Missouri Legislature upholds 'Stand Your Ground,' concealed carry law — requiring no

[Thefishguy77]

That's what baffles me the most. I can completely understand the stance of not wanting more government restrictions and regulations in regards to gun control. Where I am at a complete loss is where people think that having more people carry guns around in public is a good idea.

I am 100% on board with more CCW's for those who are trained be it off-duty LEO's, ex-military (although there probably should be some protocol if they have seen combat) and anyone else who has gone through some extensive training. But if anyone thinks it's a good idea that every Tom, Dick and Harry should walk around with a gun who's only training has been watching the Magnificent Seven a few times is just asinine to me. Go to any local college bar on a busy night. You honestly think even having 10% of those in there carrying a gun is a good idea?

If I knew that those carrying in public had a certain amount of training, I would not only be on board with that, but would be more comfortable with my day to day activities. If there were places where I knew a good chunk of people there were carrying and had zero training in order to do so? I would avoid those places like the plague.

Incidents where one side is carrying a gun vs ones where both sides are have two completely different dynamics and potentials for catastrophic outcomes.

Beside the fact that here in Washington you can't carry a gun in a bar?

How about mandatory military service for everyone over 18. 4 years service? You would have firearms training and a sense of pride in your country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

Beside the fact that here in Washington you can't carry a gun in a bar?

How about mandatory military service for everyone over 18. 4 years service? You would have firearms training and a sense of pride in your country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obviously more of a hypothetical scenario.

And mandatory 4 years of service for everyone? I'm all for it.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Obviously more of a hypothetical scenario.



And mandatory 4 years of service for everyone? I'm all for it.

One of my biggest regrets is not serving. That being said I am the first male on the male side of my family that hasn't been shot in combat in a 100 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hepar]

One of my biggest regrets is not serving. That being said I am the first male on the male side of my family that hasn't been shot in combat in a 100 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like a good family tradition to break.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Sounds like a good family tradition to break.

My dad thought so. But also told me that if I felt morally obligated to go in list. He passed away a year before 9-11-2001.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WFO_Racer]

This is why I bought 75 acres in Mo. A free state with awesome hunting.

I'm a Mexifornia native but every year the Democrats raise the level of stupidity to new levels.

The surf is awesome, off-roading, restaurants and other things make it somewhat tolerable but dealing with Democrats makes you want to throat punch them.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Yeah... as much as I was told to not get my sources from the media... the rhetoric coming out of this thread is exactly the same.

Being proficient has nothing to do with just how well you can shoot in high stress situations and how much ammunition costs (lol really?). I don't see a problem with proper training being required to operate and own a gun. We do the same for many other things as already mentioned I.e cars. Never mind high stress situations. What about safe handling and safe storage? What about transporting? What about knowing how to properly clear jams? Etc etc. It might be common sense but the lack of it can be fatal. I don't want my neighbours laying guns around their homes, driving around with guns in their cars, or walking up and down the street armed if they haven't demonstrated some basic proficiency on owning and shooting firearms. Basic standards won't eliminate ALL of that but, if that is the logic, then what is the point of any law in the first place?

I believe in gun ownership... but I am also ok with having to take a course to be able to buy guns. I think I also agree with the idea that assault rifles and handguns should require additional training and scrutiny of would-be buyers. Once you pass the requirements you are good to go.

Well this proficiency topic started not as to be able to operate and own a gun but from a concealed carry prospective. The only time in that prospective that you will need to use your gun would be in a high stress situation. That is where the police percentage of hit in stressful situation came in as well as the cost of ammunition as well to train for that situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MtnT4R]

ahhhh the good 'ol arguing on the internets.

I am in favor of the passage of any laws that enhance personal liberties, and the right to defend yourself and your family is top of the list.

HOWEVER, the average level of personal and moral responsibility I generally come across, especially in densely populated areas these days is unacceptably low for everyone to be carrying a gun. I wouldn't really feel comfortable strolling around in a crowd of idiots who are probably packing cocked and locked, and stand a pretty good change of an AD blowing their nuts off or hitting me. Unfortunately, criminals that carry despite it being illegal probably have less firearm discipline than your average law abiding idiot, so maybe that one is a draw.

I know several people who own guns that in my view are a huge danger to themselves and others(wannabe gangsters, backwoods rednecks, and one or two city slickers). I know far more people who are responsible and safe owners, who are interested in protecting themselves and their families with the most effective means available.

In my opinion, this issue is very similar to owning a car: there are just about as many cars in the US as there are firearms(270 million or so), and a roughly equivalent number of automobile deaths and gun deaths annually(30,000 roughly). I find this interesting; cars are a means of transportation, guns are intended to kill- but both kill about the same number of people annually in this country. Safe ownership of both cars and guns is entirely dependent on the owner, which makes this more of a personal responsibility and mental health issue than a "gun problem."

 

[MtnT4R]

I want to start off by saying I get what you're saying, and it makes sense. But I live in Florida. There is over one person with a concealed carry permit for every 18 residents of the state. That does not include LEOs who carry under LEOSA or on-duty LEOs - meaning there's a shit load of people carrying guns...and Florida has somewhat of an infamous reputation for there being a lot of shitheads.

Yet despite this, there is rarely any violence or accidents caused by people carrying guns. Sure, sometimes people leave a gun in a bathroom or it falls out of their shitty $8 uncle mikes holster but actual instances of people being injured or killed by concealed carrying gun owners is relatively rare. There is almost as much likelihood as a child aged 1-4 dying from drowning than there is for any aged Floridian dying from a gun.

I agree with you here. My post was geared towards the part of the new MO law stating that citizens can carry concealed without applying for a permit. Time will tell, and the accidents will probably be few and far in between, but the concept does concern me a little bit. Although to be honest, there are much bigger dangers associated with a densely populated urban environment than a possibly irresponsible concealed carry.

 

[Hepar]

I want to start off by saying I get what you're saying, and it makes sense. But I live in Florida. There is over one person with a concealed carry permit for every 18 residents of the state.

I would say that's a bit misleading being that you can aquire a CCW from Florida without being a resident.

Did you serve?

I did.

I already didn't want to serve with half the guys in my unit, and they all volunteered. Now you want to add **** stain hipsters who hate the military and miss their parents paying for their Lattes to the mix?

No thanks bro. Mandatory service would absolutely degrade combat effectiveness and unit cohesion.

I didn't serve myself. I was considering it, but at 18 I was midway through my 2nd major knee surgery.

And never said I wanted it. Just saying I wouldn't be against it. I think it would be a good reality check for those ****stain hipters. Would it ever work? No.

 

[Thefishguy77]

For sure. My whole post wasn't directed at you, it might have come off that way. I could tell we are two sides of the same coin



I think any non prohibited person should be able to strap up and go about their business - after all, nothing stops criminals from doing it. On the other hand, gun owners can be their own worst enemy. Molon labe and all that.... :bash:









It was not intended to be misleading. I did not say "1 in 18 people I run into on a daily basis has a CCW" or "1 in 18 residents". I just said 1 person for every 18 residents has a CCW.



I hear you on the mandatory service. In theory it sounds good, and I could get behind it with some tweaks. Maybe they could be put in their own units, or do mandatory service in the USA. God knows we could use that shit in America rather than rebuilding a bunch of shitholes that send over "refugees" that have kids who shoot up our night clubs, recruiting centers, and bomb our street corners. :spy:



I just know the last thing I want to do is support a program that puts super special snowflake Thomas, the ex Barista from Starbucks, next to Mike who joined the Marines because he wanted to.

Mandatory military service, yes I brought it up, would never work. Now if you make a form of mandatory civil service required, military, parks/forest service, hospital volunteer, ect, I think that could work.

2 of my best friends were in 2/75 together. Their team room was full of people they would never want in their home, but there was no other group of people they wanted to have next to the in the shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Woz1976-MT]

You know what's a felony in Missouri? Passing a bad check. "any forcible felony" is so ridiculously broad.

Did you bother to see how Missouri statutes define "forcible felony"? Montana clearly defines what constitutes one.

You're over-generalizing to make your argument, but then attempting to call-out the other posters for over-generalizing??

** 563.011(3): "Forcible felony", any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense.

Do you use or threaten to use physical violence against a person when you write a bad check??

 

[Elan_]

Did you bother to see how Missouri statutes define "forcible felony"?

Yes I did. If you go ahead and catch yourself up on the conversation instead of jumping to conclusions, you'll see I was already corrected on what a forcible felony is and accepted the correction.

 

[Woz1976-MT]

I know several people who own guns that in my view are a huge danger to themselves and others(wannabe gangsters, backwoods rednecks, and one or two city slickers).

I blame this one YouTube and all of the supposed "gun experts" thinking they are instructors for the rest of the public. (i.e. "Tex" Grebner anyone?) Additionally, using the internet forums (yes, even T4R.org) to get their "facts" and information.

As a law enforcement officer, I'd almost rather have the general public not have access to YouTube if they're going to carry. I also would prefer that the general public carry AND have them all personally seek out extensive training on using their firearms. Contrary to what the news media wants everyone to believe, we (law enforcement) really do depend on the citizenry more than even some of us realize. I want my citizens to be as good -- or better -- than me when it comes to firearms (to include some actual legal training).

 

[Woz1976-MT]

Yes I did. If you go ahead and catch yourself up on the conversation instead of jumping to conclusions, you'll see I was already corrected on what a forcible felony is and accepted the correction.

No, I did read it -- did you understand it? And I asked if you found "bad check" fitting the statutory requirements of a "forcible felony"? Or do you always try to debate using hyperbole?

 

[Elan_]

No, I did read it

Then I can't help you any more than that Steve. Go ahead and read it again if you need to, it's still there.

 

[Woz1976-MT]

I would say that's a bit misleading being that you can aquire a CCW from Florida without being a resident.

Actually, you can. Several states issue CCW permits to non-residents.

Then there are states that only recognize "resident" CCW permits, some recognize all permits, some recognize no permits from other states (Illinois is one, I believe). This is where more of the problem comes from with concealed carry -- the states are constantly jockeying around who/what they will and won't accept via reciprocity.

 

[Woz1976-MT]

Then I can't help you any more than that Steve. Go ahead and read it again if you need to, it's still there.

Please, let's not try to be condescending -- and you never answered my question (where is physical force or its threat against another person used when writing a bad check?).

Considering it's my job to read and know statutes, you need to find a better way to try to get your argument across. By feigning ignorance of a law and then trying to say everyone else is just as ignorant does not a good argument make.

 

[Elan_]

By feigning ignorance of a law and then trying to say everyone else is just as ignorant does not a good argument make.

These are big words you're using. I'm not sure you're up on their meaning. My ignorance was not feigned. It was quite legitimate, as I've already commented about, now for the third time. I also haven't tried to claim anyone else as ignorant. I'm not sure where you're getting this stuff from but it certainly isn't my posts.

 

[Woz1976-MT]

My ignorance was not feigned. It was quite legitimate, as I've already commented about, now for the third time.

Well, I think we can agree with this.