illinois per land mass equalavency. So much for Progressive ideas concerning gun control measures to limit homicide rates in their respective states.

One of many reasons, IMO. Wish there was more middle ground; I'm a 2nd amendment supporter and gun owner, yet I could talk about some limits on gun types with reasonable people who know something about guns - same goes with "high-capacity magazines," too. But according to many Viner's the fact that I'm a gun owner automatically puts me in the "gun nut" category (see R.I. Mom for example). So I know how you feel; not sure what to do about it though.

Use that same scenario for me ... and yet you have a high number Viners who say I'm "anti-second amendment" because I talk about REASONABLE rules that place the RESPONSIBILITY of owning a gun on the gun owner. Not keeping them from owning them, just making them responsible for them. So ... I sure wish we could do something about it as well. I think the extremism (on both sides) is a bigger problem for our country than about anything else. We are paralyzed because of it.

1.44
Instead of "assuming"...you could have easily looked up the CORRECT ratio.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

What are you trying to prove Steve Herbert?

I did a few more calculations for homicide rates per square mile for a few more states, as per Dawgfan's statistics.

Pennsylvania - .01 per square mile. New York - .01 per square mile. Massachusetts - .02 per square mile. Iowa - .0007 per square mile. Wyoming- .0001 per square mile. What can be inferred? The more space a person has to live in, the less likely they are to be a homicide victim. I would also respectfully submit the idea, that the less space they live in, the more likely they are to be a victim of handgun violence. ( Note Chicago from previous post. ) The areas of densest population tend to be enclaves of historic Democrat political machines, eroding manufacturing industry, and located east of the Mississippi River and/or Ohio River basin. Other densely packed populations, in Texas, or California would show high homicide figures for their areas as well.

What to do next? Well calculate the population density per square mile, associate that with the homicide rate so you end up with a homicide rate per population density, and then apply that math to your legislative thinking about the issue. In the figures I've presented one can see that it is far safer to live in Alaska in terms of homicide. In other occupational statistics, such as commercial fishing, forestry, or mining, it is a more dangerous place to work.

Alaska has a LOT of space....#2nd in Homicide deaths right after Washington DC...but keep tapping away on your calculator.

BTW: Rhode Island VS. Michigan....not even close.

Wait.... you are just spoofing with those posts and trying to punk us....aren't you?

Steve

Murders per square mile is the silliest statistic you could think of. You are a comedian, right?

1.41
Ohhhh Larry...
You asked....

Yes.... NY CT LA TX FL & RI.... and overseas.

Only the clueless make assumptions.

BTW: In Louisiana : Belle cHase (outside of New Orleans) and Moss Bluff (outside of Lake Charles).
I've been in 49 States... and 2 Territories.

How did the murderer get the gun in LA? Did someone not report it when it was stolen? A straw sale? A private sale?

Only "liberals" enable criminals ? What factual info proves that?

Ease up on the assumptions...

Number cruncher STEVE HERBERT made assumptions based on DAWG... and that just got him messed up:
Twice!

.
.
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-laws-policies/fifty-state-comparisons/

RI Mom and Ferrosynthesis... Obviously both of you didn't do well in math. Take your ''average" Congressman in the House of Representatives. They represent a district right? They calculate the size of the district by the population, and thus large metro populations have more population in less space. In science this can be expressed as people per square mile, or people per acre, or people per square foot. My calculation was based on people per square mile, but you can convert that to square feet if you so choose.

The area of the state, and population of the state are statistics readily available. The amount of land in the Kenai, Alaska city limits is the same as the amount of land in the Los Angeles, California city limits. These areas of property are for tax assessment purposes. Washington DC encompasses 68.3 square miles, is less populated than LA, ( total population ), but more populated than Kenai, Alaska, though smaller in geographic scope than Kenai. The Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska, has a land mass of 40,000 square miles, or roughly the size of West Virginia, but a population density of probably around 50,000. This is why Don Young is Alaska's sole representative in the US House, whereas New York City would have a number of representatives in the US House.

So in the case of Rhode Island with an incident of 14 murders, and 1,214 square mile area, you divide the later into the former for a rate of .01 homicides per square mile. In the case of Michigan with a homicide rate of 616 and an area of 96,716 square miles, you get a homicide rate of .01. .01 = .01, and it's the same for Pennsylvania, New York, and Illinois. Massachusetts has a higher rate at .02 homicides per square mile. These do not come close to Chicago's homicide rate per square mile.

Alaska has, let me remind you, over 30,000 miles of coastline. You're in fantasy land serious if you think the Potomac River drainage ( Washington DC ) has any equivalency, for murder rates per linear mile, square mile, or cubic mile if you consider those shot in a flying airplane. I'm retired, but a biologist. As a biologist you express yourself in terms of individuals per area, i.e. 50 rabbits per square mile, 50 deer per square mile, 50 rats per acre, etc. To say, " Chicago has a statistic of over two homicides per square mile. ", is the equivalent of a farmer expressing pounds of fertilizer an acre.

"Take the pizza and shove it down the throats of all the NRA leaders!"

Why Bart, are the peace lovers the violent posters on gun threads.

Steve...keep posting
until someone backs up your statistical theories on gun homicides.

It might be awhile.

To pass the time:
You might want to have a BEER and Pizza at Pizza Boy's establishment in Virginia Beach..... you can discuss your math with the BEER drinking gun crowd.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove .... but I admire your analogy on rabbits....and fertilizer.

RI Mom... Dawgfan provided the homicide statistics, this post, per state. The individual states land area can be found by typing in the state's name on Google search, and looking at "area". You then enter Dawgfan's statistic for that state's homicides, and divide by the area of that state, and you'll get your answer state by state. If you are interested in a city's population, or land mass area, for larger cities like Washington DC, or Chicago, type the city's name into search. I assume you have a pocket calculator available, and conversion tables available, to convert area such as square miles, into square feet, or acres, or whatever.

Steve

Empty land with no people means nothing here. The only statistic that matters is murders per population. Murders per pound of dirt is totally meaningless. If you are really a biologist, then I am convinced you are a comedian. Who cares about the number of miles of coastline if there are no people on that coastline. Chicago has a lot of murders per square mile because there are a lot of people per square mile. This is really easy. That's why I think you're kidding.

Ferrosynthesis... According to RI Mom, Alaska was second to Washington DC in homicide rates. You finally get my point, " population per area ". Ok, now that you have that concept down, compare similar population densities, such as the homicide rate in Chicago with the homicide rate in Philadelphia, and then start drawing conclusions. Comparing the homicide rate in Chicago with the homicide rate in Lincoln, Nebraska isn't going to give you much to work with. Comparing homicide rates with type of firearm, such as handguns for instance, and homicide rates for long guns in heavy populated areas vs. sparsely populated areas will give you statistics, and when you pour through these you'll find that handgun use in heavily populated areas account for a higher degree of homicides than assault type rifle homicides. ( These statistics are per 1000 population ) so Chicago's homicide rate alone would equal the area of a good number of state's landmass.

If a federal law proposal restricting long guns goes to debate however, even though long guns are a minor factor in homicide deaths overall, the amount of land mass affected isn't the land mass of Chicago, it's the equivalent land mass of numerous states, when it comes to congressional representation. Congress needs to look at it's lands as its source of resources; the amount of timber, oil, minerals, food and farm products, fisheries, hydropower, etc., and view areas like Alaska, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and other population sparse areas not as a gun homicide problem, but as rich resources of the nation's demand for raw materials. They aren't killing themselves off like the population of Chicago is killing itself off.

So the gun homicide problem the nation faces, mostly is in more densely populated areas such as Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, East St. Louis, etc. A lot of the problem has to do with gangs, poor literacy rates, and cramped living areas, decaying living areas, and areas of high unemployment due to collapsed manufacturing industry. Is an Alaskan fisherman with a rifle in his boat going to change that status? Nope. An Alaskan fisherman is just doing his part to get canned salmon into your grocery store. It's not to say it can't happen, but it's not likely an Alaskan fisherman is going to shoot someone in Chicago with a rifle either, ( from a statistical perspective ). Is an Alaska fisherman going to upgrade your cramped and decaying living areas, create inner city employment, and rekindle manufacturing in your city? It's not to say it can't happen, but it's not likely. But what is more likely to happen, a congressman from a large city who doesn't know a damn thing about commercial fishing, or guns, can cast a detrimental vote to salmon in the nation's food supply, through his gun vote. They don't carry guns in Alaska worrying about gangs, they carry guns in Alaska thinking about bears.

It's apparent to me that there are many with opinions who don't know how to convert, as in cups to pints, pints to quarts, quarts to gallons. Inches, to feet, feet to yards, yards to miles. Ounces to pounds, pounds to tons. So if you were asked, " If a pint of water weighed a pound, how many pints would be in a ton of water? How many gallons of water would be in a ton of water?" It's not comedy.

Opean defiance of Obozo's goal to destroy the Constitution of the United States by his gun grab

Good Morning Steve,
I like you.
You put a lot of thought in your posts.... no slurs, insults, or attacks.

Here are a couple of links...the first one should please you

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/07/gun-death-data-points-in-both-directions/
.
.

This one is for comparisons:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
..

.
.
This one is frightening...check it DAILY:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
.
.

This one for posters like WITCHKING & his ilk:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.
.
.
And again:
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-laws-policies/fifty-state-comparisons/

Yes..this story has gotten media attention...here and abroad.

The Huffington Post ran an article about AllAround Pizz and Deli...a place that emphasizes its huge selection of BEERS,

Here is from their comments section:

AMHM
0 Fans
18 hours ago ( 5:58 PM)
I live in Newtown CT, one mile from Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Our hearts are broken. We can't drive through town, watch the news or send our children to school without thinking about 12/14. Everyone cries and nightmares haunt us ALL.
The world has reached out to us with the most amazing acts of kindness. They have been overwhelmingly thoughtful and generous, we can't be more thankful.
Please don't let the ignorance of a guy selling pizza exploit and overshadow the loss of 20 children and 6 teachers to get attention, promote guns and make money.

.
.
.
Seriously...what will Mr. Lanze accomplish with this gimmick?

BEER
and
GUNS

For DAWGFAN
and his buddy
Steve Herbert

http://on.aol.com/video/gun-owners-get-discount-at-va--beach-pizza-shop-517677371

.
.Jay Laze in this video is gearing up for his 15% sales by moving cases of beer around.

Seriously...is this really a smart way to "defend" something that no one is trying to take away from you?
Boggles the mind....

What the he!! are toothless rednecks doing eating petezer?!!!

funny what some people fixate on isn't it.

Fixated is right. For some reason gun grabbers think owing a gun has something to do with penis size.

I own a gun because I am 50+ and a smoker for 40 years. Some 20 year old punk could kick my ass without much trouble, except for that 9mm stuck in his face.

Perhaps if the gun toters had bigger pepperoni's in the 1st place.........

Wow, do we maybe have a phallic fantasy William?

Mentally unstable people are about 75% of the U.S.And the guns don´t just go off by themselves! Ban all automatic weapons now! See you at the next mass murder when they´´re sweepimg up the dead bodies!

Bart - From ABC News:

At the end of a long answer to the question, “What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?” Obama said this:

“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

“But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

Double posted...?

do not own a gun but am all for the 2^nd amendment.As I read all the comments I find it ironic that the left leaning pro-gun control people posting comments are lumping all gun owners into one negative group,
however when someone on the right lumps all minorities in one negative group they are call raciest. If the lump all gays as perverts they are accused of being secretly gay and are suppressing their gay feeling. That being said any left pro-gun control person posting a personnel negative comment is a raciest that is suppressing their fantasy to own a gun.

Bart,

You can't walk into a store and buy an automatic weapon. Besides the high price tag for the weapons, you have to undergo a more intensive background check, give your fingerprints, 15 contacts that know you, who will be interviewed about you, you get interviewed, you have to get the ok from your local sheriff to have the weapon, it has to be registered, and then you have to pay a $200 Stamp fee. You should really brush up on certain things before spouting off idiotic statements. Not too many criminals are going to use a $30,000 M16 in a crime.

This is why the conversation about what types of guns (if any) to ban/limit should be held by people who actually KNOW a thing or two about guns. Some of the anti-gun people don't know the difference between semi-auto and fully-auto weapons; nor do they care to. They just think all guns are bad and nobody should have one, which is of course unconstitutional. But they won't let a little thing like the 2nd amendment get in their way! Lemme tell you, my husband just bought an AR-15 SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle; had to go on a waiting list & was lucky to only spend $1,100 on one (they've gone for as much as $2 grand!). That's not something the average person can afford, so there's alot of unwarranted fear about these guns. So for those who want to ban these so-called "assault weapons" who say things like "I'd like to own an F-22, but I can't, so why should you be able to ...." my answer is do you have $22 million dollars? 'Cause that's pretty much what they cost!

I totally agree when he said "Not everyone who owns a gun is dangerous," but it only takes a few and you have tragedies like Newtown, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Tucson. Should I name more?

Ok - then how do we tell which guy carrying a gun IS a good guy vs. a bad guy?

I will submit that it is the person that is NOT drawing it from it's holster and randomly shooting people. Unless one is doing a criminal action, what business is it of yours what another person has on his or her person?

To say that if I choose to carry and exercise my rights, then I should be the one to be inconvenienced is ridiculous. Why are your rights to not carry, any more important then my right to carry?? This a personal decision that should be left up to the individual regarding their own personal safety. If you don't want to carry... fine, but I choose to and that is my right.

Because me not carrying can't hurt you but anyone carrying has the potential to hurt me. You have a responsibility along with the right. I have accepted no right, so I have no responsibility in the situation. You do. The threat is much less than people think and the need to carry is much less. But people who carry day after day to Costco and the grocery store have lost their respect for that firearm and find that weapon much too mundane. I submit that make them that much more dangerous. That weapon on your hip or where ever you carry it has the potential to kill. It is not the same as grabbing your keys and your wallet. Since you have never used it and keep it holstered the level of threat that you encounter must not warrant carrying in the first place. I can't hurt you with anything I'm "carrying". What your "carrying" can hurt me. Therefore I get a say in that.

You don't get a say in what right I choose to exercise. I have a fairly dangerous side occupation, I have had guns drawn on me by good people whom thought they were doing to the right thing to protect their families. That did not make me instantly pull my weapon and start shooting. In fact, I used my brain and de-escalated the situation in a reasonable manner. I'm still alive, and so is he. If however, the need was to really arise, I'd be ready, and alive. I cannot say the same for you. You can do harm with any inanimate object, be it a fist, a rock, a knife, or keys perhaps.. Anyone intent on doing you harm, will do you harm regardless, I choose to be a realist......

EAS...

What? That is the most ilogical, logical argument I have ever seen.

I can't hurt you with anything I'm "carrying". What your "carrying" can hurt me. Therefore I get a say in that.

Ahh No, you don't....

CTrealist - To say that if I choose to carry and exercise my rights, then I should be the one to be inconvenienced is ridiculous.

You're incredibly naive to think that displaying a gun won't result in an adverse reaction from other people. And while the government might not be able to deny your right to own a gun, other citizens are free to respond as they see fit and react accordingly - which includes denying you service and calling the cops to report someone wielding a gun.

Chris Dorner was a cop. Was he a good guy?

EAS -

Do you stop to think every day when you get in your car that you are about to put a put a potentially lethal weapon into play? Gun owners do when they pick up a firearm.

Do I get a say in your ability to drive?

It's funny how blindly the proponents of open carry are. They DEMAND that others exhibit natural human behavior while DEMANDING that everyone else ignore logic and reality.

My point is proven in the responses to my first comment on this thread.

"The person NOT drawing his gun" is the one that's not the bad guy. --- Sure - every murderer with a gun started by NOT having the gun drawn or acting agressively. If I bump into you and notice you're carrying - how do I know you're a good guy and not just waiting for the right time / right person to start your shooting spree?

"Personal choice to carry means that I shouldn't be inconvienienced by those who don't know I'm not a bad guy" --- Sure. We all know that not everyone with a gun is a bad guy. However, just because you SAY you're a good guy doesn't prove that you are.

"I'm carrying and that's my right - so if you worry about me being a bad guy, it's your own damn problem" --- Sure. And you can prove that you're a good guy when I come across you how? By telling me? Yeah - and no one has EVER lied when they are a bad guy...

The problem is NOT whether or not you choose to carry (hell, I've got a concealed carry permit and do so when I feel I need to) - It's all about whether you give a damn about the rights of everyone around you.

Constitutional rights are not licenses to force ANYTHING upon others. With every right comes a responsibility do use that right in a reasonable way. In my opinion - ignoring everyone else's right to NOT be the next victim of a nutjob with a gun is NOT a reasonable excersize of the 2nd amendment (be honest for once - a stranger who sees you or I carrying doesn't know if we are a good guy or a bad guy) . You have to balance your right to protect yourself with the stranger's right to react in a manner that they feel is appropriate when they encounter someone with a potentially dangerous device.

I'm not in anyway against people protecting themselves. What I'm saying is that those who choose to carry MUST assume a very large part of the responsibility for how using that right impacts others.

@ skrekk

To call the cops and report someone wielding a gun simply because someone is legally carrying theirs is not only absurd, but also falsely reporting an incident (ask me how I know). No incident ever occurred, and because your afraid, doesn't make you right. If you own a business and choose to deny me service, ok, no problem, I will take my hard earned money elsewhere. And you know what, if I happen to be walking by your business, or you on the street and you happen to be the victim of a crime in progress, I will not walk away under the guise that you should be able to protect yourself. I will stop and intervene in an appropriate manner. That's because it's not you against me, we're all here together, and we need to learn to get along in a reasonable manner.

Paranoia is defined as an; "Unrealistic response to an unknown fear!" You may wish to seek therapy before this gets out-of-control. What you are carrying can and very possibly could cause serious bodily injury as potential death with your pestilence of virus's and bacteria, your clumsiness in an aisle, your drugs, designer dogs and attitude of pretentious role-playing of enlightenment! You state you have, "No Responsibility in this Situation" but you are responsible for everything that you choose to do in your life, which may be a new learning in your obviously learning-disabled life. A typical sheeple response to blame-shifting to everything outside of yourself instead of the freedom to accept the responsibility for the consequences and rewards of your own choice! A police officer may never draw their weapon in the entire course of their carreer but what is the difference in complacency you so intensly attribute to lawful and responsible firearms carriers?

FormerMarineSgt

Please tell me exactly what I'm FORCING on you. I carry a concealed firearm. IF you catch a glimpse of it or if you recognize it from printing, so be it. If you're that threatened by it, notify the police and when they ask I'll provide them ID and my permit and they'll tell me to go on my way. I've been asked to provide ID when a Sheriff caught sight of the printing while coming off an escalator. Once I did, and after a short chat, he told me "Have a great day and thanks for the backup."

And please tell me EXACTLY how exercising my Constitutional right to firearms is in any way infringing on YOUR rights in any way.

If the 'bad guy' starts waving his gun or shooting at people he has just identified himself to you, what do you do? If I were anywhere in the area he would have one well placed shot center mass. I also happen to be an expert marksman with a handgun or a rifle, I do not 'miss' my target, I carefully aim then genlty pull the trigger. If you are there and do not have your gun you are simply a statistic, or some thing might understand, you would be dead but at least you could die saying you do not need a gun.

EAS-303417

It is not the same as grabbing your keys and your wallet. Since you have never used it and keep it holstered the level of threat that you encounter must not warrant carrying in the first place.

You have no idea what a person is capable of doing to another with keys or wallets. They can be quite deadly.

And please how did you arrive at the supposition that "you have never used it"? In fact I have drawn my firearm in defense of another. Very fortunately I did NOT have to fire, but had the situation escalated further, I would have.

Those of us who carry legally do so knowing the very great responsibility we have. We do NOT take those responsibilities lightly. When confronted by a situation that warrants our use of potentially deadly force, we KNOW we're the first responders. The police or 911 likely haven't even been called yet.

I will submit that it is the person that is NOT drawing it from it's holster and randomly shooting people

seems identifying them at that point is a little late, woudn't you agree? it's kind of the point of the whole gun control debate to stop these things BEFORE THEY HAPPEN!

Ok - then how do we tell which guy carrying a gun IS a good guy vs. a bad guy?

Usually a good guy will have a holster or a long gun with a sling and won't be looking around all nervous. A bad guy will either have a gun in their hand or tucked in the front of their pants gangster style. A bad guy usually threatens others. 9 out of 10 times you will never see a legally carried firearm.

The point that people -with any brains- are trying to make is that unless it's a cop, you can't assume that a gun carrying person is indeed a good guy when you randomly come across one.

Tell me again how cops are always the good guys? I bet a few folks in (and around) LA might feel differently within the last couple weeks.

which includes denying you service and calling the cops to report someone wielding a gun.

Then that means one of three things,

1) Someone is going to jail for brandishing a gun.

2) Someone is going to be in trouble for making a false report simply because they don't like guns.

3) You need to learn the meaning of words before you use them.

Pick one (maybe two?).

Dawgfan-4710266

Ok - then how do we tell which guy carrying a gun IS a good guy vs. a bad guy?

Usually a good guy will have a holster or a long gun with a sling and won't be looking around all nervous. A bad guy will either have a gun in their hand or tucked in the front of their pants gangster style. A bad guy usually threatens others. 9 out of 10 times you will never see a legally carried firearm.

that's cute, another person who thinks you can tell everything about someone by how they look.

The fact that you can't tell from looking whether I'm a "good guy" or a "bad guy" is totally irrelevant. If you want to debate the wisdom of lawful conceal/carry permits, or even try to get the law changed, then that's you right as a citizen (and perhaps your responsibility if you feel that strongly). But in alot of states, conceal/carry is legal, and theoretically a thorough background check was done on the licensee BEFORE the permit was issued. I submit THAT FACT is a pretty good reason to think of a gun owner with a permit is a "good guy," as they've already demonstrated a willingness to follow the law. I suppose you could always ask to see the permit, if you're that paranoid. I suspect if it's a CONCEALED carry that you'll never know to begin with; but if it's OPEN-CARRY then again the fact that you can see the gun and it's NOT concealed demonstrates a willingness to follow the law. I also suspect that alot of people are carrying BECAUSE of Sandy Hook (whether that's wise is another subject entirely); and the people showing up at the pizza place likely find your attitude a little scary! In other words, quit whining about the fact that someone's gun scares you!

hatr,

The majority of legally carrying owners take care of their weapons. They don't just throw them around without a holster, and never put one in the front of their pants.

The "bad guy" is the one pointing the gun at the clerk at the register (telling the clerk to hand over the money), the "good guy/s" are the ones pointing their gun/s at the one aiming at the clerk (saying drop it or I'll drop you;)

The professional left will do anything to get our guns.
They will fail.

And as a gun owner you're 43 times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member (or your girlfriend four times through the bathroom door) than you are to use it against an intruder.

XD, you are a great example of what gun owners really look like. Good for you.

Hey skrekk:

Do me a favor, stop parroting nonsense. The "43 times" statistic was admitted as flawed from the original author. There are 116,000 defensive gun uses per year according to the National Criminal Victimization Survey, performed by the FBI. Pretty sure there aren't some 4.3 million people shot annually in the United States. Why don't you stop buying into bad information, and start looking at real numbers.

Matt-3468366 - The "43 times" statistic was admitted as flawed from the original author.

So are you denying that as a gun owner you're far more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder?

skrekk

I can't speak for Matt, but I will note that I have not shot myself, nor anyone in my family. Actually, of all the gun owners I know, and that is a fairly large number, I know of NOT ONE that has ever shot themselves or family or friends.

I DO know two that have shot intruders.

I'm pretty sure I am 43 times more likely to never shoot anyone other the the paper targets in my back 40... However if the need were to arise, I know where I live it would easily take 15 minutes for any of my local law enforcement good guys to get to my house, far longer then it would take for me to become a statistic. Don't want to carry/own/shoot?? That's fine, I have no problem with that. You do as you wish, and I will do as I wish. Butt out of my business.

XDm9mm - I can't speak for Matt, but I will note that I have not shot myself, nor anyone in my family.

And yet statistically you're far more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder.

skrekk

Actually I would question the validity of those "statistics". Do you know if they did the sampling using strictly people that abide by the law and respect firearms? OR did they lump the scumbag gangbangers that can't quite figure out how to hold a firearm in with the legal owners?

Skrekk

So are you denying that as a gun owner you're far more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than an intruder?

Yes I would say this is total BS. Most accidental shootings occur while hunting. Mostly they are kids that have not learned the proper rules on handling a gun. Or just plain accidents.

Skrekk - you would seriously rather argue over a play on words indefinitely than to simply admit you should just keep your mouth shut in the first place?!?

Skrekk, and others - Please be careful about cause and effect statements.

When you state that...

"And as a gun owner you're 43 times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member (or your girlfriend four times through the bathroom door) than you are to use it against an intruder."

You are implying that because you have a gun, the gun is altering your behavior such that you are more likely to shoot yourself or a family member - this is incorrect.

A persons judgement is independent of their possessions. With the exception of Sauron's Ring, there are no inanimate objects which effect a persons mind.

A drunk driver isn't dangerous because they have a car, they are dangerous because they intentionally decided to combine perception altering substances with heavy machinery.

A gun owner who shoots his family isn't dangerous because they have a gun, they are dangerous because they chose to point it at someone they recognized as their family member, or at an unidentified individual (who might also be a family member) and fire a bullet into them.

A suicidal person isn't a danger to themselves because they have a razor or a gun or pills, they are a danger to themselves because they are in a mindset where they feel hopeless to change their status and see ending their life as the only recourse.

Blaming non-sentient and inanimate tools and items completely ignores the actual disease.

Irresponsible people, without the intelligence to consider their choices before taking an action (pulling the trigger, starting the ignition, swallowing the pills, etc) are the problem.

How do we educate people - or more importantly, how do we "wake them up" and infuse them with forethought, caution, respect and diligence?

How do we treat the disease?

Also, having a heart attack while hunting is statistically reported as a hunting accident.

And skrekk... your chance of getting shot when breaking into my house is 100%

Well an NBC reporter did just that - and they are typically pretty anti-gun. So I guess your rant is pointless.

It wasn't a rant, and you just supported it. Thank you.

It is a, "Ruger Mini 14 with an M-14 style flash hider on the front end of the barrel ignoramous!

Orson, now don't you feel a little stupid?

Definitely a Ruger Mini14, Orson you need to check your facts a little better.

If you`re so ashamed why don`t you get the "phuck" out?

I hear Chicago`s nice...

@ KEY....Don't be ashamed. Just don't go eat there. There are plenty of gay bars in Virginia Beach.

and lots of racists too, right.

Look at the bright side key2joy, your not in Texas, so do us a both a favor and don't come here.

It would be sweet if a sniper fired a round at someone from atop a building across the street; then watch all the CCW permit holders shoot each other because, hell, any one of them could be the shooter. It would be like a Reservoir Dogs social experiment. That would be awesome.

LOL Bob

I think it's awesome that so many people who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun don't want one.

..... and you get to piss off a libtard as a bonus!!!!!!!

And all this time I didn't think people in VA had a sense of humor. Priceless...

Gun owner should be allowed to keep their guns.

That's mighty white of ya.

Those who exchange security for liberty have neither both! My poor paraphrase of Benjamin Franklin

Robert....as I was reading, I was thinking the same thing about the "anti gun" crowd. I was thinking, if you don't want a gun, that's cool....But, leave the rest of us alone. Some how this country has lost it's cahoonas'. I'm perplexed by the amount of men who want more gun laws...what kind of men are we growing in this country???

Dude.. Guns are taxed when made, when sold, when tranferred and thats about 30% of the cost.

A major portion of out nations economy is WAR.. that's what we do best

"gun rights should be more regulated"

"Gun owner should be allowed to keep their guns"

Good grief.

Come to think of it, Robert.... your free speech right should be regulated. And, you should be allowed to keep your lap-top.

RobertS-5027340

We are the security for the rest of you. The SCOTUS has already said that the poilce are not there to protect you, but I am.