Woot! Take that fucking socialist gun control nazis!

Gosh, nearly twelve hours and not a single gun-grabber has chimed in. I wonder why?

Really, I have mixed feelings about concealed carry laws, but the more of this shit that happens the more in favor of them I feel. I'm not sure if it would make matters better though... the more weapons around the more opportunity a hothead would have to use one in a situation where normally he'd just throw a punch.

It's a tough one, I think.

I support gunhavers to gunhave, probably because I come from a state where everyone knows how to shoot 'em, clean 'em, protect 'em, train people on 'em, etc, but I don't think one hero's tale outweighs any number of villain stories. All hero tales (when contrasted with villain stories) do is justify a debate rather than letting the hysteria over villain stories steal the limelight. Of course, when comparing handgun-hero to AK-47 shootout villain, the question isn't so much "should guns be legal" as "how the hell did anyone let anyone have an AK-47 in public??"

@YJ - They don't give them to just anybody. Most hot heads who throw pinches have criminal records and couldn't get any gun license Mich less a concealed carry permit.

The thing to me is: this is newsworthy because it's rare. I was recently linked to an article that talked about how underreported incidents like this are in the media, and the only concrete example they had was from 2002 (it mentioned 2012 events, but none of said events were actually impacted by the presence of the firearm).

I'm not a "gungrabber", in fact I argued against obi a lot on it in previous posts. But nor am I totally a gun rights guy. I do believe, as Draug said, that they don't deal out CCW's like cards at canasta. My dad has one, and you would never know he was packing unless something like this went down near him. The vast majority of people with CCW's are people that you would trust with a handgun around you if shit is going down.

The downside is, you don't need a CCW to carry a gun. What I mean by that is...you can buy any gun that you would want to carry concealed legally (or illegally if you prefer) without it. And from there, it's simple enough to break the law and carry it around. It's not the generally responsible people who have CCW's that worry me, it's the people who don't have them but still pack in public.

That said, I think anyone should be able to get a firearm for personal protection and protection of their personal property, but there's very few people that have any business seeking to defend others with a firearm simply because not everyone has the right attitude and mindset for it, and that's something that if it's not done right, it becomes a serious clusterfuck. This person did, and that's great and we probably knew that from the fact that he managed to get a CCW to start with. I don't think this isolated incident by a responsible individual is enough to justify the people who feel that everyone should walk around strapped and that every violent crime ever could be prevented by that.

@SD - Just so you know, I think CCWs should be very restricted. I am not a "gun nut" by any means. I actually think that certain types of weapons should be restricted to secure facilities (i.e. full automatic rifles and pistols as well as some rapid recoil semi-automatic rifles) such that you never take direct posession of them, but have them shipped from facility to facility and only get your hands on them while in that facility. I don't believe in the argument that "I have wide open land so why can't I go shoot my AR15?" is valid as the AR15 can be fired with some accuracy up to 1/4 a mile and a random bullet can travel for miles (simple physics) so there is no safe distance outdoors for open range firing of some high-powered weapons.

So, whuile I believe all law abiding sane citizens should be allowed to purchase semi-auto handguns and hunting rifles as well as shotguns, revolvders, flintlocks, etc. for home use, I believe the most powerful and dangerous of these should be licensed range restricted along with controls on the purchase of ammunition so one has to have a record of owning a firearm that can use that munition before being able to purchase it, making the black market guns a little harder to load (what can you do with a gun if you have no ammunition for it?).

Just read the story and I have to say I'm now a convert. In fact we should all be obliged to carry guns everywhere. I think we should issue guns to everyone who flys on a plane, take that would be terrorist, don't mess with us, we'll set about ya.

Well, I mean, black market ammo is pretty easy to come by too...if you know what you're doing, you can even make your own ammo for a variety of weapons (my dad has on a few occasions). It feels a bit like unnecessary paperwork there for me, depending on how tightly you control the distribution mechanism for the ammunition. But hey, I'm all for what guns are where being as documented as humanly possible.

In general we align on this matter. I knew a guy who had an assault rifle because "it's fun to fire." It was a ton of fun for him on his wide open land to fire until he managed to hit his car and fuck it up badly, not covered by insurance. You're totally correct in that a lot of people (even owners) have no idea how far that shit can go until it happens.

@Maniac - I know you are being sarcastic, but I just want to point out that guns and planes don't mix. Pressurized cabins *really* disagree with small holes suddenly being punctrued in them. No, the best solution is to give everyone on the plane a K-BAR. The quarters are so cramped that if the terrorists did manage to get guns on the planbe, someone near them would take them down and the terrorist would look like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone.

^Let the terrorist stabbings commence!

Isnt this the reason we allow Police officers to carry guns? Maybe you shouldn't campaign in favour of gun possession but in favour of an increased Police force.

Once again that old adage that "if guns weren't legal we wouldn't need armed cops" comes up. They genie is out of the bag. If you think banning guns will keep them out of criminal hands, your are seriously deluded. They are *criminals* and don't give a fuck what the law says. And if you think having only the cops be armed is a good idea, well lets just look back to the postings this week about police abuse. You really want the guys like my brother (an egomaniac cop with a superiority complex and way too much testosterone) being the *only* ones with the weapons? The role of police officer attracts a certain type of person. And it ain't the "law and order/justice" type. No, it's the "Iwant to feel powerful and lord it over others" type. My brother is a typical cop and I wouldn't vote for him if he ran for sheriff. Hell, I wish we voted for cops!

I think Draug pretty much formulated the majority opinion on gun regulation. Since he's not a librul, he can get away with it without being labeled a gun-grabber. Lucky.

You are putting words in my mouth i didn't spoke. In the Netherlands, where i live, guns are illegal, and still, we do have armed cops.

Also, to respond on the second bit of your commend, over here, you do have to pass a lot of psychological tests to become a cop. Some 70-80% doesn't pass.

I am just saying the carrying of guns should be limited. In juridical terms, the government (cops and army) has an monopoly on the use of force, and they have to be accountable to the people. To give random people permits to carry arms doesn't fit in that purpose.

If you think there is to much violence, give the government the means to tackle the problem. The the only things Americans want is an smaller (cheaper) government and less meddling from that government.

@Victorious - Sorry, thought you were form the US. Not being from my country, you don't understand our history of oppression that is enshrined in the "right to bear armns". And you country has a population of less than 17 million. The Los Angeles metropolitan area has a population of nearly 18 million people. One metropolitan area as big as your entire country an not a bit of that area is rural.

Different cultures, different population densities. Different attitudes about freedom and it's definition. You can't determine what is right for America based on what works in the Netherlands.

You know, it's stuff like this that makes half the world hate Americans. You spend more money on exporting America verbatim (be it military nation building, sponsoring of think tanks, funding of Christian missions...) than the entire world combined yet God forbid if the others even try to engage reciprocally. This thread and topic are not even exclusively related to America ffs.

Bullshit, uly. This thread's topic is *exactly* about american life. It happened in the US, where gun rights are under constant attack by the gungrabbers.

As far as what we export, if I were President you wouldn't have those complaints because my first acts would be to get us out of any conflicts we were in and get us out of the UN telling them to find their own home. Tarrifs would go *way* up and companies who exported labor that could be done here would be fined. NAFTA would be no more and all H1B Visas would be sent home. The money and the jobs need to stay here and I am sick of these bullshit policies from both sides sending jobs and money over seas. We are *not* the world police and shouldn't have to be.

I'll put this in an interent meme way maybe you'll understand.

You don't know shit about the US, they rape and murder people over there.

...or...

You don't know shit about the US, cops mug, kidnap, rape, and murder people over there.

...or...

You don't know shit about the US, they had a revolution to grant them freedom and spelled out their rights in their Constitution over there.

@draugnar - your argue,ent makes no sense. The founding fathers didn't exclude the right to bear arms on a plane therefore what they thought must take precedence over what we think today. Guns on planes, I say it's my right. Ka-bar arn't even mentioned I the constitution so don't count.

Plane manufacturers should be forced to design planes that don't impede my rights to carry.guns, Its obvious the designers must be communist.

@Maniac - I love the joke, but the original statement was that everyone should be *obliged* to carry a gun on a plane. Not that everyone should have the freedom and right to. You confuse freedoms and rights with obligations and when I provide an alternative obligation, you say it infringes upon your rights. Fuck no, it doesn't. You should be allowed to carry a legally licensed firearm on your flight. But no one should be obligated to carry one. See the difference? However, if everyone was obligated to be armed in some fashion ont he flights (minimum K-BAR, which is a military knife like I carried in the Corps), then the terrorists would be fucked. The three guys with the guns on your flight would be up and pointing their pistols at the asshole terrorists while the guys sitting right beside the terrorists would be sliding their K-BARs into the terrorists guts, piercing all kinds of vital organs in a most painful way.

Hmmm... I can see it now. SkyMall magazine, a K-BAR, and a fully loaded Glock are in that little pocket on the back of the seat in front of you. You can pick your weapon in case of emergency.

You are the world police. And with a very extensive network of naval police stations might I add. Nothing bad about it, just letting you know since I sense a strong discrepancy between what you would do as a president and what sorts of people you are actually voting for. Must be frustrating.

Hey, I ain't voting for either of the two this year.

@ Draugnar,

Back on topic, why do you start talking about LA, to tell me about the difference in context? I tough we are talking about the entire USA, with more bigger population densities, but also a lot bigger rural area's. We aren't talking about cultural differences. We are talking about the monopoly of the state on violence, and i do believe those principles are the same in both countries.

ps, can you tell me about that 'history of oppression'? I thought i had a quit good knowledge of the history of the USA, but i do not remember anything other than the lack of alcoholic beverages for a few years.

The hush hush secret here is that we only consider the mass murder events when we discuss gun violence. What about all the murders that occur done by people who are carrying guns legally that don't result in over 2 or 3 killed and don't make national news. It isn't a "Well 13 people were killed int hat one incident and a few were saved in this one, it could be considered a wash" its thousands that are killed every year.

"ps, can you tell me about that 'history of oppression'? I thought i had a quit good knowledge of the history of the USA, but i do not remember anything other than the lack of alcoholic beverages for a few years. "

Basically American Colonists and later American citizens needed guns to oppress the Native Americans and Slaves that they were constantly scared shitless of. The only thing they were more afraid of was a federal government that would take their slaves away and enforce Indian treaties.

Where do even get this stuff, SC? You say so many things that seem modestly well-informed about early American history, and then you say nonsense like this.

oh yeah?