Hypocrisy at its worse (rant warning)

[RandyDaytona]

Not trying to come at you in a negative way. I think you and I are in the same book, but maybe not necessarily on the same page. I simply take issue with CCW being painted in a negative light when in fact CCW has already prevented or minimized multiple mass-shooting events. We should give credit where credit is due.

For some reason, I can't quote everything you posted...

As far as loopholes...you're correct that a felony conviction prohibits owning or possessing a firearm, but a lot of convicted felons don't really care what the law says - that's why they're felons to begin with. Yeah, they're running a huge risk, but I've seen felons with guns, and they got them because there was a way to do so - private transactions, someone buying it for them, etc. Like I said, I don't know the mechanics of regulating that stuff and don't have a solution, but I think a problem exists, nonetheless.

I'm not talking about CCWer's committing crimes - I'm talking about doing stupid things, like those I mentioned. Yes, most CCWer's carry for protection and it's their right to do that. But I've run into a lot who seem to do it for "fashion," and who obviously watch way too much TV. Actually saw a guy once with a concealed carry sticker on his truck (duh). That's the kind of stuff that makes me scratch my head and wonder who issued a person with that kind of immaturity a permit to begin with. I think we can agree that carrying a firearm should not be about saying "look-at-me-I-have-a-gun..."

As far as CCWer's committing fewer crimes than police officers, I find that hard to believe, especially since it's tough to know how many CCWer's there really are (I don't believe it's public knowledge), and how many are carrying all the time (many don't). Whereas we know almost exactly how many cops we have in the country. It's not that there aren't bad cops - there are. And I am certainly not justifying their actions. But more often than not, they get weeded out, either by their peers, management, or their own stupid actions.

I'm not talking about carrying in a restaurant that has a bar or a place that happens to serve alcohol. I'm talking about a "club"-type place, the kind of place where people tend to drink more a lot more than the average restaurant-goer, where people go to "party," and where altercations are all too common.

I don't think people who are bi-polar are necessarily deemed a "harm to themselves or others." And I'm not sure what law you're talking about, but again, that would likely depend on the state/jurisdiction. From what I've seen, you actually have to have been involuntarily committed to an institution in order for something like that to apply. And for the majority of those folks, I doubt they're checking in and out (i.e. likely checking in and staying there).

Merely pointing out that the notion that it's OK only for authority figures to carry weapons (or the notion that only police officers can safely carry firearms) is false. We give police officers too much credit when it comes to firearm competency and we give citizens that CCW too little credit.

Well, police officers carry weapons for different reasons than the general populace. It's not like it's a 'benefit' for them that non-police officers don't get. For me, I give officers more credit simply because I don't see them doing some of the things I see CCWer's doing. And if they do, they're putting themselves on the chopping block as far as employment or worse like in harms way). What I mean is...they have more to lose, anything from their job to their department's credibility. As far as proficiency, you train to respond in a certain way, but it doesn't always happen like that. In my experience, it usually doesn't happen like that. Training minimizes mistakes, but cannot eliminate them as long as the human factor is still there.

Agreed...let's apply that same lense to CCW then since there are far fewer stories about negligent CCW actions

I never said all CCWer's were a problem and was not intending to portray them that way. I said that from what I've seen, there are enough with issues as to make me wonder if the NRA's knee-jerk reaction to Sandy Hook - aka "lets get more armed people out there" - is necessarily the right one. This is made potentially more serious by the fact that most of the people carrying weapons up until that incident had made a conscious decision to do so. How many people since then are carrying or considering carrying out of fear/paranoia? I was at a gun store last weekend and saw someone looking at a handgun while aiming it at other patrons. But according to the NRA, if everyone went out and bought a gun, the world would be safer? That's what I don't buy and what I was talking about.

BTW - thanks for debating in a civil manner.

 

[04rnr]

Nope, I just happen to carry a gun for a living, so I'm pretty sure I at least know more about it than you do.

Now, when you see me posting on every topic under the sun and claiming to be an authority on each one, then you can call me a "know-it-all."

But thanks for unwarranted insult, anyway. Maybe I'll just wait until a topic comes up that centers around what you do for a living, then call you the same.

Randy,
sorry dude, that was not, intended or about you... not at all, it was directed towards a member on here, that doesnt even own, a 4runner.

 

[shadow247]

[MENTION=67598]RandyDaytona[/MENTION]
I carry a gun for a living too. If a bad guy attacks me, I will use it on him so that I can keep living.

 

[RandyDaytona]

As I said ealier, person to person sales do not require a background check, only transfers from an FFL to an individual, regardless of where the transaction takes place. There are no exceptions to this law, gun shows are not a magical 'no background check zone'. Private individuals are free to set up a table at a gun show provided they pay whatever fees the gun show collects, but if you are an FFL license holder, you are 100% required to submit a background check prior to transferring the firearm to a private individual. In a lot of states, a CHP/CCW/CWP holder is not requird to submit to a background check for each purchase, as they have already undergone a bg check identical to the NICS background check performed by an FFL dealer. Can I make this anymore clear?

One of 3 things happened that you witnessed.
1. The buyer possessed a CHP/CCW/CWP - they are not required to submit to a background check.
2. The seller was not an FFL holder, therefore it is considered a private party sale and exempt from a BG check.
3. The FFL dealer did not perform a background check and therefore broke several federal laws,which carry a pretty significant sentence if caught.

Which of these 3 scenarios do you think is most likely?

I'm fully aware of how legal gun transactions work, your sarcasm notwithstanding.

I'm also keenly aware of how illegal transactions work, and that's what I'm talking about.

People who break the law don't care what they are "required" to do, what the penalties are, etc. They don't think like you or I do; that's why they're breaking the law, cutting corners to make a buck, or doing whatever they feel like doing (like an FFL dealer I once investigated who was sawing off shotguns for people...)

So maybe it was a private sale? I hardly care. The fact that a person can still get a gun if they want one is what bothers me. ANY person. And like I said, I don't have a solution and never pretended to. However, my experience has shown me that just because I'm law-abiding, the next guy may not be, regardless of the law, penalties, whatever.

I realize I'm probably jaded since a great many of the people I deal with are not exactly solid citizens. But that said, you probably see more 'good' people with guns than I do. So that probably explains much of the differing viewpoints.

 

[RandyDaytona]

Randy,
sorry dude, that was not, intended or about you... not at all, it was directed towards a member on here, that doesnt even own, a 4runner.

10-4. No worries. My apologies as well.

 

[04rnr]

10-4. No worries. My apologies as well.

no worries, none at all :rockon:

 

[shadow247]

So what do you think happened in this case? An illegal transaction? If that's what you believe then you should report it, since you "carry a gun for a living" I would assume you are in some type of law enforcement or security, so you could easily report what you suspect is illegal activity.

We can put up all the restrictions we want to prevent people from acquiring guns, but just like the drug problem, it won't really make a difference to someone who is determined.
Edit. I'm going to bed.

 

[H2O_Doc]

So what do you think happened in this case? An illegal transaction? If that's what you believe then you should report it, since you "carry a gun for a living" I would assume you are in some type of law enforcement or security, so you could easily report what you suspect is illegal activity.

We can put up all the restrictions we want to prevent people from acquiring guns, but just like the drug problem, it won't really make a difference to someone who is determined.
Edit. I'm going to bed.

Do you suppose we should throw out contraception because that, too, isn't 100% effective (unlike abstinence only education)?

 

[RandyDaytona]

So what do you think happened in this case? An illegal transaction? If that's what you believe then you should report it, since you "carry a gun for a living" I would assume you are in some type of law enforcement or security, so you could easily report what you suspect is illegal activity.

We can put up all the restrictions we want to prevent people from acquiring guns, but just like the drug problem, it won't really make a difference to someone who is determined.

I don't know what happened, but not being "gun show savvy," I didn't do anything. And the guy I was with actually said there were private transactions taking place, so that's what I assumed it to be.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't bother me.

Yes, someone who is determined can always get a gun if they really want one. But that doesn't mean we should just chalk it up to "well, criminals will always get guns..." and leave it at that, not even trying to find viable ways to plug the gaps.

And yes, I realize there are things that have been tried - but they were STUPID things done for political reasons and predictably, they were not only ineffective, but just pi$$ed a lot of gun owners off.

But I'd like to see the pro and anti gun lobbies get together and at least try to have a dialogue, see if they can come up with something. If nothing else, they might at least educate one another a bit better as far as where each side is coming from.

As a responsible gun owner, I think we should be self-policing. The NRA thinks, apparently, that we should simply get more guns so we can shoot the bad guys when they inevitably get theirs. I don't see a solution in that for anyone BUT gun owners, and even then, it really isn't a good solution, IMO.

OT - If you carry a gun for a living in Hampton, VA and you're not jaded (I went to school in Williamsburg and did lot of military reserve time in VA Beach, Little Creek), then maybe I'm too jaded.

 

[blackrifle01]

For some reason, I can't quote everything you posted...

As far as loopholes...you're correct that a felony conviction prohibits owning or possessing a firearm, but a lot of convicted felons don't really care what the law says - that's why they're felons to begin with. Yeah, they're running a huge risk, but I've seen felons with guns, and they got them because there was a way to do so - private transactions, someone buying it for them, etc. Like I said, I don't know the mechanics of regulating that stuff and don't have a solution, but I think a problem exists, nonetheless.

I'm not talking about CCWer's committing crimes - I'm talking about doing stupid things, like those I mentioned. Yes, most CCWer's carry for protection and it's their right to do that. But I've run into a lot who seem to do it for "fashion," and who obviously watch way too much TV. Actually saw a guy once with a concealed carry sticker on his truck (duh). That's the kind of stuff that makes me scratch my head and wonder who issued a person with that kind of immaturity a permit to begin with. I think we can agree that carrying a firearm should not be about saying "look-at-me-I-have-a-gun..."

As far as CCWer's committing fewer crimes than police officers, I find that hard to believe, especially since it's tough to know how many CCWer's there really are (I don't believe it's public knowledge), and how many are carrying all the time (many don't). Whereas we know almost exactly how many cops we have in the country. It's not that there aren't bad cops - there are. And I am certainly not justifying their actions. But more often than not, they get weeded out, either by their peers, management, or their own stupid actions.

I'm not talking about carrying in a restaurant that has a bar or a place that happens to serve alcohol. I'm talking about a "club"-type place, the kind of place where people tend to drink more a lot more than the average restaurant-goer, where people go to "party," and where altercations are all too common.

I don't think people who are bi-polar are necessarily deemed a "harm to themselves or others." And I'm not sure what law you're talking about, but again, that would likely depend on the state/jurisdiction. From what I've seen, you actually have to have been involuntarily committed to an institution in order for something like that to apply. And for the majority of those folks, I doubt they're checking in and out (i.e. likely checking in and staying there).



Well, police officers carry weapons for different reasons than the general populace. It's not like it's a 'benefit' for them that non-police officers don't get. For me, I give officers more credit simply because I don't see them doing some of the things I see CCWer's doing. And if they do, they're putting themselves on the chopping block as far as employment or worse like in harms way). What I mean is...they have more to lose, anything from their job to their department's credibility. As far as proficiency, you train to respond in a certain way, but it doesn't always happen like that. In my experience, it usually doesn't happen like that. Training minimizes mistakes, but cannot eliminate them as long as the human factor is still there.



I never said all CCWer's were a problem and was not intending to portray them that way. I said that from what I've seen, there are enough with issues as to make me wonder if the NRA's knee-jerk reaction to Sandy Hook - aka "lets get more armed people out there" - is necessarily the right one. This is made potentially more serious by the fact that most of the people carrying weapons up until that incident had made a conscious decision to do so. How many people since then are carrying or considering carrying out of fear/paranoia? I was at a gun store last weekend and saw someone looking at a handgun while aiming it at other patrons. But according to the NRA, if everyone went out and bought a gun, the world would be safer? That's what I don't buy and what I was talking about.

BTW - thanks for debating in a civil manner.

Likewise...it's rare on the internet...especially when talking about guns.

For me, it comes down to what the facts and history tells us about gun violence. They tell us that gun violence is on the decline even as the number and breadth of gun laws are on the decline while gun ownership is on the rise. I'd rather see us effectively enforce the laws that we have on the books than make new laws that either will not be enforced or will only affect law abiding citizens while doing NOTHING to deter crime.

Are more guns the answer? Don't know. Let's have that debate in a rational, fact-based manner.

 

[blackrifle01]

Do you suppose we should throw out contraception because that, too, isn't 100% effective (unlike abstinence only education)?

What does contraception have to do with guns or gun control? Please explain where you are going with this?

Bottom line is the facts show that gun violence and all crime is on the decline and has been on the decline for decades. The FBI has come out and said that the AWB (Fun Fact - the expired AWB also included a provision that banned ALL magazines over 10 rounds) was worthless and did absolutely NOTHING to deter/prevent/reduce crime. There is no gun show loophole. According to the link provided earlier referencing a DOJ poll of convicts, 0.7% of them acquired firearms at a gun show. A vast majority acquired firearms through straw purchases (which are ALREADY illegal...do you want to make them more illegal...like double secret illegal? Instead of a slap on the wrist, you get two slaps on the wrist?)

Adam Lanza broke 41 laws in his rampage. Are you telling me another 1,2, or 3 more would have stopped him? Let's face it, we do not live in a "Minority-Report" world, so let's stop pretending that we do and actually open our eyes to the limitations of legislation and seek alternative ways to solve actual problems.

We can start by NOT turning a blind eye to facts.

There simply is no case for more gun control laws.

 

[H2O_Doc]

What does contraception have to do with guns or gun control? Please explain where you are going with this?

There simply is no case for more gun control laws.

I'm not at all making a case for gun control. My points simply address how we construct our arguments (for or against) it. People sometimes make the argument that because you cannot guarantee that a law will end all crime that is unreasonable and I think that is an inconsistent standard. It is really another logical fallacy used in debate.

 

[Thai]

I'm not at all making a case for gun control. My points simply address how we construct our arguments (for or against) it. People sometimes make the argument that because you cannot guarantee that a law will end all crime that is unreasonable and I think that is an inconsistent standard. It is really another logical fallacy used in debate.

The argument most make on THIS side is that we need enforcement of EXISTING laws, not make new ones. We barely have finding for existing laws...what makes you think we can enforce new regs??

 

[Thai]

Randy,
sorry dude, that was not, intended or about you... not at all, it was directed towards a member on here, that doesnt even own, a 4runner.

Ahhh, the great "hypocrisy" argument from 04rnr! If only he knows what that word means! It is sad that he got all mad when proven wrong in a cell phone thread!

 

[shadow247]

Ahhh, the great "hypocrisy" argument from 04rnr! If only he knows what that word means! It is sad that he got all mad when proven wrong in a cell phone thread!

Arguing about cell-phones is about as dumb as arguing about football. It doesn't really matter!

 

[H2O_Doc]

The argument most make on THIS side is that we need enforcement of EXISTING laws, not make new ones. We barely have finding for existing laws...what makes you think we can enforce new regs??

I don't know that we can;and even if we can, I don't know that new legislation is appropriate (especially at the federal level). This is part of why I haven't advocated more gun control.

 

[1engineer]

Well, police officers carry weapons for different reasons than the general populace. It's not like it's a 'benefit' for them that non-police officers don't get. For me, I give officers more credit simply because I don't see them doing some of the things I see CCWer's doing. And if they do, they're putting themselves on the chopping block as far as employment or worse like in harms way). What I mean is...they have more to lose, anything from their job to their department's credibility. As far as proficiency, you train to respond in a certain way, but it doesn't always happen like that. In my experience, it usually doesn't happen like that. Training minimizes mistakes, but cannot eliminate them as long as the human factor is still there.

I think this quote by [MENTION=67598]RandyDaytona[/MENTION] brings up a key point in this debate. I think most agree that enforcement of existing laws would be the right first step. Never mind that in our political system it is much easier and cheaper to make a law than enforce an old one. Anyway, here is/are my next question(s):

1. Why DO law enforcement officers carry guns?

2. Why do many citizens get a ccw permit?

My two questions.
As far as "bad apples" go, I have to think both sides have equal problems. I agree that some private citizens have what I call a "Billy Badass" complex, meaning they only own or carry because of perceived self image.
On the law enforcement side, I have observed the "Billy Badass" type along with what I personally call the "Little Man Syndrome." I absolutely with all my heart think it takes a special type of person to become a policeman. Most officers I know are good, warm hearted people who would do anything to help and want nothing else but to do their job and help others. The "Billy Badass" and "Little Man" type either carry or become law enforcement officers because of self worth issues. Too short, too fat, too ugly, too dumb, too smart, too "something, at least in their eyes, that they have a need to compensate for their perceived issues. Carrying a gun or putting on a uniform gives them an instant, perceived boost of self esteem. Now I know there are all kinds of tests and forms to weed these jokers out but if you have been around these guys you know that somehow a few of them slipped through the cracks.
My point is, there are bad guys in all walks of life, with and without a badge. I do think they are a minority though, and my glass is always half full lol.

 

[Thai]

Arguing about cell-phones is about as dumb as arguing about football. It doesn't really matter!

To be fair, arguing about guns (or gun control) on a CAR forum is smarter? Do you think that doing that here (or anyway) matters?? Has anyone really changed their minds with this thread? There are facts & opinions on every topic. Calling one thing dumb while doing something equally dumb on the other end is probably just as dumb, wouldn't you think?

 

[BrianSD_42]

At least this thread has evolved away from how it started which was blaming video games, TV, comic books etc.

 

[H2O_Doc]

That, and weird things happen when people approach a topic as a discussion rather than a debate - there is an odd exchange of ideas sans name calling.