Yet another reason to ban assault weapons

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2991330
Road rage (also road violence) is the informal name for deliberately dangerous and/or violent behaviour under the influence of heightened, violent emotion such as anger and frustration, involving an automobile in use.
This can involve deliberately hitting another person, vehicle or object with his/her own vehicle and/or firing a weapon from it. Other possibilities include hitting the person or vehicle with an item which is not his vehicle (e.g. using a golf stick), but which ultimately hits another person or vehicle.
Getting out of one's vehicle to another person's vehicle and banging, knocking on the windows, and yelling insults, is another form of road rage.
road rage
Function: noun
: a motorist's uncontrolled anger that is usually provoked by another motorist's irritating act and is expressed in aggressive or violent behavior
road rage
Noun
aggressive behaviour by a motorist in response to the actions of another road user
Show me in ANY of these defintions where it expressly states 'aggressive driving' is the defintion of road eage.
Whats a golf stick??? lol is that like a foot wedge?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2991330
Road rage (also road violence) is the informal name for deliberately dangerous and/or violent behaviour under the influence of heightened, violent emotion such as anger and frustration, involving an automobile in use.
This can involve deliberately hitting another person, vehicle or object with his/her own vehicle and/or firing a weapon from it. Other possibilities include hitting the person or vehicle with an item which is not his vehicle (e.g. using a golf stick), but which ultimately hits another person or vehicle.
Getting out of one's vehicle to another person's vehicle and banging, knocking on the windows, and yelling insults, is another form of road rage.
road rage
Function: noun
: a motorist's uncontrolled anger that is usually provoked by another motorist's irritating act and is expressed in aggressive or violent behavior
road rage
Noun
aggressive behaviour by a motorist in response to the actions of another road user
Show me in ANY of these defintions where it expressly states 'aggressive driving' is the defintion of road eage.
Yahoo search results for road rage definition
☆ road rage
noun
violent, uncontrolled anger in, or angry behavior by, a motorist, as in reaction to stressful driving conditions
road rage
n.
Violent behavior exhibited by drivers in traffic, often as a manifestation of stress:
road rage
Noun
aggressive behaviour by a motorist in response to the actions of another road user
road rage
Function:
noun
: a motorist's uncontrolled anger that is usually provoked by another motorist's irritating act and is expressed in aggressive or violent behavior
Don't see anything there that says it the result of your reaction to a sign or bumper sticker on another car

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2990440
Look them up yourself. You seem to know how to use a search engine. I get tired of having to justify repsonses to you. Pretty pointless if you ask me.

I tried to look them up. I couldn't find several stories in the San Antonio area to in any way back up your claims...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2991323
You're actually telling me it's legal to carry a LOADED weapon in your vehicle in Arizona? Where exactly do you store this weapon? Is it in plain site, in a glove box, under a seat? If it's not in plain site, it's considerd a CONCEALED WEAPON. That' requires a CWP if applicable in the state you live in. Show me the Arizona statute where it says that you can carry a loaded weapon hidden in your car.
You are a fool if you think you wouldn't be prosecuted for murder or assault if you shot someone with that weapon while you had it in your car. I don't care what the situation was - car jacking, ramming your car, road rage, pick one. You have no legal right to use deadly force against someone while in your vehicle. I don't care if it's a gun, or your actual car. If you think you do, then just go right ahead and try it. After it happens, people here will be going " Please oh please show me the Arizona statute that states you have the right to shoot someone with a firearm while traveling in your vehicle if the situation were to arise. And don't give me the "Well if I was being carjacked, and I shot the guy, no sane DA or judge would prosecute me." You can't possibly be that naive.
Obviously you DON'T know what you are talking about
Transportation of Firearms
Under Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated § 13-3102(A)(2) and (J), a person commits a class 1 misdemeanor by knowingly carrying a concealed deadly weapon (including a firearm; see § 13-3101) within his or her immediate control while in or on a means of transportation without a permit issued under section 13-3112. Section 13-3102(A)(2) does not apply to a weapon carried in a case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within a storage compartment, map pocket, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation. Section 13-3102(F).
My gun was carried in a holster in the side pocket of the drivers side door. If I left it on the seat in plain sight it wouldn't even have to be holstered.
As far as being prosecuted I like my chances
This guy chased down a fleeing car jacker and then shot him and the authorities were not sure if they would charge him. Chasing then shooting a fleeing criminal would raise a whole lot more red flags than shooting someone who was a immediate threat
Tenn. man chases, shoots carjacker
by Pedro Ramirez III
Wednesday October 31, 2007, 12:27 PM
MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- A man chased down and shot a carjacking suspect this week after discovering a man pointing a shotgun at his 71-year-old mother's head.
The suspect, David Andre Bates, 18, was charged with armed carjacking. Bond was set at $150,000. And authorities were weighing the possibility of charges against Keith Gray, who shot Bates in the leg after a dramatic chase.
Another one
ackson 10/23/06
Man Shoots Accused Carjacker
A Jackson man says he shot the man who carjacked him and a new law means he probably won't get in trouble for it.
The man says Clinton Pierre of Jackson carjacked his green Acura at the intersection of Capitol Street and Ellis Avenue Saturday morning. But the man and his passengers chased the car --and about an hour later caught it -- and shot Pierre twice.
The "Castle Doctrine" which was passed earlier this year, allows the use of deadly force to protect your home, business, or vehicle.
and another
Houston Man with CCW Permit Shoots Would-Be Carjacker in Self Defense
February 7th, 2008 · No Comments
A Houston man shot and killed a criminal who had pointed a gun at him and tried to force him into a car.
Fortunately, the victim had a CCW (carry concealed weapon) permit and was able to defend himself with his firearm. When the criminal tried to force the victim into the car at gun point, the victim produced his own firearm and saved his own life. The criminal, who fled in a car with another person, died a short time later. The driver of the get-away car was arrested by police.
As any reasonable person can see a private individual does indeed have the legal right to use deadly force to protect their person and depending on the state, their property

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2991033
Yea right. Why do you think the major gun ban laws have always been swept under the carpet? How do you think the D.C. ban was overturned? Wake up and smell the roses.
Prove me wrong spanky. The NRA isn't the only gun lobbying group in the country. Gun owners of America spends almost as much as the NRA and all those two and all the other gun groups combined aren't in the top 20 but a whole lot a labor unions are. No wonder workers constitutional right to a private vote in the matter of unionization is currently in jeopardy.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2991495
Obviously you DON'T know what you are talking about
Transportation of Firearms
Under Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated § 13-3102(A)(2) and (J), a person commits a class 1 misdemeanor by knowingly carrying a concealed deadly weapon (including a firearm; see § 13-3101) within his or her immediate control while in or on a means of transportation without a permit issued under section 13-3112. Section 13-3102(A)(2) does not apply to a weapon carried in a case, holster, scabbard, pack or luggage that is carried within a means of transportation or within a storage compartment, map pocket, trunk or glove compartment of a means of transportation. Section 13-3102(F).
My gun was carried in a holster in the side pocket of the drivers side door. If I left it on the seat in plain sight it wouldn't even have to be holstered.
As far as being prosecuted I like my chances
This guy chased down a fleeing car jacker and then shot him and the authorities were not sure if they would charge him. Chasing then shooting a fleeing criminal would raise a whole lot more red flags than shooting someone who was a immediate threat
Tenn. man chases, shoots carjacker
by Pedro Ramirez III
Wednesday October 31, 2007, 12:27 PM
MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- A man chased down and shot a carjacking suspect this week after discovering a man pointing a shotgun at his 71-year-old mother's head.
The suspect, David Andre Bates, 18, was charged with armed carjacking. Bond was set at $150,000. And authorities were weighing the possibility of charges against Keith Gray, who shot Bates in the leg after a dramatic chase.
Another one
ackson 10/23/06
Man Shoots Accused Carjacker
A Jackson man says he shot the man who carjacked him and a new law means he probably won't get in trouble for it.
The man says Clinton Pierre of Jackson carjacked his green Acura at the intersection of Capitol Street and Ellis Avenue Saturday morning. But the man and his passengers chased the car --and about an hour later caught it -- and shot Pierre twice.
The "Castle Doctrine" which was passed earlier this year, allows the use of deadly force to protect your home, business, or vehicle.
and another
Houston Man with CCW Permit Shoots Would-Be Carjacker in Self Defense
February 7th, 2008 · No Comments
A Houston man shot and killed a criminal who had pointed a gun at him and tried to force him into a car.
Fortunately, the victim had a CCW (carry concealed weapon) permit and was able to defend himself with his firearm. When the criminal tried to force the victim into the car at gun point, the victim produced his own firearm and saved his own life. The criminal, who fled in a car with another person, died a short time later. The driver of the get-away car was arrested by police.
As any reasonable person can see a private individual does indeed have the legal right to use deadly force to protect their person and depending on the state, their property
You're an accident waiting to happen. Quit hanging out in the NRA propaganda sites. Ask a lawyer, any lawyer. Shoot ask crimzy, or whoever the resident lawyer is on this forum. You shoot someone with a gun without 100% proof you were in danger, you will get prosecuted. Take your little punk scenario. What would've happened if the situation escalated, and you did end up shooting one of them? Who do you think the cops would believe? You the lone person with a gun, or four or five innocent UNARMED kids that will say all they did was say a few bad words to you about some stupid basketball sticker on your car? What proof would you have your life was in danger? I honestly can't believe you think your're that bulletproof, and you can actually get away with shooting someone YOU feel was threatening you. Pathetic.
You're an idiot for having it stored in the driver's side door. Exactly what do you think would happen if you got pulled over for a simple traffic violation, and the cop walked up and saw that gun there. You think he's just going to surmise " Oh, now there's a responsible gun owner that's carrying his firearm with him just in case he has a provocation with a criminal." He'd be drawing his weapon, and if you made the slightest wrong move, you're dead. He's not going to ask questions first. I'd advise you to keep a copy of that Arizona statute in your pocket. I guarantee you a cop will arrest you and confiscate your weapon regardless, if you do in fact keep that thing loaded where you say you store it.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2991492
I tried to look them up. I couldn't find several stories in the San Antonio area to in any way back up your claims...
I read the San Antonio Express-News cover-to-cover every day. I hit the three major local TV station web sites at least once a day. I read CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, and several other news feeds all day. I watch at least one local 10 PM newscast every night. I know what I see, and I know what I read. Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. You live in this little bubble world of yours where the only thing that matters in God Bless America, Bush's useless Iraq conflict, and spouting whatever historical facts come to your mind. You don't want to believe me, I honestly don't care. You don't like my comments, bypass them.

 

[bionicarm]

While going through your Arizona statutes, you may want to read these:
13-1204. Aggravated assault; classification; definition
A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203 under any of the following circumstances:
1. If the person causes serious physical injury to another.
2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
Continuance of 13-1204:
B. Except pursuant to subsections C and D of this section, aggravated assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 or paragraph 9, subdivision (a) of this section is a class 3 felony except if the victim is under fifteen years of age in which case it is a class 2 felony punishable pursuant to section 13-705. Aggravated assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 3 of this section is a class 4 felony. Aggravated assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 9, subdivision (b) or paragraph 10 of this section is a class 5 felony. Aggravated assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 or paragraph 9, subdivision (c) of this section is a class 6 felony.
13-3107. Unlawful discharge of firearms; exceptions; classification; definitions
A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.
B. Notwithstanding the fact that the offense involves the discharge of a deadly weapon, unless a dangerous offense is alleged and proven pursuant to section 13-704, subsection L, section 13-604 applies to this offense.
C. This section does not apply if the firearm is discharged:
1. As allowed pursuant to chapter 4 of this title.
2. On a properly supervised range.
3. In an area recommended as a hunting area by the Arizona game and fish department, approved and posted as required by the chief of police, but any such area may be closed when deemed unsafe by the chief of police or the director of the Arizona game and fish department.
4. For the control of nuisance wildlife by permit from the Arizona game and fish department or the United States fish and wildlife service.
5. By special permit of the chief of police of the municipality.
6. As required by an animal control officer in the performance of duties as specified in section 9-499.04.
7. Using blanks.
8. More than one mile from any occupied structure as defined in section 13-3101.
9. In self-defense or defense of another person against an animal attack if a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force against the animal is immediately necessary and reasonable under the circumstances to protect oneself or the other person.
D. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Municipality" means any city or town and includes any property that is fully enclosed within the city or town.
2. "Properly supervised range" means a range that is any of the following:
(a) Operated by a club affiliated with the national rifle association of America, the amateur trapshooting association, the national skeet association or any other nationally recognized shooting organization, or by any public or private school.
(b) Approved by any agency of the federal government, this state or a county or city within which the range is located.
(c) Operated with adult supervision for shooting air or carbon dioxide gas operated guns, or for shooting in underground ranges on private or public property.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2991596
I read the San Antonio Express-News cover-to-cover every day. I hit the three major local TV station web sites at least once a day. I read CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, and several other news feeds all day. I watch at least one local 10 PM newscast every night. I know what I see, and I know what I read. Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. You live in this little bubble world of yours where the only thing that matters in God Bless America, Bush's useless Iraq conflict, and spouting whatever historical facts come to your mind. You don't want to believe me, I honestly don't care. You don't like my comments, bypass them.
Then producing something shouldn't be that big of a deal...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2991653
While going through your Arizona statutes, you may want to read these:
.
You may want to read these
13-404
Justification; self-defense
Detail: : 13-404 Justification; self-defense
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable
person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or
2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peaceofficer exceeds that allowed by law; or
3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical
force, unless:
(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter;
and (b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.
*****************************************************************
13-405
Justification; use of deadly physical force
Detail: : 13-405 Justification; use of deadly physical force
A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful deadly physical force.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2991575
You're an accident waiting to happen. Quit hanging out in the NRA propaganda sites. Ask a lawyer, any lawyer. Shoot ask crimzy, or whoever the resident lawyer is on this forum. You shoot someone with a gun without 100% proof you were in danger, you will get prosecuted. Take your little punk scenario. What would've happened if the situation escalated, and you did end up shooting one of them? Who do you think the cops would believe? You the lone person with a gun, or four or five innocent UNARMED kids that will say all they did was say a few bad words to you about some stupid basketball sticker on your car? What proof would you have your life was in danger? I honestly can't believe you think your're that bulletproof, and you can actually get away with shooting someone YOU feel was threatening you. Pathetic.
You're an idiot for having it stored in the driver's side door. Exactly what do you think would happen if you got pulled over for a simple traffic violation, and the cop walked up and saw that gun there. You think he's just going to surmise " Oh, now there's a responsible gun owner that's carrying his firearm with him just in case he has a provocation with a criminal." He'd be drawing his weapon, and if you made the slightest wrong move, you're dead. He's not going to ask questions first. I'd advise you to keep a copy of that Arizona statute in your pocket. I guarantee you a cop will arrest you and confiscate your weapon regardless, if you do in fact keep that thing loaded where you say you store it.
I am not even a member of the NRA. What is it about you liberals that you can't engage in a intelligent debate and have to resort to name calling and throwing out unsubstantiated generalizations?
A car full of innocent kids? Yeah, thats right. Just a bunch of misguided youths looking for a place to play midnight basketball at 4:30 in the afternoon. Innocent kids go around threatening people they don't know.
The driver shadowing me and moving into my lane took it beyond a verbal altercation. I attempted twice to put distance between us and they made the decision to pursue the issue. I never even acknowledged them up until the time I decided it was time to put an end to their game playing and displayed the gun. If I was the trigger happy gun nut it makes you secure in your faulty position on this to paint me as I would have let him hit my car. That is assault with a deadly weapon and I would have been justified in unloading the clip on them. However most of us who defend the 2nd amendment and take responsibility for our own safety tend to be law abiding and exercise good judgment. You would have probably hit an innocent pedestrian or another car trying to run away in terror.
As for getting pulled over by the cops it's that common sense thing again. The cops know what the law is. If they can see the gun that means it is in plain sight which is in accordance with the law. If the can't see it what's the issue unless they have a reason to search the car. At that point you tell them there is a holstered gun where ever, again perfectly legal.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2991952
Then producing something shouldn't be that big of a deal...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2991952
Then producing something shouldn't be that big of a deal...
What do you want me to produce ese?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2992072
I am not even a member of the NRA. What is it about you liberals that you can't engage in a intelligent debate and have to resort to name calling and throwing out unsubstantiated generalizations?
A car full of innocent kids? Yeah, thats right. Just a bunch of misguided youths looking for a place to play midnight basketball at 4:30 in the afternoon. Innocent kids go around threatening people they don't know.
The driver shadowing me and moving into my lane took it beyond a verbal altercation. I attempted twice to put distance between us and they made the decision to pursue the issue. I never even acknowledged them up until the time I decided it was time to put an end to their game playing and displayed the gun. If I was the trigger happy gun nut it makes you secure in your faulty position on this to paint me as I would have let him hit my car. That is assault with a deadly weapon and I would have been justified in unloading the clip on them. However most of us who defend the 2nd amendment and take responsibility for our own safety tend to be law abiding and exercise good judgment. You would have probably hit an innocent pedestrian or another car trying to run away in terror.
As for getting pulled over by the cops it's that common sense thing again. The cops know what the law is. If they can see the gun that means it is in plain sight which is in accordance with the law. If the can't see it what's the issue unless they have a reason to search the car. At that point you tell them there is a holstered gun where ever, again perfectly legal.

Whose says I'm a liberal? Because I don't agree with your backwards logic? You spout the 2nd Amendment for your right to carry a firearm around that you could use at any moment YOU feel you are provoked. Based on the numerous comments you've posted in various threads since I've come here, I'm overjoyed I don't live in your city. You have anger management issues, and hints of bigotry and racism. You won't even admit that your altercation with these kids was road rage. You justify pointing a loaded gun at them because you felt threatened. By your logic, that gun could've easily gone off if they pushed the envelope just a little more. What's sickening is it sounds like you'd have no remorse if you'd actually shot and killed one of them. Go talk to the police on how to handle road rage. In your scenario, you maintain your distance and either find a policeman, or call them on your phone. You don't pull up next to them and wave a gun. Next time you do this, you may be looking at the other end of a gun that they're pointing at you.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2991952
Then producing something shouldn't be that big of a deal...
you people need to learn how to use a search engine:
http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/stor...R0Ozvs59A.cspx
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...16Qh2VKIQ.cspx
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...gB4vxzzRA.cspx
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...EsKqss9fA.cspx
http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/stor...3q581Hliw.cspx
http://www.ksat.com/news/18676118/detail.html
http://www.ksat.com/news/18660657/detail.html
http://www.ksat.com/news/18432047/detail.html

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2992101
you people need to learn how to use a search engine:
http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/stor...R0Ozvs59A.cspx
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...16Qh2VKIQ.cspx
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...gB4vxzzRA.cspx
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...EsKqss9fA.cspx
http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/stor...3q581Hliw.cspx
http://www.ksat.com/news/18676118/detail.html
http://www.ksat.com/news/18660657/detail.html
http://www.ksat.com/news/18432047/detail.html
And not one mention if the handgun was legal... Which leads me to believe they were not...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2992097
Whose says I'm a liberal? Because I don't agree with your backwards logic? You spout the 2nd Amendment for your right to carry a firearm around that you could use at any moment YOU feel you are provoked. Based on the numerous comments you've posted in various threads since I've come here, I'm overjoyed I don't live in your city. You have anger management issues, and hints of bigotry and racism. You won't even admit that your altercation with these kids was road rage. You justify pointing a loaded gun at them because you felt threatened. By your logic, that gun could've easily gone off if they pushed the envelope just a little more. What's sickening is it sounds like you'd have no remorse if you'd actually shot and killed one of them. Go talk to the police on how to handle road rage. In your scenario, you maintain your distance and either find a policeman, or call them on your phone. You don't pull up next to them and wave a gun. Next time you do this, you may be looking at the other end of a gun that they're pointing at you.
Well lets see, I have carried a gun in my car since moving from SoCal to Arizona in 1992. besides personal driving I worked a job that required me to drive to different accounts every day. On the road at least a couple hours a day and averaging about 30,000 miles a year just for business the last 7 years I worked. All that in addition to driving from Montana to Califoria at least every other year for visits (Yes, I carried a gun while driving in Cal) besides other vacation and in all that time I felt the need to even reach for the gun exactly 1 time, I am such a menace to society.
As far a being provoked I was. And I did what I could to resolve the situation up to the point the guy in the back started digging under the seat when the driver werved at me. At that point did I shoot the guy or even point the gun at him? No. I took the first step in demonstrating I wasn't going to be a victim, situation resolved.
Had the driver not slammed on his brakes first I planned on stopping in the middle of the lane. It's a whole lot easier to shoot forwards than backwards. That would have given the misunderstood youths an obvious choice of whether or not they wanted to escalate the situation any further.
There was a survey of convicted burglars several years ago. Their greatest fear wasn't the cops or even going to jail, it was an armed citizen.
Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:
* 81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
* 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
* 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
* 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
* 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
* 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police
http://www.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2992301
And not one mention if the handgun was legal... Which leads me to believe they were not...
Tells me there are a lot of REALLY stupid people in San Antonio
If I ever drive through there I will make it a point of having a second gun and extra clips.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2992301
And not one mention if the handgun was legal... Which leads me to believe they were not...
Give me a break. So someone like reefraff who carries his gun wherever he goes is an exception? You actually want to say that all those instances were done with illegal weapons? Since you are such a pro advocate on this issue, I imagine you carry a gun in your car. Is yours illegal? Typical conservative. Proved wrong and tries to twist the info to justify their position.

I have no problems with gun ownership. I have no problems with someone carrying a concealed weapon, IF they have a justification for doing so -- live in a HIGH crime area, employed in a high risk position (carrying money, private detective, etc.). However, these individuals should be required to go through a rigorous firearm training class that includes real-life scenarios. They should also have psychological profiles and evaluations performed to verify their mental stability. I do have a problem with Joe Blow carrying around a gun because he/she is living a life of paranoia thinking they're going to be attacked around every corner. You have no clue what their mental stability is, and whether they can 'crack' at any time. Look at reefraff. He gets into some altercation on the road, and his solution is to wave a gun in the air, broadcasting his intentions to use it. One wrong action from any of those kids, and one of them would've been dead. You gonna tell me that's justified? He validates it with his '2nd Amendment rant', but just look at how dangerous this situation was. And the idiocy of it all is these kids could have very well had their own gun. Then what? Look at the news articles I posted, and that'll tell you 'The rest of the story'. While you're looking at them, think whether the person with the gun was prosecuted for murder or not. A rational person would know the correct answer.
You want to own a gun for personal protection? Got no problem with it. But that protection should be limited to your place of residence. Ordinary citizens who walk around with a gun under their clothes, or in their car, are ticking time bombs. Yea, you may actually have that rare occassion where you encounter a situation where it's justified to use that weapon to protect yourself. But there's also those occassions where something may just set you off, and your abilty to have a deadly weapon in those situations could mean death for someone when it shouldn't have. Road rage incidents are a prime example. If no one were allowed to carry firearms in their car, you would rarely hear of a death occurring because of a road rage incident. Sure a vehicle could be used just as easily, but rationally how many road rage incidents have you seen where someone would risk damaging their car because they got cut off, or harrassed about a sticker on their car? Would you intentionally hit someone knowing that person would report you to the police, and you'd pay enourmous fines for Hit And Run, jailed for vehicular assault, and lose you license and insurance? Even if they hit your car, you're less likely to be critically injured, as compared to being shot.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2992357
Tells me there are a lot of REALLY stupid people in San Antonio
If I ever drive through there I will make it a point of having a second gun and extra clips.

Want me to find 10 examples in Arizona? Probably wouldn't be hard to do, considering they let every Bozo who lives there carry a gun in their car.