Openly carrying gun not a crime

[Mugu]

By Bill Bush, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

In the political tussle over Ohio's concealed-carry gun law, one fact seems to have been overlooked by many: You never needed a permit to carry a gun in public, and you still don't --- you just can't conceal it.

As long as you haven't been convicted of a felony, if you want to wear a pistol on your belt or walk around town carrying a shotgun, Ohio has no law against it.

But if you do, don't be surprised if you get some unwanted attention from police officers.

Philip Turner, 30, discovered that in July when he walked from his Hilliard apartment to his parked truck wearing a gun on his belt. At the time, Turner worked protecting banks' ATMs as they were serviced and delivering diamonds to jewelry stores.


Complete article at:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/03/30/guns.ART_ART_03-30-08_A1_QQ9PC2U.html?sid=101

[sharesunited]

1. Can I wave it around at people?

My gun, I mean.

[villager]

2. Given what guns are a metaphor for, I'd think you'd want to!

;-)

[michreject]

12. Another intelligent post

Not..............

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. You shouldn't refer to shares as a sexual predator, not nice behavior for DU.

David

[dysfunctional press]

5. you can, but you'd most likely be arrested. or shot. justifiably.

:shrug:

[SteveM]

26. Always got a penis on your mind?

[slampoet]

3. They do however tend to frown on stroking your gun and caling it "My Precious."

[merwin]

4. And the cops get off scott free, as usual.

"After being detained for about 30 minutes, and after Hilliard police arrived at the agent's request, Turner was released without charges. An internal investigation that concluded this week found that neither Agent Timothy Gales, who had stopped Turner, nor his partner, Betty Ford, did anything wrong.

However, it also revealed that Gales did not know it was legal for Turner to carry a gun openly, said Lindsay Komlanc, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety. As a result, more than 100 agents in the unit are to attend a mandatory refresher course on Ohio's gun laws over the next couple of months, she said."

-----

So, they didn't do anything wrong by ordering him against the truck with his hands on his head. Uh, ok.

[Mugu]

6. They always tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I guess we should amend that to ignorance is no excuse unless you are law enforcement.

Regards, Mugu

[selador]

21. the term is "transactional immunity"

generally speaking, LEO's are (like it or not) given some leeway for errors made WHEN they act in good faith. as for civil liability, etc.

personally, i was disgusted at how many LEO's were not aware that open carry was entirely legal in WA state.

it is every officer's responsibility imo to keep themselves educated and updated on the law. but of course, as a union member, i must say - IT's THE DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE TRAINING :)

but i certainly take it upon myself to keep up. it makes the job easier, and makes you more effective when you know yer case law.

[L1A1Rocker]

23. I'd call it wrongful detention.

And if I were on the jury that guy would get a pretty penny for being denied his civil liberties.

[selador]

27. it WAS wrongful

the point of transactional immunity is to limit exposure to civil liability.

[merwin]

24. If more officers were like you, the opinion of WA police would be much

higher.

As it is now, most people I know has had at least one run in with a LEO that was completely ridiculous. I'm from about 100 miles north of the Seattle area.

I also try not to let my interactions with the WA State Patrol officers taint my view of city/county officers :)

[selador]

28. run ins

even before i was a cop, my run ins with police were generally very positive.

this was especially true in california. CHP is probably one of the most professional and well trained agencies in the country.

as for WA state patrol. i won't make any "concrete commandos" comment or any other blatantly biased anti traffic cop statements :)

oops. just did.
any agency that wears a bowtie has ISSUES!!!!!!!!!

[dysfunctional press]

7. he's just lucky that he only had to deal with a medium-stupid cop...

a really stupid one might have shot first, and asked questions(or placed the gun in his cold, dead hand)
later.

[Preston120]

18. How Long Can You Be Held Without Charges?

Some in Gitmo are going on 6years.

[Thickasabrick]

8. Although I hate guns - if people are going to carry them around...

I personally would rather see them...then I know who to avoid.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. I agree

[selador]

29. except

that's illogical. statistically speaking, those who carry guns (concealed or otherwise) LEGALLY are far more law abiding than the average person.

from an LEO angle, i've had nothing but positive experiences in over 20 years with CCW'ers . i've had to arrest a couple (not for gun offenses though). and never had a problem.

furthermore, i have NEVER known a cop to have been assaulted (let alone shot at) by somebody with a CCW. i have known several instances where CCW holders have come to the aid of my fellow officers.

the stats are there. as are my 20 + yrs of anecdotes.

:)

[spin]

63. While growing up in Ohio...

I remember this old dude who used to walk up and down the streets of Ashtabula with a cowboy hat and a pair of Colt .45 revolvers on his hips.

He seemed like a nice guy. I doubt if anyone ever messed with him.

Now that I'm a old dude, I prefer to carry concealed. Makes people less nervous.

[liberal4truth]

86. Lots of gun-owners carry guns illegally. They even brag about it until they are in front of a judge.

then as convicted felons, they cannot legally be anywhere near a gun
or ammunition ;-)

Nevertheless, you never know who is armed in a concealed manner, these days.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

9. I'm pretty sure that this is also the case in California

It just can't be loaded and by loaded, I mean you can't carry a magazine with bullets in it even if the mag is kept separate from the gun. For Calif purposes, a loaded magazine = a loaded gun.

[slackmaster]

32. Loaded handgun is OK in most unincorporated areas in Cali

Not in municipalities unless you have an open carry license.

[liberal4truth]

92. thats as it should be since you can load the gun so quickly. why would you

expect the law to excempt you? California is a tough state to break gun laws in for a reason.

[ManiacJoe]

101. I think the point he was trying to make

was that CA's definition of a loaded mag equalling a loaded gun is a poor and uncommon definition.

[selador]

10. the same is true in WA state

fwiw, this LEO would never give anybody any "unwanted attention" for doing so. that would be a civil rights violation

and if i was carrying openly in a state that allowed it and WAS hassled by the police for doing so, i would make a complaint.

civil rights matter

fwiw, i have seen VERY few people here in WA state EXERCISE this right, but the case law on it is clear

and here's a good article

i can personally state that I have spoken to LEO's who were ignorant that open carry is entirely legal here. fortunately, many agencies have updated their training to reflect the law
http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/13/32/

[merwin]

11. What is a LEO?

Nevermind, Law enforcement officer :)

[-..__...]

13. NH is the same way.

Quite honestly, while I think open carry should be legal I think it's a bad idea... the sheeple and paranoid will always respond with
anxiety, stress, fear and panic.

[ThomWV]

14. Same here in WV and in fact the State Supreme Court upheld the right a couple of years ago

One of the cities had passed an ordinance against open carry and they were sued over it, the city lost and the right to openly carry was reaffirmed in West Virginia. To carry a concealed weapon here you have to take a safety/law course, then spend such time at the shooting range as the instructor thinks necessary before they will sign off on your application (took me 2 weeks and 6 range visits and I've been shooting pistols for 50 years). After that you go to the county Sheriff with your application where it will languish for at least a month and probably more like two as he does his background check (the State Police do one too) and then, and only then, do you get to pay your $100 to get the license. Both my wife and I have ours.

[Thothmes]

15. Same type of open carry law in Virginia

[MadHound]

16. Frankly I rather have somebody carry in the open than conceal carry

I think that conceal carry is just chicken shit. Besides, if you're carrying to prevent yourself from being attacked, like most CCW folks claim, then you should carry out in the open. Let's people know that you shouldn't be fucked with.

[sergeiAK]

17. Or let them know to just shoot you first and loot your body

As the argument against open carry goes. To anyone intent on robbing someone, it paints a rather large target on you, as a pistol is fairly valuable to a criminal.

[-..__...]

20. And the gun owner gets blamed...

for providing a firearm to a criminal. :shrug:

[iverglas]

25. nah

The firearm owner gets blamed for being reckless as to what happens to his/her firearm.

Regardless of what actually happens to it.

If you see someone driving through a school zone at 100 m/h, don't you blame him/her for being reckless as to whether s/he hits a child, regardless of what actually happens?

I sure do.


Oops. I didn't actually mean to have someone driving at 200 m/h ... reminds me of that very high horsepower car I apparently created on a grade 10 science exam by misplacing a decimal ... got most of the marks, and a "wow" from the teacher.

[L1A1Rocker]

30. M-kaaaaa

"Oops. I didn't actually mean to have someone driving at 200 m/h ... reminds me of that very high horsepower car I apparently created on a grade 10 science exam by misplacing a decimal ... got most of the marks, and a "wow" from the teacher."






Thanks for the info there.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. The owner would be dead in this case, doubt he would care.

Your analogy is seriously flawed, someone driving 100 mph is breaking the law. The gun owner in this case would be breaking no law. Nice try though. Make another go of it.

David

[iverglas]

33. okey dokey

Where I'm at, it is prohibited (by municipal by-law, I believe) to leave one's car keys in the ignition when the car is unattended. This is in order to reduce car thefts. Stolen cars are involved in accidents, including accidents in which bystanders in other vehicles or on foot are killed, at a much higher rate than cars driven by their owners.

The prohibition on doing something that makes cars much easier to steal is meant to deter people from doing something that contributes to fatal accidents (and of course costs resulting from property thefts).

Now, I gather that this prohibition is not applied in many places in the US. It is not illegal to leave a vehicle unattended with the keys in the ignition.

If I see a car parked on a street with the door unlocked and the key in the ignition, I blame the driver for making it easy for the car to be stolen, and thus increasing the risk of someone suffering serious injury or death when struck by the stolen car.

Even if it is not illegal where the vehicle and driver are.

Howzat then?

I couldn't care less whether what someone is doing is legal, if the effect is to increase the risk of someone else suffering harm. I don't base my moral code on what the law happens to say in any particular time or place, although some apparently do.

I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not. I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions.

[sergeiAK]

34. Your analogy still has one flaw

Openly carrying a gun does not make it terribly easy to steal. One must still overcome the owner of said gun, which might cause the thief a spot of trouble.

It's more like saying sitting in your car, with the keys in the ignition makes it easier to steal the car. The would-be-thief still has a bit of work to do before he can leave with his prize.

[L1A1Rocker]

35. Yep, cops have their guns taken from their holsters dozens of times a day.

[iverglas]

36. yeah, just like

corporate lawyers have their Rolexes taken from their wrists dozens of times a day.

Not.

However, there are certainly circumstances in which promenading around with a Rolex on one's wrist might be unwise, no?

Would I blame someone for the risk that is created by promenading around with a Rolex on his/her wrist in inappropriate circumstances?

Nope. Nothing to blame anyone for -- no risk to anyone else, not anyone else's problem. Someone wants to lose his/her Rolex, no skin off my nose.

Someone wants to lose his/her firearm, I take a bit more of an interest.

Even if the recklessness is happening a few hundred miles from me. There's just no guarantee that the firearm in question, if stolen, won't end up shooting a kid on the streets of Toronto. Happens.

[L1A1Rocker]

41. Laughing

Funny post.


Irrelevant, but funny.

[iverglas]

37. I'd say it's your critique that has flaws

Openly carrying a gun does not make it terribly easy to steal. One must still overcome the owner of said gun, which might cause the thief a spot of trouble.

And danged hard it would be to walk on by, turn around, come up behind the firearm displayer and whack him/her upside the head with a 2x4.


It's more like saying sitting in your car, with the keys in the ignition makes it easier to steal the car. The would-be-thief still has a bit of work to do before he can leave with his prize.

Just such a wee tad harder to accomplish the surpise 2x4 whacking from behind and extraction of object from victim, or vice versa in your scenario, hm?

[sergeiAK]

38. You keep reaching for straws

The thief still has to commit assault/battery to obtain the gun/car. Not a simple case of "hey, the keys were in it". Or, if the car is unlocked, simply walk over to the passenger side (easy to do at a light), and hop in. Proceed to threaten/beat the owner and you have a car. Obviously the car owner's fault, as he failed to prevent you from beating him senseless and stealing his property.

Not to mention, with a gun, if they turn around at the wrong moment, you get some nice new ventilation holes. Not my idea of easy, not sure about yours, but I regard anything carrying a significant probability of my death/grave injury as "not easy". While it's possible, it doesn't happen much (and remember, most police carry a weapon openly, so there's no shortage of opportunity), does it? I wonder why.

How about a motorcycle theft? Easy enough to walk up behind (at a traffic light), stab/beat the guy, shove him off, and take off on the bike, no? Is the biker at fault for that?

Personally, I find the concept of holding someone who was physically assaulted during a crime responsible for the crime reprehensible. Smacks of the old "look at how she was dressed" defense.

[iverglas]

39. I find many, many things reprehensible

And intentionally misrepresenting what someone else has said, despite how clear the meaning was made:

Personally, I find the concept of holding someone who was physically assaulted during a crime responsible for the crime reprehensible. Smacks of the old "look at how she was dressed" defense.

is right up in the top ranks.

If you'd like to pretend you don't know that your assertion that I said anything that amounted to "holding someone who was physically assaulted during a crime responsible for the crime" was a complete falsehood, you feel free. I'm sure you'll find several here who will pretend to believe you.


typo in header fixed

[Tejas]

40. Hysterical

"I find many, many things represensible...And intentionally misrepresenting what someone else has said, despite how clear the meaning was made:...is right up in the top ranks."


Congratulations, I'd bet a case of ammo to a cheeseburger that even Helmke himself couldn't come up with that one.

[L1A1Rocker]

42. Yep, very funny.

[sergeiAK]

43. And you'll note

I never said you held anyone responsible.

You, however did.

The firearm owner gets blamed for being reckless as to what happens to his/her firearm.

[iverglas]

46. I note lots of things

What I noted here was this -- and I am adding emphases in an attempt to assist your own noting process:

The firearm owner gets blamed for being reckless as to what happens to his/her firearm.

And this:

I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not. I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions.

And you said this:

Personally, I find the concept of holding someone who was physically assaulted during a crime responsible for the crime reprehensible. Smacks of the old "look at how she was dressed" defense.


And if you want to pretend you were not characterizing what I said when you wrote that, and that you just happened to randomly say this in a post written as a reply to my post ... well, again, I'm sure there are people here who will pretend to believe you.

If you claimed that I have said, or if you have some reason for claiming that I would say, that I hold anyone who was physically assaulted during a crime responsible for the crime, you would be lying.

If that is not what you were claiming, and you want to claim you were saying something else, go right ahead and say what you were saying so it's just a tiny bit clearer.

[sergeiAK]

48. So to clarify

Say I "recklessly" leave my pistol in a holster on my belt, and am assaulted on the street, and my pistol is stolen. Am I to blame for allowing a thief to obtain a firearm?

It appears that you are arguing that I would be (if this is not the case, please say as much). Regardless of whether my firearm is stolen, you seem to be arguing that I am creating the risk of a criminal obtaining a firearm, and am therefore to blame for any crime said criminal commits. However, for any of this to occur, I would have to be a victim of a violent crime. So, if I am to blame for all of this, you are placing blame on the victim of a violent crime.

Clearer?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sergeiAK]

52. So what did you mean?

I really don't see what you're trying to say. At first it appeared you were saying that someone who openly carried a gun should be held responsible for creating the possibility of a criminal stealing said firearm. Now you're claiming that statement meant no such thing. Which is it?

Do you or do you not think that someone openly carrying a firearm is responsible for the risk of a criminal assaulting him and stealing it?

[iverglas]

54. ..................

I really don't see what you're trying to say.

That's okay. I really don't care.

At first it appeared you were saying that someone who openly carried a gun should be held responsible for creating the possibility of a criminal stealing said firearm.

"Held responsible"? To whom? Why do you need to keep making shit up?

The person IS RESPONSIBLE. If there is no law against what a person is doing, then I'm not really sure how we would go about HOLDING him/her responsible. That's kind of what we have laws for, and if we don't have them, then we can't do it.

"Should be held responsible"? I don't think I proposed any laws to that effect, so I don't see how you're interpreting anything I said as meaning that someone "should be held responsible".

Of course, where I'm at, there are laws against promenading around in public with firearms in any event, so there'd be no need for a law against doing it openly. Someone doing that would be violating the law, and "to blame" for that alone: for violating the law.

Sometimes people are held civilly rather than criminally responsible (liable). Should someone victimized by a person using a firearm stolen from someone who was promenading around in public with it be able to claim compensation from the person who created the risk of the theft? Sounds good to me.

Now you're claiming that statement meant no such thing.

Now you're making bizarrely false statements.

Unfortunately, my post having been deleted for reasons that are totally unknown to me, I can't quote what you seem to be referring to. But since you haven't quoted whatever it is that you're trying to portray as me claiming that my statement did not mean what it meant, I guess we can just ignore your claim.

Do you or do you not think that someone openly carrying a firearm is responsible for the risk of a criminal assaulting him and stealing it?

Is there maybe some reasonable limit on how many times anyone should be expected to repeat what she has already said umpty-three dozen times, with perfect clarity?

Asked and answered, friend. (And btw, the principle applies to someone carrying a firearm concealed, as well. As it does to many other things in life, i.e. whenever someone does something that creates a risk of something happening: s/he is responsible for creating the risk. I mean: duh.)

Except, of course, for all the cute little variations in wording you just can't resist.

A person who creates conditions in which there is a risk of something happening is responsible for whatever s/he has done. If the risk affects no one else, then there is no blame to be assigned -- no one gets to blame me for not looking where I'm going as long as the only harm that results is to me. See? No one gets to blame me for being reckless about the security of my possessions if the only harm that results is that my Rolex is stolen. Nobody else's business.

A person who creates conditions in which there is a risk of harm coming to another person or persons is to blame for creating those conditions. Not for what anyone else did -- for what s/he did.

If we didn't operate on that principle, we would not have laws against, just for example, reckless driving, or drunk driving.


... typo fixed

[sergeiAK]

55. ...................

OK, I get it. You think someone carrying a gun is risking someone stealing it for criminal use, and the carrier is responsible for creating that risk. However, my point was, and remains, that for any harm to come of this, the carrier of the weapon would have to be the victim of a crime (likely a violent one). That is what differentiates this from reckless driving.

Hypothetical situation below:
If Dave is driving recklessly, and runs over a child walking home from school, the death is his fault alone, no 3rd party criminal action was necessary.

In your case, a 3rd party must commit a (likely violent) felony for any harm to occur. That's where the difference lies.

Another scenario (more analogous to the one being discussed):
Jenny drives to the mall and parks in the outskirts of the lot. She leaves her keys clipped to her belt, and Dave the mugger hits her with a brick and steals her keys. Dave then proceeds to run from the police, and runs over a pedestrian in the process. Is Jenny in any way liable (civilly or criminally) for the pedestrian's death, and if not, should she be?

Sometimes people are held civilly rather than criminally responsible (liable). Should someone victimized by a person using a firearm stolen from someone who was promenading around in public with it be able to claim compensation from the person who created the risk of the theft? Sounds good to me.

So (again, a hypothetical)
Jimmy is carrying a pistol in his holster. He gets stabbed/beaten by John, who proceeds to steal his pistol and kill 3 people with it. Should Jimmy be civilly liable for what happened to a 3rd party as a result of a violent crime against him? Keep in mind, Jimmy's actions were 100% legal.

That's why I said you appear to be blaming the victim of a crime for a second crime which they did not commit nor willingly enable.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. The point was made that open carry created targets for criminals.

It was stated so they can loot your body. In this scenario it was clear that the gun owner had been the victim of a crime.

Then you Iverglas of Canada wrote, "The firearm owner gets blamed for being reckless as to what happens to his/her firearm.

Regardless of what actually happens to it."


You can pretend that you didn't write this but you did. So if you think you were clear in what you wrote then you need to have someone else read your posts prior to their posting. So apparently you find it reprehensible to be confronted with the truth, because that's all the happened.

David

[iverglas]

47. you can pretend you didn't understand it if you like

Oh, oops. I'm pretty sure you're not pretending.

As you were.


The firearm owner gets blamed for being reckless as to what happens to his/her firearm. Regardless of what actually happens to it.
You can pretend that you didn't write this but you did.

Do you really imagine that I make a habit of posting things on the permanent record on internet discussion boards and then "pretending" that I didn't write them? Do you realize that when you suggest I have done that, you are suggesting that I am a delusional psychopath?

I neither pretend I didn't write that nor imagine for a minute that you understood it. (Unlike others, who I am quite sure understood it and choose to pretend otherwise.)

And I not only think it is clear, I know it is clear. It is a simple declarative sentence. Someone who is reckless is to blame for being reckless where the reckless behaviour creates a risk to other people. Period.

Not is to blame for Mt. Vesuvius erupting or is to blame for world war three or is to blame for someone taking advantage of his/her recklessness to cause harm to him/her or someone else. Is to blame FOR BEING RECKLESS ABOUT THE WELFARE OF OTHER PEOPLE.

Someone who leaves a firearm accessible to persons likely to use it to cause harm to other people -- whether it be in his/her home, vehicle or business premises or on his/her person -- is reckless about the welfare of other people, and is to blame for that NO MATTER what else happens or never happens.

Just like you can be charged and convicted of RECKLESS driving even if you've never even been in a fender-bender.

And no, that has nothing to do with anything being illegal or legal. It has to do with RECKELESSNESS being BLAMEWORTHY.


I know you lost the thread a long way back there. So just one thing. Please stop referring to what you write or choose to agree with as "the truth" when it isn't.

No matter that you can't distinguish truth from falsehood, if that's the problem. Just accept that you can't and exercise a little caution.

Calling someone a liar -- which is what telling me that a misrepresentation of what I said is "the truth", when I say it is not, is -- is something that most people just don't want to do unless they are rather more able to offer a basis for what they say than you have ever been.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. I don't disagree with you on some points.

Someone who leaves firearms accessible to children or the public is reckless. If that someone was the victim of a crime and didn't have the means to secure the weapon, because they were dead in this scenario. Then I wouldn't call them reckless. Apparently you were making the reckless point in the wrong place because it was in a sub thread which started with the scenario of a law abiding citizen practicing open carry gunned down for his weapon. Hence the confusion about your point. I don't believe that people who have their weapons stolen from there homes are reckless, they are victims.

David

[iverglas]

58. except

Apparently you were making the reckless point in the wrong place because it was in a sub thread which started with the scenario of a law abiding citizen practicing open carry gunned down for his weapon.

... this is what was actually said:

17. Or let them know to just shoot you first and loot your body
As the argument against open carry goes. To anyone intent on robbing someone,
it paints a rather large target on you, as a pistol is fairly valuable to a criminal.

20. And the gun owner gets blamed...
for providing a firearm to a criminal.

... and that's what I was actually responding to.


Wandering around in public with a firearm on one's person is, in my opinion, reckless.


I don't believe that people who have their weapons stolen from there homes are reckless, they are victims.

And it is entirely possible to be both things.

Going for a stroll in the Everglades at night would be kinda reckless, given the alligators. A person who went for a stroll in the Everglades at night and got eaten by an alligator would be a victim.

The fact that someone is a victim does not preclude the reasonable opinion that s/he was also reckless.

Not everyone who has a firearm stolen from his/her home was reckless in most people's opinion, I'm sure. Unless one happens to be of the opinion that keeping firearms in one's home is reckless in itself, and that is an argument that can be made, whether everyone agrees with the opinion or not.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. It is in your opinion reckless.

It is the legal opinion of that State that it is not reckless. Since the State says it's legal it would be hard to then find that person in anyway reckless for doing what the law allows. I do realize it's illegal where you are and therefore it would be reckless to do so in Canada. Understand though that the line of thinking that says that a victim is reckless might be applied to other case in ways that noone is comfortable with.

David

[iverglas]

66. please tell me that you realize

that I have never, ever suggested that a person wandering around with firearms on his/her person, where doing that is not prohibited by law, could or should ever be charged with any offence.

If you do realize this, I have no idea why you would say:

Since the State says it's legal it would be hard to then find that person in anyway reckless for doing what the law allows.

If you don't realize that I have never, ever suggested that a person wandering around with firearms on his/her person, where doing that is not prohibited by law, could or should ever be charged with any offence, I would have to shrug and walk away.

However -- what is reckless is a matter of pure opinion. That has not a thing to do with the legality or illegality of the act. It is legal to drive down my little residential street at 30 mph. It is still utterly reckless to do so.

It is MY OPINION that it is reckless to wander around in public with firarms on one's person.

It might be the opinion of a court that it was reckless to leave the gate in the fence around a pool of toxic liquid unlocked.

My opinion is not authoritative. The opinion of a court is authoritative in the case before it. It's still just an opinion.


I do realize it's illegal where you are and therefore it would be reckless to do so in Canada.

No, it's illegal to do in Canada. Whether it's reckless is still just a matter of opinion.


Understand though that the line of thinking that says that a victim is reckless might be applied to other case in ways that noone is comfortable with.

No, I will not understand any such thing, thank you.

When I was abducted and assaulted and came very close to being killed, I had in fact been reckless. I was hitchhiking -- although I was hitchhiking in the company of a man, which was somewhat less reckless than hitchhiking alone, and hitchhiking in broad daylight in an area, a well-travelled highway in southern Ontario, and at a time, the early 70s, where and when the risks associated with hitchhiking were very low. Nonetheless, I took a risk. I did not have enough information to make a good decision in the circumstances (I didn't know that the man who picked us up had committed two abductions and assaults in the previous three days, for starters; I didn't check that the interior door and window handles were in operative condition, which they weren't), and I was reckless when I got into his car.

I was still the victim of a serious crime. The fact that I was reckless about my own safety DOES NOT MEAN that I was "to blame" for what happened to me. I was responsible for putting myself in a situation where there was a high risk of harm, but I was NOT responsible for the harm done to me. And acknowledging my recklessness IN NO WAY absolves the person who committed the crime of responsibility for HIS actions.

Now, pretend I had a young child with me when I was hitchhiking, and was equally reckless about the child's safety; what say you now? Was I responsible for putting the child in a situation where his/her safety was at risk? I did nothing to harm the child. But I created the conditions in which there was a risk of harm to the child, and the harm occurred. What if no harm occurred? I wasn't reckless??

I accept responsibility for my recklessness; I accept no blame for it, because no one has anything to reproach me for. I do not accept responsibility, or blame, for the harm done to me. If I had had a child with me and the child was harmed, I would not be responsible for the harm, or to blame for the harm, but I would be responsible and to blame for putting the child at risk.

And I just don't understand why this is so apparently difficult for anyone else to understand.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. You never said they should be charged but that they should be held liable.

I'm sorry you were the victim of a crime, one question though is hitchhiking illegal in Canada? It is in most of the United States.

David

[iverglas]

80. Please stop making false statements about me. Now.

You never said they should be charged but that they should be held liable.

Learn how to copy and paste.

It may allow you to stop plastering falsehoods all over the board.

I did not say that. Your statement that I said it is false. I don't know why you are saying something that is false. Frankly, I DON'T CARE. I want you to abide by the rules of civil discourse and NOT MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE DISCUSSION, and specifically about me.

If you cannot make a true statement about me / something I have said, SHUT THE FUCK UP would be a wise course of action.

Here is what I DID say:

Of course, where I'm at, there are laws against promenading around in public with firearms in any event, so there'd be no need for a law against doing it openly. Someone doing that would be violating the law, and "to blame" for that alone: for violating the law.

Sometimes people are held civilly rather than criminally responsible (liable). Should someone victimized by a person using a firearm stolen from someone who was promenading around in public with it be able to claim compensation from the person who created the risk of the theft? Sounds good to me.

People are held criminally LIABLE for breaking laws. People are held civilly LIABLE for causing damage by their acts or omissions, if the acts or omissions were intentional or negligent (according to whatever duty of care applied) and there is a causal connection between the act/omission and the damage.

Saying that someone IS RESPONSIBLE for something is NOT the same thing as saying that s/he may be HELD RESPONSIBLE (liable) for it. Grow the hell up and learn to speak English, will you?


I'm sorry you were the victim of a crime, one question though is hitchhiking illegal in Canada? It is in most of the United States.

Aren't you the clever clogs though?

Hitchhiking, at the time, was illegal on the 401 from the highway 10 interchange east. (This was/is because of the heavy traffic along that stretch of highway and the multiple multi-lane on and off ramps, and the absence of places where vehicles can safely stop on a shoulder - absence of shoulders, in fact. Up to that point, the 401 was/is a largely rural, uncluttered stretch of highway which, although heavily travelled, has excellent sight lines, long access ramps and merging/leaving lanes, and ample shoulders.) This was why we were standing at the highway 10 interchange. If one was going through Toronto and one's ride was going into Toronto, one got out at highway 10 so that one would not be within the zone where hitchhiking was illegal, and waited for a ride that was going all the way through to the 35/115 interchange on the other side.

Hitchhiking, per se, is not and never has been illegal in Canada. What the hell kind of fascist dictatorship would outlaw hitchhiking??


Now aren't you glad you asked? I just know you must have had a reason for it ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. You did it for me, thanks.

You wrote, "Sometimes people are held civilly rather than criminally responsible (liable). Should someone victimized by a person using a firearm stolen from someone who was promenading around in public with it be able to claim compensation from the person who created the risk of the theft? Sounds good to me."


Again everyone can plainly see what you wrote and decide for themselves. I haven't made any false statements about you. I haven't cursed at you either. Again I'm sorry you were the victim of a violent crime, regardless of the circumstances. My reason for asking about the hitchhiking law in Canada was because I didn't know and was curious, no nefarious reasons, just curiousity. I might say you should have been more cautious, but I wouldn't say you were reckless. Hitchhiking with a companion would probably dramatically decrease your odds of being attacked and it sounds like you took that into account. So I would just say that you were unfortunate and extend my apologies to you for being victimized by a criminal and say that I wish you well.

David

[beevul]

49. Some questions then...

"I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not. I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions."


If the above is true, what would your opinion of people that create gun free zones and places that disarm only the law abiding BUT take no actions to actually prevent the presence of firearms be?

Obviously in such places, one is defenseless against someone who possesses a firarm contrary to the firearm regulations of that place.

I am certain I need not give examples of such places.


Would you place blame on the people that create such places for not taking any actions to prevent the presence of firearms? Would you make exceptions for them?

[iverglas]

51. whatever

If the above is true, what would your opinion of people that create gun free zones and places that disarm only the law abiding BUT take no actions to actually prevent the presence of firearms be?

My opinion is that it's a dumb question.

Where I'm at, it is not legal to promenade around in public ANYWHERE with firearms (unless one happens to be somewhere where hunting is permitted, and one is hunting, say), I like it that way, and I don't expect it to change in this millennium.

My highways are speed-free zones; only the law-abiding obey speed limits. Just think of all the silly tautologies we could come up with if we set our minds to it.


Obviously in such places, one is defenseless against someone who possesses a firarm contrary to the firearm regulations of that place.

Obviously, in such places, the vast majority of the public, and very probably every person in any given place, would not be carrying firearms no matter what, so, well, big whup.


Would you place blame on the people that create such places for not taking any actions to prevent the presence of firearms? Would you make exceptions for them?

Dumb and dumber.

Since civilized societies do not permit members of the public to promenade around in public with firearms, I would have to be blaming the owners of premises for, what, not inviting members of the public to break the law on their premises?

You prefer living in the jungle, feel free. Just don't expect me to be writing the law of the jungle for you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. We aren't talking about Canada and you know it!!!

Everytime you start kicking your ass kicked in an argument you say where I'm at thats illegal. You know this is a message board in the US about US laws and politics, right??? For the record you again plainly stated that the victims of violent crime should be held responsible for other actions the criminal may take with items stolen in the initial violent crime. That is assinine.

David

[iverglas]

59. hey, chum

You asked for my opinion:

If the above is true, what would your opinion of people that create gun free zones and places that disarm only the law abiding BUT take no actions to actually prevent the presence of firearms be?

I can only have an opinion on that question if I accept the premise that it is/should be legal for people to wander around in public with firearms on their person.

That is the only scenario in which there would even BE "people that create gun free zones".

If you lived somewhere where it was illegal to chew gum in public, would you have an opinion about people who created "gum free zones" where you live? What earthly sense would that make? A shopping centre decreeing that its premises will be "gum free", when it is illegal for anyone to chew gum on the premises anyway?

I won't have an opinion about people creating "gun free zones" in a jurisdiction where it is illegal to bring guns into those zones in the first place, because that's a waste of time.

And I won't have an opinion about people creating "gun free zones" in a jurisdiction where it is NOT illegal to bring guns into those zones in the first place, because the whole thing is just an absurdity to me. The idea that it would otherwise be legal to bring firearms into those zones is just so bizarre that I really don't have to come up with opinions about what should happen next.

Kinda like Iraq. Why should I, or anyone who opposed the invasion and occupation, have to come up with a plan for how the US should solve its mess now? Why should I have an opinion about how people who choose to let people wander around in public with firearms choose to organize their mess?


For the record you again plainly stated that the victims of violent crime should be held responsible for other actions the criminal may take with items stolen in the initial violent crime.

For the record, you appear to be intentionally making a statement that you know is flat-out false.

I'm growing bored with assuming that you do not actually know that the statements you make are false. You have been assured repeatedly that they are false, you have had every opportunity to make the effort to understand that they are false, and yet you continue to make them. The characterization of your actions becomes unavoidable.

[57_TomCat]

60. In my opinion this is another case of...

arguing semantics in lieu of admitting to the exception.

Of course I realize there are some that might not care for my opinion but then whatever. :D

[iverglas]

61. hmm

I guess in my opinion that would be another case of not making a stitch of sense.

Of course I realize there are some that might not care for my opinion but then whatever.

Some might not! Me, I'll just stick to having no opinion about nonsense.

[57_TomCat]

64. And...

you do that very well. :D

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. I didn't ask your opinion.

Someone else asked you about gun free zones. Every time you say they're false you repeat them with some caveat like in Canada people aren't allowed to carry guns openly. Everyone can read the posts and decide for themselves.

David

[DemOkie]

62. Dave, You overlook one thing...

Canada is utopia. In point of fact, I'm surprised that they have put up with the flood of illegal firearms from their southern neighbor for as long as they have. I suppose they have considered armed intervention, but then how can one wear spec ops attire with that "Dudley Do-right" hat and be taken seriously? Which begs the question, do Canadian spec-ops wear plaid?

I suggest they build a stout and high fence. I would add the suggestion they stock the Great Lakes with piranha, but I fear that our northern neighbors would hurt themselves on those pointy little choppers.

[iverglas]

68. one great thing about Canada

I actually don't have to know what graffiti-talk like "spec-ops" means.

Get yourself a DVD of the CBC series Intelligence. You couldn't help but enjoy it.


http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence/dp/B0013NAMLU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1207083562&sr=1-1

(Hey Wickerman, this means you.)


Jimmy the Weed King ...

[DemOkie]

72. Apparently, another thing about Canada

Is the inherent need to lecture others about what is best for them.

Perhaps you cannot help but admonish us on our "gun culture". In that case, you have us at a disadvantage, since Canada does not have any discernible culture to criticize in return.

[iverglas]

73. uh oh

The previous person to express such, uh, thoughts here today seems to have had 'em removed from view. Nothing to do with me. I always think that such, er, thoughts should be displayed prominently.


Perhaps you cannot help but admonish us on our "gun culture".

Perhaps you've been patronizing Jimmy. I don't think I have ever in my life used the expression "gun culture". Damn, what an unfortunate fate for your attempt at wit. Died on the order paper, it did.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. It is the power imbalance that causes the lecturing.

Look at any two political entities. The inhabitants of the one with less power (perceived or actual) tend to be obsessed with the other, and will talk your ear off
about the evils of the "other". See, for example:

Los Angeles|San Francisco

New York City|Philadelphia or Boston or Chicago

California|Oregon or Arizona

Ontario|The Atlantic provinces or Alberta

[iverglas]

84. hmm

Funny. You'd think I'd be whaling away on China, wouldn't you? Instead of indulging in this alleged fixation on the empire of the setting sun to the south.

There isn't really a parallel in the world for the hubris of "American" exceptionalism, or I'd try to give you an example to illustrate the point: i.e. the pointlessness of worrying about how one stacks up against something else's bizarrely distorted and inflated view of itself ...

I guess it would be kinda like me worrying how I stacked up against, oh, pretty much anybody in the vicinity hereabouts.

It's kinda funny watching the self-appointed envoys of the big brave bold eagle undertaking such (really very silly) efforts to discredit such a flea as Canada/Canadians, and moi, obviously are, though. Keep 'em coming! Every little bit looks good on ya.

[beevul]

67. Clever attempt a dodge, but no dice.

"My opinion is that it's a dumb question.Where I'm at, it is not legal to promenade around in public ANYWHERE with firearms (unless one happens to be somewhere where hunting is permitted, and one is hunting, say), I like it that way, and I don't expect it to change in this millennium. My highways are speed-free zones; only the law-abiding obey speed limits. Just think of all the silly tautologies we could come up with if we set our minds to it."


Thats neat, except I didn't ask your opinion of the question. I asked for your opinion of people that create gun free zones and places that disarm only the law abiding BUT take no actions to actually prevent the presence of firearms be? My question had nothing to do with "promenade around in public ANYWHERE with firearms"

I'll ask again this time with some bold to help you understand what I'm asking:


What is your opinion of people that create gun free zones and places that disarm only the law abiding BUT take no actions to actually prevent the presence of firearms be?


"Obviously, in such places, the vast majority of the public, and very probably every person in any given place, would not be carrying firearms no matter what, so, well, big whup."

You go ahead and forward your "big whup" to the survivors, and the victims of the families of columbine and VT and a few other places then and get back to me. If those events are good enough to stir a debate over firearms, they're also good enough to stir the debate over who should be doing what to keep places where firearms aren't allowed, and what people of any consistancy whatsoever in thier attitude and bold claims might think of that lack of action...or not.


"Dumb and dumber. Since civilized societies do not permit members of the public to promenade around in public with firearms, I would have to be blaming the owners of premises for, what, not inviting members of the public to break the law on their premises? You prefer living in the jungle, feel free. Just don't expect me to be writing the law of the jungle for you."


Once again, cute attempt at the dodge. I said nothing here about living in the jungle, or that this is a debate about carrying firearms were engaged in here. More of that "diversionary grooming" your so fond of describing, I think.


This is about people that decide not to allow a thing in a place under the guise of safety reasons, and whether making the decision not to allow a thing imposes a duty to actually prevent that not allowed from being where its not allowed, by taking actual measure to make sure the thing not allowed in that place doesn't actually get into that place.

And its about seeing if something someone said actually meant something, or if it was spoken with a forked tongue.

[iverglas]

69. it's still nonsense

What is your opinion of people that create gun free zones and places that disarm only the law abiding BUT take no actions to actually prevent the presence of firearms be?

"Gun free zones" don't actually disarm ANYONE, most of the time.

Because the vast majority of people, even where you are, don't actually promenade around festooned in firearms.

So that vast majority is not being "disarmed" at all.

As for the rest, I assume they are under no compulsion to go to the "gun free zones". So nobody would appear to be "disarming" them either. They're free to stay home or go somewhere else, I would think. Am I wrong? Compulsory church attendance where you are, is there?


You go ahead and forward your "big whup" to the survivors, and the victims of the families of columbine and VT and a few other places then and get back to me.

No. You go ahead and prove that any outcomes would have been any different had those locations not been "gun free zones", and don't forget to prove that there would not have been OTHER equally negative or worse outcomes if they had not been "gun free zones".

One of my father's favourite sayings was "if the dog hadn't stopped to pee ..." It seems to apply here.


This is about people that decide not to allow a thing in a place under the guise of safety reasons, and whether making the decision not to allow a thing imposes a duty to actually prevent that not allowed from being where its not allowed, by taking actual measure to make sure the thing not allowed in that place doesn't actually get into that place.

If you can show me the people who are in those places by compulsion and not by choice, well then this might actually be about something. So far, it's about nothing.


I said nothing here about living in the jungle

Friend, if you're living somewhere where people are allowed to promenade around in public with firearms on their person, you are living in the jungle, and by the law thereof. Did you really not grasp this?

[beevul]

70. Your tapdancing would impress shirley temple, but doesn't me.

""Gun free zones" don't actually disarm ANYONE, most of the time.Because the vast majority of people, even where you are, don't actually promenade around festooned in firearms.So that vast majority is not being "disarmed" at all.As for the rest, I assume they are under no compulsion to go to the "gun free zones". So nobody would appear to be "disarming" them either. They're free to stay home or go somewhere else, I would think. Am I wrong? Compulsory church attendance where you are, is there?"

here. Heres 1 minute for you to clean your ears with a q-tip, and to clean your glasses...for sake of the clarity you so obviously lack thus far.


"No. You go ahead and prove that any outcomes would have been any different had those locations not been "gun free zones", and don't forget to prove that there would not have been OTHER equally negative or worse outcomes if they had not been "gun free zones". One of my father's favourite sayings was "if the dog hadn't stopped to pee ..." It seems to apply here."

This isn't about those places not being "gun free zones. This is about people who decide to make a place a "gun free zone" but don't take measures to ensure it stays gun free, and why someone who would say things like "I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not...I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions" would be dodging the discussing of it.

"If you can show me the people who are in those places by compulsion and not by choice, well then this might actually be about something. So far, it's about nothing."

You made no such qualification when you said "I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not...I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions", strange if not telling that youd insert such a thing at this time.

"Friend, if you're living somewhere where people are allowed to promenade around in public with firearms on their person, you are living in the jungle, and by the law thereof. Did you really not grasp this?"

Says you. If thats true, the people that decide a place is "jungle free" and don't take any measures to keep the jungle out, they ought to be getting skewered by you for not enforcing civilization over jungle law. Someone such as you might even claim that if someone decided to make a place "jungle free" and failed to secure the area against the jungle, that they were negligent in thier responsibilities...



Strange indeed it is that we who are here and waiting for some consistancy, just aren't getting any of it. Indicative at the very least.

[iverglas]

71. I don't hold a candle to you

This isn't about those places not being "gun free zones. This is about people who decide to make a place a "gun free zone" but don't take measures to ensure it stays gun free, and why someone who would say things like "I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not...I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions" would be dodging the discussing of it.

If you could explain how prohibiting the doing of something on premises creates any risk to anyone, please do explain.

Does prohibiting me from chewing gum on your airplane create a risk that I will get a honking great ear infection? (I get ear infections when I fly; chewing gum can help to avert them, by inducing frequent swallowing.)

NOT IF I DON'T FLY ON YOUR AIRPLANE, it doesn't.

So I'm still looking for where the COMPULSION for anyone to be in any of these premises is.

Me, I'm talking about PUBLIC PLACES. Streets, transit systems, public libraries, that sort of thing. Allowing people to promenade around with firearms therein.

The question of compulsion simply doesn't arise there, because everyone in the community is entitled to be in those places AS OF RIGHT, and, collectively, to make rules governing behaviour in those places. No one is compelled to go there, but everyone has a right to access the essential services they represent, and the public has a considerable interest in everyone being able to exercise that right safely.

If you want people to be able to carry pistols in their pockets when they come to your parties, that's up to you. If you tell them your party is a gun-free zone and they don't like the idea, they're free to stay off your premises. You seriously think you should have to hire armed guards to pat people down as a condition of being able to tell your guests they may not bring firearms to your party??

If you don't want to attend a post-secondary institution, or work in an office, or get treatment in a hospital, or shop at a store, where the carrying of firearms is prohibited, THEN DON'T.

If you think there would be some elevated risk of harm coming to you on such premises, DON'T GO THERE.

How bleeding simple is that?

Meanwhile, you claim to be entitled to behave in a way that other people believe creates an elevated risk of harm to them IN PUBLIC PLACES where you really just don't get to set the conditions of access, the way a shopping centre owner does for its premises. The PUBLIC gets to set the conditions of access to public places, subject of course to the general rules set out in constitutions and the like. (Too bad, but your constitution does not say that you have a right to bear arms on the local buses.)


Someone such as you might even claim that if someone decided to make a place "jungle free" and failed to secure the area against the jungle, that they were negligent in thier responsibilities...

The concept we're addressing here is recklessness, not negligence. They are not the same.

And no, sorry, someone such as me would not claim that a private party that prohibited firearms on its premises and then failed to body-search anyone entering was acting with reckless disregard for someone's safety and in such a way as to create some elevated risk of harm coming to anyone on those premises. For the simple reason that the assertion is laughable on its face. Really.



html fixed

[beevul]

74. Says you and your inconsistancy.

"Gun free zones" don't actually disarm ANYONE, most of the time. Because the vast majority of people, even where you are, don't actually promenade around festooned in firearms. So that vast majority is not being "disarmed" at all. As for the rest, I assume they are under no compulsion to go to the "gun free zones". So nobody would appear to be "disarming" them either. They're free to stay home or go somewhere else, I would think. Am I wrong? Compulsory church attendance where you are, is there?"

Did I ever say anything about a majority of...anything? No. You say that people have a duty to secure thier firearms from theft, for "public safety" sake. Is anyone under compulsion to be thieving of firearms? I thought not. Yet you would claim that means nothing. More doublestandards?

The bottom line is that you apply one set of standards to people in places like thier homes where firearms are concerned, yet you apply quite a different set of standards to people that decide that a place is going to be gun free, all the while saying "I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not... I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions" out the other side of your mouth. When called on it, you engage in diversionary grooming, and attempted changes of subject and/or direction of debate.

You aren't fooling much of anyone, and anyone that believes any of these excuses/explanations of yours is too far gone to be of any concern in the debate anyhow.

"No. You go ahead and prove that any outcomes would have been any different had those locations not been "gun free zones", and don't forget to prove that there would not have been OTHER equally negative or worse outcomes if they had not been "gun free zones"."

See, heres a perfect example of you trying to change the direction of the debate or the argument being made. As if I were arguing here, that things would be different had those locations not been "gun free zones". I'm not. I know it, you know it, and anyone thats reading knows it. What I AM arguing, is if those places that were "gun free zones" had made any reasonable attempt to actually keep that premesis free of firearms - you know, keep that law of the jungle your so fond of being not so fond of outside of and away from - that those events probably would not have happened. Do you disagree with that?


"If you can show me the people who are in those places by compulsion and not by choice, well then this might actually be about something. So far, it's about nothing."

If you can show me why that matters, or how people who rob private residences of firearms are under some compulsion to do so, you'll start being consistant. And I guess those places don't need fire alarms or sprinklers or extinguishers, since noone is FORCED to go there. And maybe moats with crocodiles as your so fond of, and shotguns with thier triggers tied to the doors in case robebrs come by. Afterall no one is Forced to go there...You can be quite the Libertarian when it suits your argument.

"Friend, if you're living somewhere where people are allowed to promenade around in public with firearms on their person, you are living in the jungle, and by the law thereof. Did you really not grasp this?"

Oh yes. And when it suggested that people who decide to keep this place or that place jungle free, yet take no measures to keep the jungle out, one would think that worthy of something besides ignoring by people that make such claims as "I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not. I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions."


Unless such a statement from such a person was applied unevenly as some sort of bizarre doublestandard.

"The concept we're addressing here is recklessness, not negligence. They are not the same. And no, sorry, someone such as me would not claim that a private party that prohibited firearms on its premises and then failed to body-search anyone entering was acting with reckless disregard for someone's safety and in such a way as to create some elevated risk of harm coming to anyone on those premises. For the simple reason that the assertion is laughable on its face. Really."

I never said body search. Thems your words. I say metal detectors would do, and that they are reasonable. That you would skip them and go right to body searches...is again telling.

Reckless versus negligence. I'd be willing to bet that the victims of <pick an applicable event> would say that calling a place gun free but taking no reasonable measures to ensure it is both reckless and negligent.


I'll leave you to argue otherwise.

[iverglas]

75. lord gawd a'mighty

You have just reached the state of divinity: it passeth understanding, it doth.

[iverglas]

76. but wot the hell

Did I ever say anything about a majority of...anything? No.

Nope. But you certainly posited SOMEONE.

And my response is: NO ONE.

No one is compelled to enter any "gun free zone", so NO ONE IS BEING "DISARMED". Not even the tiny lunatic fringe who might actually want to be "armed" when entering such zones. They can STAY OUT.


You say that people have a duty to secure thier firearms from theft, for "public safety" sake. Is anyone under compulsion to be thieving of firearms? I thought not. Yet you would claim that means nothing. More doublestandards?

Seldom does one see such moronic ravings.

Nope, no one is under any compulsion to steal firearms. What on earth does that have to do with ANYTHING? I'm not actually concerned about the safety of firearms thieves from the firearms they steal, you might have assumed quite safely.

I am concerned about the PUBLIC SAFETY and how a risk to members of the public is created by people who leave their firearms lying around unsecured. The people who are at risk are people who have no way of avoiding the risk -- the risk could materialize in the form of someone robbing them on the street, or shooting at a dog and hitting their kid, or just shooting up their neighbourhood for the sheer hell of it. THEY do not have a CHOICE that would enable them to avert that risk.

People who won't go out in public without their trusty sidearm HAVE A CHOICE if they want to avert the risks that they believe lurk anywhere they go. They can NOT GO places where they can't haul their good buddy Mr. Gun along with them.


See, heres a perfect example of you trying to change the direction of the debate or the argument being made.

No, do let's get our heads straight here, shall we?

You made an implicit claim that people who have been killed in mass firearms murders would be alive if the places where the murders occurred had not been "gun free zones":

You go ahead and forward your "big whup" to the survivors, and the victims of the families of columbine and VT and a few other places then and get back to me.

I required proof that any such outcome can be asserted, which is the only thing that would make your instruction make the slightest sense. Got any?


Oh yes. And when it suggested that people who decide to keep this place or that place jungle free, yet take no measures to keep the jungle out, one would think that worthy of something besides ignoring by people that make such claims as "I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not. I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions."
Unless such a statement from such a person was applied unevenly as some sort of bizarre doublestandard.

One would think that you'd come up with something to back up your claim that someone is less safe in a place where firearms are not permitted than if firearms were permitted in that place.

You just don't seem to be able to do that, do you?

And that's the only thing that will make your reference to my blaming people who CREATE CONDITIONS in which someone is at greater risk of suffering harm relevant to this noise.

It won't make it a good claim, still, because no one who imposes that condition on premises where NO ONE IS COMPELLED TO BE is creating ANY conditions at all for a person who chooses not to be there. As anyone who is under no compulsion to be there is perfectly free to do.

And that's got nada to do with loonytarianism, friend. That's just reality.

[beevul]

77. You appear to have a compulsion of your own...

To continue saying someone said something they didn't say.

"You made an implicit claim that people who have been killed in mass firearms murders would be alive if the places where the murders occurred had not been "gun free zones":You go ahead and forward your "big whup" to the survivors, and the victims of the families of columbine and VT and a few other places then and get back to me."

hahahaha. Is that what you see there? I guess if one were unable to see, even after being repeatedly told, that the person debating with them is talking about measures to actually make a place gun free be...free of guns, well, I'd call that person dim or disingenuous.

I DO make the claim that people who have been killed in mass firearms murders would be alive if the "gun free" places where the murders occurred had actually made any reasonable attempt at being places that were actually free of firearms. Spin that.



So like I said, that there is a perfect example of you trying to change the direction of the debate or the argument being made, by claiming I am arguing something that I am not arguing. You might think your slick, but you aren't fooling anyone.


And then you machinegun with yet another few hundred words of diversionary grooming...


These words are yours:

"I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not. I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions."

Everyone thats read this thread has read them, and has seen just how unevenly you apply them, based on who they are or aren't being applied to. Theres no denying it, theres no spinning it, theres no changing it, and no scratching of an itch to distract anyone from seeing it.

Deal with it.

[iverglas]

81. I might think my slick?

If I could parse it, I might ...


I DO make the claim that people who have been killed in mass firearms murders would be alive if the "gun free" places where the murders occurred had actually made any reasonable attempt at being places that were actually free of firearms. Spin that.

I'm sure they'd still be alive if the school board had simply shut down the schools the year before, too. What you think you've said that is of any consequence, I dunno.

Maybe you actually think that "gun free zone" is some kind of factual statement, implying some kind of warranty that the zone is free of guns.

We all know you don't really think that. We all know that you know that "gun free zone" means "no firearms may be brought into this area".

"Peanut-free cereal", that there is a warranty. It is given for the purpose of inducing people to buy a product. It is a claim that a certain set of facts exists.

"Gun-free zone" is not a warranty. It is not a claim as to the existence of any facts. It is not stated for the purpose of inducing anyone to do anything.

I know that. You know that. The little green people from Alpha Centauri know that.

If I had realized this was what you were trying to do -- make out that "gun free zone" is a warranty and thus requires some action on the part of the person making the claim and offering the inducement to ensure that the claim is true -- we could have disposed of this a long time ago.

I'll say ... not dim. The other one.


"I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not. I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions."

And if you'll care to cut the crap and demonstrate how some authority that prohibits the carrying of firearms on its premises PUTS SOMEONE ELSE AT RISK BY THAT ACTION, we could finish pretty quickly.

I can confidently say that we already have, of course.

[beevul]

90. SO predictable...

"If I had realized this was what you were trying to do -- make out that "gun free zone" is a warranty and thus requires some action on the part of the person making the claim and offering the inducement to ensure that the claim is true -- we could have disposed of this a long time ago."

Hahaha. If I had misjudged that your reading comprehension was so poor as to make such an improbable misunderstanding of what was clearly said, Id have thought you dim rather than disingenuous and dishonest.
You know what was being said, and you know what points were being argued. Playing dumb quite frankly is unbecoming of you, and no one...not even those little green people from Alpha Centauri...will be unable to see through it.


Here. Lets try again.

Exhibit A

Joe blow decides to call his home a "firearm robbery free" zone. He locks his doors at night and when hes not home. He considers his locked home to be a locked container for his firearms.

"I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not. I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions."



You blame joe blow for not "securing his firearm", because not doing so creates a condition where someone else is at a greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not.
Even though no one forces a potential robber to rob joes place. Even though no one forced a person to be where they might have been potentially shot with joes firearm if its stolen.



Exhibit B

Joe blew makes the decision that his mall is going to be gun free. He puts up signs that say "no guns allowed", and pats himself on the back for a job well done. "Damned evil guns" he thinks to himself, "I fixed them good". Joe blew is asking anyone that obeys the law to come without thier firearms or not come at all. And thats fine. People whom otherwise would have carried concealed are now depending on joe blew to ensure an environment where they wont need them. Joe blew, much like joe blow, has done NOTHING reasonable to ensure that criminal element will not take advantage of the situation.

In both exhibits, criminal element CAN take advantage of a lack of security. In the former, it leads to a firearm being easily stolen and brought into the criminal fold where it might be used for who knows what. In the latter, it leads to a target rich environment of people that are uniquely succeptible to the criminal with bad intent that decided not to obey the sign, and it leads said criminal to KNOW it before he goes there and does what hes going to do. Theres no arguing over that. Thats a fact.

"I blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not.I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions."

Now explain for the audience why those words apply so strongly to the former, yet not at all to the latter.


Checkmate.

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. Kindly keep the chauvinism and moral imperialism out of this

Since civilized societies do not permit members of the public to promenade around in public with firearms, I would have to be blaming the owners of premises for, what, not inviting members of the public to break the law on their premises?

You prefer living in the jungle, feel free. Just don't expect me to be writing the law of the jungle for you.

Wow, so there *is* such a thing as an "Ugly Canadian" stereotype!

Some of the inhabitants of the "jungle", as you put it, do not care to be lectured.
Especially since you seem to have no other interaction with us south-of-the border
types save a warmed over Savonarola schtick which seems to consist mainly of:

1. How awful our gun laws are in the States.

2. What the gun laws are in Canada.


I would also point out that if someone cared to haul you before the Ontario Commission
for Human Rights your statement above and many others could be construed as hate
speech directed towards USAians on the basis of national origin.

[iverglas]

85. oh, those things just seeeeeeeeeeem so strange to y'all, don't they?

Especially since you seem to have no other interaction with us south-of-the border types ...

I think you mean you all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful south of the border types.

Dog in heaven, when did you last watch the CBC news? I watch CNN every morning; different news cycle, you flip over when you've been through the domestic one. How many thousand miles have you driven on the highways and back roads up here? How many homes have you stayed in up here? How many cousins you got up here? I'm afraid that my circle of US cousins is shrinking a bit, ever since I insisted that the one in Ohio stop sending me her moronic and racist and misogynist and dishonest chain mails

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/paradox.asp

and icky religious shit. (And did you know that the state of the Ohio economy at present is Bill Clinton's fault?) There's still the one in Florida and the one in Pennsylvania, and my mum's ones in Detroit and California ... And there's my brother who did his MA in Iowa and his PhD in Chicago (I only took a little summer course in Massachusetts), and my sister who spent a year in Daytona while her partner did the motorcycle course there, and the Texan I cohabited with for three years and his whole hideous family all over the midwest ...


You really do think the rest of the world is as insular and ignorant as ... well, y'know, eh?


I would also point out that if someone cared to haul you before the Ontario Commission for Human Rights your statement above and many others could be construed as hate speech directed towards USAians on the basis of national origin.

I love it when people "point out" something they've pulled out of their bum. It's kinda cute, or it would be if a two-year-old did it.



Typo fixed

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Perhaps you shouldn't generalize us all from the ones you've met...

The CBC streams nicely if you have broadband in the Northeast. And of course all the other sites know no borders (especially if you can configure a proxy connection.)

My father's parents emigrated from Newfoundland just after World War I. I've got
family and friends there and in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta and BC

From the Iconoclasts (and other Maritimers of my acquaintance) who now live and work in Alberta and BC economic migrants in North America move west as well as north.

In other words, I think I do have an informed opinion on Canadian issues.

And frankly, you come across like a Freeper bloviating about Mexico and Mexicans.

[gorfle]

98. So would you say then...

If I see a car parked on a street with the door unlocked and the key in the ignition, I blame the driver for making it easy for the car to be stolen, and thus increasing the risk of someone suffering serious injury or death when struck by the stolen car.

Even if it is not illegal where the vehicle and driver are.

So you would say, then, that drivers have a responsibility to secure their automobiles even if it is not the law that they should do so?

[gorfle]

96. Concealed carry is better.

Frankly I rather have somebody carry in the open than conceal carry I think that conceal carry is just chicken shit.

While I don't have a problem with open carry, I disagree for a couple of reasons.

First of all, carrying a weapon in the open can provoke incidents. You will encounter people who want to provoke you, since you are such a "tough guy" carrying a gun. This is why open carry is not permitted even in many places that allow concealed carry - it is considered "brandishing". You are potentially escalating any confrontation just by visibly carrying.

Second of all, by not knowing who is armed and who is not, it puts doubt into a would-be criminal's mind of attacking anyone. I like the fact that you can't tell who around you in public is armed and who is not. The more people who are aware of this fact the more polite people we will have.

[DemOkie]

53. Here in Mayberry NC

We have similar laws. What happens in practice is that if you carry openly near, say a bank or some similar institution, Barney will nail you for "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public". I leave it to you experienced shooters to determine who in that instance is a greater threat to public.;-)

[liberal4truth]

87. I am glad it is very hard for gun-owners here to get a carry permit, thankfully.....

I cant imagine having hordes of gun-nuts walking around packing a gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. People walk around legally packing guns in Vermont without a permit

And guess what? They don't shoot each other at anywhere near the rate people do
in the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, or Illinois.

All of which have strict carry laws.

Still think strict carry laws are keeping you safe? Or might it be something else?

[pipoman]

91. I am glad my state isn't populated by

anti-freedom, historical revisionist, fascists who believe the Guantanamo, Patriot Act bunch are more trustworthy and less of a threat than their neighbors.

[benEzra]

93. Don't ever move to Vermont or New Hampshire, then.

You'd be much happier in D.C. or Chicago, where the number of ordinary people licensed to carry is zero.

FWIW, in Vermont, you don't need a license to carry, as long as you are carrying for any lawful purpose.

[liberal4truth]

94. Yeah, they have lots of hardened criminals in VT & NH , dont they?

Sure they do. :puke:

[benEzra]

97. Ah, so it's not carry by the LAW-ABIDING that's the problem, then?

Since VT and NH have some of the highest lawful-carry rates in the nation, but the lowest violent crime rates. You're exactly right; it's the criminals that are the problem.

You know what? Criminals don't get carry licenses; they don't care if it's illegal to carry without a license, they'll carry anyway a la D.C. and Chicago.

[bossy22]

99. so no reasons

to require a license :)

[L1A1Rocker]

100. But they have such liberal gun laws, maybe there's a correlation? Humm?