Open Carry will lead to wild west shoot outs

[rightwinger]

I think he was asking for you to prove that open carry makes it easier----got a link for that?

Who needs a link?

You want to shoot up a movie theater in Aurora Colorado? Just march right in with your AR-15 and 50 round magazine....nobody can say a word

You want to massacre school children in Newton Mass? Just walk into the school carrying your AR-15 and backpack full of ammunition. It is your second amendment right

That is not easier?

The point that you libs refuse to comprehend is if there were armed people in those places lives could have been saved. Those assholes might have killed one or two, but they would not have been able to commit mass murder if someone had been able to take them out as soon as they started shooting.

Only in a rightwing fantasy world brought on by watching too many movies. In reality, the assailant with the ability to rapidly fire dozens of rounds will have a tactical advantage. Your open carry laws will only encourage him to bring more firepower upon you.
These guys do not care if you shoot back, they are prepared to die before they start shooting

 

[Redfish]

You want armed people everywhere?

they already are--------criminals and police, and a few law abiding citizens.

That is not the country I want to live in. I left the United States almost 20 years ago, and the gun culture was part of the reason, and it was not near as bad as it is now. Open carrying is just insane.

So you would be comfortable in a country where only criminals and the government had guns? said another way---a country where only criminals had guns

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not hard to imagine a situation where a large number of citizens - few if any as well trained as law enforcement officers - are in a mall armed with handguns, and a suicidal maniac with a firearm and a large capacity magazine begins to kill others. Soon every Tom, Dick and Henrietta will pull their gun and in a panic many will begin to fire indiscriminately at others holding a gun.

Untrained and panicked armed citizens will one day prove how stupid is the fantasy of those who believe an armed amateur will protect them from a well armed and suicidal maniac. The unintended consequences suggest a greater number of body bags will be needed; death by friendly fire happens even with well trained and seasoned troops.

And yet it hasn't happened in over a decade of concealed carry and open carry. You panicky liberals can make up dozens of scenarios in you're "minds" till the cows come home and the fact will remain that it hasn't happened.

LOL, and in your 'scenario' - also made up - an armed and untrained citizen (shooting at targets which don't shoot and having no use of force policy nor practiced scenario's as do SWAT) will be an effective tool in real life situations. Having no command structure, no on going intelligence and no communication among the white hats = chaos.

What?
Sean Bell shooting incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds-caused-by-the-police.html?_r=0

The myth of the super cop lives on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who needs a link?

You want to shoot up a movie theater in Aurora Colorado? Just march right in with your AR-15 and 50 round magazine....nobody can say a word

You want to massacre school children in Newton Mass? Just walk into the school carrying your AR-15 and backpack full of ammunition. It is your second amendment right

That is not easier?

The point that you libs refuse to comprehend is if there were armed people in those places lives could have been saved. Those assholes might have killed one or two, but they would not have been able to commit mass murder if someone had been able to take them out as soon as they started shooting.

Only in a rightwing fantasy world brought on by watching too many movies. In reality, the assailant with the ability to rapidly fire dozens of rounds will have a tactical advantage. Your open carry laws will only encourage him to bring more firepower upon you.
These guys do not care if you shoot back, they are prepared to die before they start shooting

Oops
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit

 

[Redfish]

Who needs a link?

You want to shoot up a movie theater in Aurora Colorado? Just march right in with your AR-15 and 50 round magazine....nobody can say a word

You want to massacre school children in Newton Mass? Just walk into the school carrying your AR-15 and backpack full of ammunition. It is your second amendment right

That is not easier?

The point that you libs refuse to comprehend is if there were armed people in those places lives could have been saved. Those assholes might have killed one or two, but they would not have been able to commit mass murder if someone had been able to take them out as soon as they started shooting.

Only in a rightwing fantasy world brought on by watching too many movies. In reality, the assailant with the ability to rapidly fire dozens of rounds will have a tactical advantage. Your open carry laws will only encourage him to bring more firepower upon you.
These guys do not care if you shoot back, they are prepared to die before they start shooting

so your proposal is to let him empty his magazine and then ask him to surrender?

the idea is to limit the amount of death he can cause and to help him with his personal death wish as quickly as possible. Sure, there is some risk, but not as great as just standing by and letting the asshole shoot until he is out of ammo.

 

[Publius1787]

'Open Carry' Gun Laws Turn the Country Back into the Wild West - US News

Will open-carry gun laws turn U.S. into Wild West?

No Pizza for Open Carry Gun Families | Gunslingers twice rejected from family dining establishments | News | Boise Weekly

And yet no such event has occurred, no wild shoot outs, no blood bath on the highway or restaurant, no wild west days anywhere that open carry is legal.

A good way to settle disputes.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0BrdMi-oyc]The Good, The Bad And The Ugly - Showdown - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The T]

'Open Carry' Gun Laws Turn the Country Back into the Wild West - US News

Will open-carry gun laws turn U.S. into Wild West?

No Pizza for Open Carry Gun Families | Gunslingers twice rejected from family dining establishments | News | Boise Weekly

And yet no such event has occurred, no wild shoot outs, no blood bath on the highway or restaurant, no wild west days anywhere that open carry is legal.

A good way to settle disputes.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0BrdMi-oyc"]The Good, The Bad And The Ugly - Showdown - YouTube[/ame]

You know? At one time in this Republic? Dueling used to be an accepted practice to defend one's honor.

 

[Wry Catcher]

they already are--------criminals and police, and a few law abiding citizens.

That is not the country I want to live in. I left the United States almost 20 years ago, and the gun culture was part of the reason, and it was not near as bad as it is now. Open carrying is just insane.

So you would be comfortable in a country where only criminals and the government had guns? said another way---a country where only criminals had guns

Criminals? Oh, you must mean anarchists like you. No, I support local law enforcement, not a federal police force, i.e. Homeland Security, a concept both liberals and conservatives should find anathema. Federal LE is limited to the enforcement of Federal Law, as it should be in our system of governance.

 

[Wry Catcher]

'Open Carry' Gun Laws Turn the Country Back into the Wild West - US News

Will open-carry gun laws turn U.S. into Wild West?

No Pizza for Open Carry Gun Families | Gunslingers twice rejected from family dining establishments | News | Boise Weekly

And yet no such event has occurred, no wild shoot outs, no blood bath on the highway or restaurant, no wild west days anywhere that open carry is legal.

A good way to settle disputes.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0BrdMi-oyc"]The Good, The Bad And The Ugly - Showdown - YouTube[/ame]

You know? At one time in this Republic? Dueling used to be an accepted practice to defend one's honor.

Today we duel in a battle of wits, which is why someone like you would need to bring a gun.

 

[The T]

A good way to settle disputes.

The Good, The Bad And The Ugly - Showdown - YouTube

You know? At one time in this Republic? Dueling used to be an accepted practice to defend one's honor.

Today we duel in a battle of wits, which is why someone like you would need to bring a gun.

If we are talking wits? You are severely unarmed FlySnatcher. Why would I need to bring a gun to defend myself from a halfwit like you?

Hmm?

 

[Publius1787]

'Open Carry' Gun Laws Turn the Country Back into the Wild West - US News

Will open-carry gun laws turn U.S. into Wild West?

No Pizza for Open Carry Gun Families | Gunslingers twice rejected from family dining establishments | News | Boise Weekly

And yet no such event has occurred, no wild shoot outs, no blood bath on the highway or restaurant, no wild west days anywhere that open carry is legal.

A good way to settle disputes.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0BrdMi-oyc"]The Good, The Bad And The Ugly - Showdown - YouTube[/ame]

You know? At one time in this Republic? Dueling used to be an accepted practice to defend one's honor.

Of course, quite a few famous Americans engaged in dueling. List of duels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dueling even had its own set of rules.

The American Experience | The Duel | The Code Duello: Rules of Dueling

Code Duello: The Rules of Dueling

Reprinted from "American Duels and Hostile Encounters," Chilton Books, 1963.


The Code Duello, covering the practice of dueling and points of honor, was drawn up and settled at Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, by gentlemen-delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Sligo, Mayo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland. The Code was generally also followed in England and on the Continent with some slight variations. In America, the principal rules were followed, although occasionally there were some glaring deviations.



Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.

Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.

N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.

Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide, or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.

Rule 4. When the lie direct is the first offense, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange two shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.

Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore -- the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane.

If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.

N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer may (strictly) break his adversary's sword; but if it be the challenger who is disarmed, it is considered as ungenerous to do so.

In the case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the aggressor's shoulder, then break the aggressor's sword and say, "I spare your life!" The challenged can never revive the quarrel -- the challenger may.

Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A's pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)

N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offense transpired.

Rule 7. But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have actually taken ground, without exchange of fires.

Rule 8. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before their meeting.

Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.

Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.

Rule 11. Offenses originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputations, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor: this to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorable to the lady.

Rule 12. In simple, unpremeditated recontres with the smallsword, or couteau de chasse, the rule is -- first draw, first sheath, unless blood is drawn; then both sheath, and proceed to investigation.

Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children's play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.

Rule 14. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal, and equality is indispensible.

Rule 15. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.

Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.

Rule 17. The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his distance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.

Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.

Rule 19. Firing may be regulated -- first by signal; secondly, by word of command; or thirdly, at pleasure -- as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.

Rule 20. In all cases a miss-fire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or non-cock is to be considered as a miss-fire.

Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.

Rule 22. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.

Rule 23. If the cause of the meeting be of such a nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses; in such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.

Rule 24. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol; but in gross cases, two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.

Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals, thus:

If with swords, side by side, with five paces interval.

N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at Clonmel and Galway, at the quarter sessions, for that purpose.

 

[PredFan]

It's not hard to imagine a situation where a large number of citizens - few if any as well trained as law enforcement officers - are in a mall armed with handguns, and a suicidal maniac with a firearm and a large capacity magazine begins to kill others. Soon every Tom, Dick and Henrietta will pull their gun and in a panic many will begin to fire indiscriminately at others holding a gun.

Untrained and panicked armed citizens will one day prove how stupid is the fantasy of those who believe an armed amateur will protect them from a well armed and suicidal maniac. The unintended consequences suggest a greater number of body bags will be needed; death by friendly fire happens even with well trained and seasoned troops.

And yet it hasn't happened in over a decade of concealed carry and open carry. You panicky liberals can make up dozens of scenarios in you're "minds" till the cows come home and the fact will remain that it hasn't happened.

LOL, and in your 'scenario' - also made up - an armed and untrained citizen (shooting at targets which don't shoot and having no use of force policy nor practiced scenario's as do SWAT) will be an effective tool in real life situations. Having no command structure, no on going intelligence and no communication among the white hats = chaos.

You don't listen very well, but that's why you are still a democrat. You probably won't listen now but here goes:

My scenario isn't that at all, my scenario is the very real one that exists now where if someone decides to try to take out as many people as possible, he or she will need to find a place where an intended victim won't end his spree before it begins. Like the local gun free zone.

Nice strawman argument you built but I'm sorry to tell you it won't fly.

 

[Publius1787]

A good way to settle disputes.

You know? At one time in this Republic? Dueling used to be an accepted practice to defend one's honor.

Today we duel in a battle of wits, which is why someone like you would need to bring a gun.

Dueling is a mutual affair. Both sides must agree for it to be legal and there must be witnesses present. Dueling was often arranged by representatives (Lawyers) of the two parties involved. Indeed, there are those who battle with wits. In the war of culture, however, wits almost always loses to those who offer force. You could be the smartest beta male in the world, however, unless you can back it up with strength or honor, your just a no count beta male who no one respects. Think, for example, Barack Obamas foreign policy. The world knows he's a beta and alphas like Putin are happy to walk all over his beta ass.

 

[Redfish]

That is not the country I want to live in. I left the United States almost 20 years ago, and the gun culture was part of the reason, and it was not near as bad as it is now. Open carrying is just insane.

So you would be comfortable in a country where only criminals and the government had guns? said another way---a country where only criminals had guns

Criminals? Oh, you must mean anarchists like you. No, I support local law enforcement, not a federal police force, i.e. Homeland Security, a concept both liberals and conservatives should find anathema. Federal LE is limited to the enforcement of Federal Law, as it should be in our system of governance.

we agree on federal law enforcement, BTW, border enforcement is a federal responsibility---how has that been working out?

You do know why the 2nd amendment exists don't you? if not, do a search on Jefferson's thoughts on it.

 

[PredFan]

Who needs a link?

You want to shoot up a movie theater in Aurora Colorado? Just march right in with your AR-15 and 50 round magazine....nobody can say a word

You want to massacre school children in Newton Mass? Just walk into the school carrying your AR-15 and backpack full of ammunition. It is your second amendment right

That is not easier?

The point that you libs refuse to comprehend is if there were armed people in those places lives could have been saved. Those assholes might have killed one or two, but they would not have been able to commit mass murder if someone had been able to take them out as soon as they started shooting.

Only in a rightwing fantasy world brought on by watching too many movies. In reality, the assailant with the ability to rapidly fire dozens of rounds will have a tactical advantage. Your open carry laws will only encourage him to bring more firepower upon you.
These guys do not care if you shoot back, they are prepared to die before they start shooting

Complete made up nonsense.

 

[rightwinger]

The point that you libs refuse to comprehend is if there were armed people in those places lives could have been saved. Those assholes might have killed one or two, but they would not have been able to commit mass murder if someone had been able to take them out as soon as they started shooting.

Only in a rightwing fantasy world brought on by watching too many movies. In reality, the assailant with the ability to rapidly fire dozens of rounds will have a tactical advantage. Your open carry laws will only encourage him to bring more firepower upon you.
These guys do not care if you shoot back, they are prepared to die before they start shooting

so your proposal is to let him empty his magazine and then ask him to surrender?

the idea is to limit the amount of death he can cause and to help him with his personal death wish as quickly as possible. Sure, there is some risk, but not as great as just standing by and letting the asshole shoot until he is out of ammo.

My proposal is that we, as a society do not make it easier for them to do their jobs. We do not want the Adam Lanzas of the world to openly enter a school armed to the teeth. We do not want James Holmes to bring as many weapons as he wants into a movie theater just because he has a second amendment right to do so. I do not want some drunk sitting at the end of the bar cradling a shotgun

We need reasonable restrictions on who can carry guns and where they are allowed to carry them. Your wild west fantasies are not the solution

 

[rightwinger]

The point that you libs refuse to comprehend is if there were armed people in those places lives could have been saved. Those assholes might have killed one or two, but they would not have been able to commit mass murder if someone had been able to take them out as soon as they started shooting.

Only in a rightwing fantasy world brought on by watching too many movies. In reality, the assailant with the ability to rapidly fire dozens of rounds will have a tactical advantage. Your open carry laws will only encourage him to bring more firepower upon you.
These guys do not care if you shoot back, they are prepared to die before they start shooting

Complete made up nonsense.

Care to elaborate? I'm open to any honest discussion

 

[Brain357]

Compared to the killings that go on today, whether by gun, knife, baseball bat, whatever, the Wild West was as tame as a sewing circle. It's a fact that an armed society is a polite society.

We have more guns in the hands of more people than ever before.

You think the society that we live in is a "polite society?" Just curious.

We don't live in an armed society by any stretch of the imagination.

What are your examples of polite armed societies?

 

[Pete7469]

I suspect some pro-gun folks long for "wild west shoot outs".

Of course you do.

Mindless bed wetters like you project your evil thoughts on to others in order to demonize them.

Forget the fact that "the wild west" wasn't as "wild" as the comic books of the day made it out to be. Insipid moonbats ignore the real facts of the old west, just as they ignore the real facts of modern day Chicago, Detroit, D.C., NY, LA, and every other major city dominated by democrook sociopaths who pretend to care about the slaughter of innocent people by lawless thugs.

 

[Redfish]

Only in a rightwing fantasy world brought on by watching too many movies. In reality, the assailant with the ability to rapidly fire dozens of rounds will have a tactical advantage. Your open carry laws will only encourage him to bring more firepower upon you.
These guys do not care if you shoot back, they are prepared to die before they start shooting

so your proposal is to let him empty his magazine and then ask him to surrender?

the idea is to limit the amount of death he can cause and to help him with his personal death wish as quickly as possible. Sure, there is some risk, but not as great as just standing by and letting the asshole shoot until he is out of ammo.

My proposal is that we, as a society do not make it easier for them to do their jobs. We do not want the Adam Lanzas of the world to openly enter a school armed to the teeth. We do not want James Holmes to bring as many weapons as he wants into a movie theater just because he has a second amendment right to do so. I do not want some drunk sitting at the end of the bar cradling a shotgun

We need reasonable restrictions on who can carry guns and where they are allowed to carry them. Your wild west fantasies are not the solution

No one has advocated allowing mentally ill people like Lanza and Holmes to openly carry guns---------NO ONE.

No one is advocating that everyone walk around with a gun on his/her hip.

School security people should be armed, people with CC permits should be able to carry in any public place.

Listen RW, if I see you in a mall and see a crazed crack head pointing a gun at you, I will do everything possible to drop him before he kills you. I will find a good target angle, try to aim up to protect bystanders and put two rounds in his center of mass as quickly as possible. Since I use hollow points there is little chance of them going through him and hitting someone else. I hope to never have to do anything like that, but I know how to if it is ever necessary.