fallout mike
Member
If open carry is legal , then why would he be before a judge and jury for walking down the street with a AR?
Would you call the cops?
- Thread starter Tipro
- Start date
- Status
imac98374
Member
Lots of people drink, not many people OC an AR on campus. More importantly though, the number of people who drink is much higher than the number of people who DUI.
Do you stop the drinker? No, it's something that people habitually do recreationally, and with the obvious exceptions, something that most do with a reasonable degree of safety.
Do you stop the guy carrying the AR through campus? Yes, because nobody does it (because there is no obvious motivation for doing it.)
As someone already said though, it really doesn't matter a whole lot whether you would call or not, because almost everybody else would call. And whether the police get n calls or n+1 calls, the outcome is the same.
Highgate
Member
Hmm - is it fairer on society to allow a very free access to firearms which then permits drunks, angry spouses, children and fools to kill innocent people?
I found this on the web - could be accurate:
A statistician might disagree, but I would take this data to suggest that easier access to firearms increases the murder rate very significantly.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
:screwy:
The statistician is right.
Heller said it's not an unrestricted right, so there can be specific areas where open carry is illegal.
Sent from Tapatalk
CoRoMo
Member
Dang, the assumptions.
Obviously illegal? No. In my state, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING illegal about this act; college campus or not. To the vast majority of the American public, there's nothing obvious about it at all, as they don't know every letter of every law.
As far as your drive-by diagnosis that he's mentally unstable and certainly on his way to a mass murder... jeez. All that came to mind when I read that, really, was this line from Al Shapton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2jze-08Vx-A#t=172s
He was also discussing the right to carry a firearm. He was also assuming that a person carrying a firearm is, by default, up to no good.
fallout mike
Member
Highgate, according to statistics you are twice as likely being the victim of a knife crime in england than being the victim of a gun crime in the US. Banning guns did not help your violent crime rate. It merely changed some peoples means of carrying them out. But according to you it helped your social status or something.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
The scenario in the OP has absolutely nuttin' to do with the 80 million responsible law abiding gun owners. Where I live open carry is legal. I see tons of folks carrying rifles all the time. I have yet to assume any of them are wacko's. Those are your words. BUT.........when I see someone openly doing something blatantly illegal( as per the OP) I tend to think they ain't right. Do I report every speeder I see? "ell no, but if I see someone continuously driving thru a school zone @ 100 mph, you can be dang sure someone is going to get a call. Am I being a scardy cat for calling in something that is an obvious illegal gun activity? No, being a scardy cat is the one that drives on and does nuttin' but lock themselves in their room. The scardy cat is the one who is afraid to call it in for fear they may loose some kind of gun rights. Those are the folks who are the most dangerous. Their selfishness leads them to disregard potential harm to others for fear it may lead an inconvenience to them. Anyone openly carrying a banned weapon on a campus is not there for doing anything good. If it is a prop for the drill team, I assure you the security involved, the person with the prop, and all the parents of the students at that University will have no problem with the error on the side of safety. The true disheartening thing here is that so many wave the flag and beat the drum when it comes to the second amendment, but want to ignore the rest of the constitution that applies to the implementation of laws, our judicial system and the rights of others. You can't have it both ways...just because "you don't agree". To ignore and to allow illegal activities is condoning it. By condoning it one is promoting it. Sad that so much of this goes on here @ THR, especially when it's by those in a position of power.
NavyLCDR
member
Why do we put more importance on some laws than others? If it is so importanct to call the police when you see someone breaking a law, then you should be calling the police everytime someone passes you in the left lane when you are doing the speed limit in the right lane. Would should call the police every time you see someone roll through a stop sign. You should call the police everytime you buy something on the internet from out of state and don't pay the required use tax on it (every state that has a sales tax also has an equivelent use tax) and turn yourself in.
People turn a blind eye to other people breaking laws every single day and most break laws themselves quite frequently, to be honest including myself. I guarantee we all turn a blind eye toward someone breaking a law every day if we drive more than a few blocks to work.
So, I guess this particular law of not carrying a firearm on a university campus is special to some people and more important to report than the other laws - mostly because it is a "a weapon condusive to mass carnage " and, OMG!, a school campus. Sounds like stuff coming straight out of the Brady Campaign to me.
NavyLCDR
member
Let's say you are at your next door neighbor's house for a BBQ, and he brings out an evil black AR-15 rifle, bolt open, unloaded, not pointed at anybody. And he says, "Man, check this out! I went to my son's house for my birthday and this is what he gave me for a birthday present!"
You know his son lives in Oklahoma and you and next door neighbor live in Texas. "Hey, ummm...Bob...did you get that rifle transferred to you by an FFL?" Bob, "What?!? Hell no, he's my son, he just gave it to me for my birthday, what the hell are you talking about, Fred?"
Are you going to call the cops?
Or, how about this.... what if the person carrying the evil black AR-15 slung over their shoulder on the college campus where it is illegal was a person you knew and you knew they must be making a mistake and not purposely violating the law? Oh I know...none of you know someone who would do something that stupid, right? Like that guy that was target shooting on his own property and didn't know he was 62 yards inside a no shooting zone.
You know his son lives in Oklahoma and you and next door neighbor live in Texas. "Hey, ummm...Bob...did you get that rifle transferred to you by an FFL?" Bob, "What?!? Hell no, he's my son, he just gave it to me for my birthday, what the hell are you talking about, Fred?"
Are you going to call the cops?
Or, how about this.... what if the person carrying the evil black AR-15 slung over their shoulder on the college campus where it is illegal was a person you knew and you knew they must be making a mistake and not purposely violating the law? Oh I know...none of you know someone who would do something that stupid, right? Like that guy that was target shooting on his own property and didn't know he was 62 yards inside a no shooting zone.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
....and that makes it right? Is it a badge of honor to you that you break laws "quite frequently" and that folks turn a blind eye to it? Wow.........
There's a lot of difference between someone driving a few miles over the speed limit and someone openly carrying a weapon where it is banned. That's why there's a difference in penalties.....duh. Most states have a degree of tolerance when it comes to absolute speed, but guns on school grounds and on campuses where they are banned are "zero" tolerance.
Again, not only in my eyes, but in the eyes of the law. As for the EBR and the "weapon conducive(with a c, not a s) to mass carnage" wordage, again, those are your words. Since you are directing your statement at me, look at my posts. No where did I make any mention of the type of firearm or it's potential for harm. The firearm itself had no bearing on my reaction to the situation in the OP. It had to do with the scenario given. Unlike what so many of you are trying to suggest, it's not the firearm that is scarey, it's the situation and the unknown. Remember, this was a hypothetical scenario, and all of us have a different vision in our mind of what the OP is trying to portray.
Those scenarios have a known conclusion as compared to the scenario given in the OP. One must live in reality. One also has to use reasonable judgement. If your friend is carrying a banned weapon somewhere, and you know it's a simple mistake, you would tell him and hope no one else saw him. His intent was not mass destruction. YOU KNOW THAT FOR CERTAIN! But ASSUMING a perfect stranger is making a simple mistake, when they are carrying a banned firearm in a area where those wanting to make a name for themselves are known to frequently commit horrendous crimes is not reality nor is it reasonable judgement. As I said before, I too am looking forward to the day when all students can legally carry to protect themselves while on any campus. But on campuses where firearms are still banned, those same students are in a huge disadvantage to even one person carrying one firearm with the intent to do harm to them. Realistically, being responsible and finding out what the unknown is as defined in the OP is the answer. Unlike ignoring someone neglecting to clean up behind their dog, turning a "blind eye" to such a situation as given in the OP is only asking for something terrible to happen.
NavyLCDR
member
So what you are saying, buck460XVR, is it is all about the presence of a gun in a certain location, even though the person carrying it is exhibiting no other suspicious behavior at all? There is much, much greater chance that the person has no ill intention whatsoever and for whatever reason has innocently crossed an arbitrary line drawn in the sand into illegal territory. Yet you will be quick to call the cops and make this guy a felon, while exhibiting no signs of bad intentions, because the inanimate object being carried in a safe manner, which is commonly carried in that manner in many other locations, just happens to be a gun.
Where have I heard that kind of reaction before....
Oh well.... we don't have such problems in Washington state, thank goodness. The guy in question would be breaking no laws, let alone committing a felony. Seems like maybe we have an over abundance of common sense in our state.
Where have I heard that kind of reaction before....
Oh well.... we don't have such problems in Washington state, thank goodness. The guy in question would be breaking no laws, let alone committing a felony. Seems like maybe we have an over abundance of common sense in our state.
JustinJ
Member
Unless you would fail to call the police if witnessing a person being murdered or raped i'm sure you can figure out the answer as to why we don't call for all laws being violated.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
That was the point of framing those examples. The provided example of the op doesn't support the preferred conclusion, so ones of significantly different nature had to be provided.
Sent from Tapatalk
mortablunt
Member
If you go about assuming that gun=bad, then that is the same thinking as the Brady Campaign, or all the other antigun nuts around the world.
I like how the gun chosen was AR-15. Many of us still have subconscious ideas about good vs bad guns. The AR-15 still reminds us of the fighting weapon used in battle with world over. The answers would probably be very different if some guy were walking with a Gewehr 98k Sporter.
NavyLCDR
member
So, here's a serious question for the "call the cops" crowd:
You are waiting in line at the US Post Office and a man walks through the door and gets in line with a handgun in a holster on his belt. Do you call the police?
You are waiting in line at the US Post Office and a man walks through the door and gets in line with a handgun in a holster on his belt. Do you call the police?
honestly.....probably not........as i could actually buy someone claiming they forgot about their sidearm.
if he came through the door with a rifle........then yes, absolutely i would call the police.....a rifle slung over your shoulder is not something you forget about, so carrying it anywhere is 100% intentional.
NavyLCDR
member
Then how would you feel if he got to the counter and said to the clerk, "I need to mail this to the manufacturer...do you have any kind of box it will fit in?"
All perfectly legal at that point.
It seems to me like we are acting exactly the way the Brady Campaign wants us to.... we are reacting to inanimate objects rather than the behaviors of the person. Walking with a rifle slung on the shoulder, absent any other indications presented by the person carrying it such as furtive looking around, fidgeting, walking briskly with head lowered, etc... just doesn't warrant alarm, IMHO, even though it may cause some people to wet their pants, regardless of where the person happens to be carrying the rifle slung on the shoulder. Luckily, that is the way my state's Supreme Court has ruled as well. I am certainly thankful I live here in Washington state!
lobo9er
Member
Would anyone here ask him any questions or say hello if he was in talking distances, B4 calling the fuzz?
BSA1
member
I wonder how many realize this is a politicial post designed to gauge our fear of black, assault, AR-15 type rifles. This is a clever attempt by the liberals to convince the public of the danger our children face from guns at school.
Think about this for minute. There are thousands of schools in this country. How many real/attempted random shootings have taken place? Shootings where a specific victim was choosen doesn't count as well as a gun found in a locker or backpack.
Think about how many laws have been passed to "protect" the children. Some schools now have lunchroom police to check your childs sack lunch to make sure their lunch meets some non-existant standard. Carry this a step further and it will not be long before the government is in your home investigating you for malnrohishing your children.
The O.P did not say the individual was on campus. He said he was a college student. Yet automatically a number of posters fell victim to protect the children fear.
I don't know if the O.P. is a liberal but his post is a example of the strategy being used against us.
Think about this for minute. There are thousands of schools in this country. How many real/attempted random shootings have taken place? Shootings where a specific victim was choosen doesn't count as well as a gun found in a locker or backpack.
Think about how many laws have been passed to "protect" the children. Some schools now have lunchroom police to check your childs sack lunch to make sure their lunch meets some non-existant standard. Carry this a step further and it will not be long before the government is in your home investigating you for malnrohishing your children.
The O.P did not say the individual was on campus. He said he was a college student. Yet automatically a number of posters fell victim to protect the children fear.
I don't know if the O.P. is a liberal but his post is a example of the strategy being used against us.
fallout mike
Member
Bsa, which is why so many of us took the position we did.
Why doesn't shooting just one chosen victim count? How many kids have to be killed before they matter?
I have read all of these posts with great interest. Two years ago I concluded a 32 year career in education. Prior to my career in education, I was a LEO for a few brief years. This year marks my 25th year in the emergency services as a volunteer. I now dedicate all of my time to the fire service as a Chief officer. As an emergency responder, I would guesstimate I have seen well over 150 dead or severely injured people as a result of drunken drivers. Not that it matters, the ages of the dead ranged from just a few months to many years old. For those who feel the actions of another are of no concern to you, do you even care about how many of the victims of drunken drives would be alive today had the location and behavior of the drunken drivers been reported? That is why we have the Report Every Drunken Driver Immediately system. Alas, we all know that the majority of people in this country adopt the head in the sand posture whether the situation in front of them is a strong indicator of what could potentially happen or whether it is what is happening now.
In my years in education, I have personally dealt with firearms in school three times. The first was a kid who brought his vehicle into the school shop to do some repairs. Another student was sitting in the vehicle when he saw the grip of the revolver (a single action Ruger) protruding from under the seat. The second student picked up the revolver and was handling it in a reckless (make that ignorant) fashion. I took possession of the gun, unloaded it, and it was locked in the trunk. An appropriate butt chewing also transpired. The incident went no further. That was in the 1980's. I doubt it would be handled the same today.
Along about 2005, I was crossing the school parking lot when a student shouted out, "Hey Mr. Ankeny, come check this out." When I was a couple of feet from his vehicle, he said, "Look what my dad got me from...." What followed the word "from" was the name of a local gun store. Sure as hell, the kid produced a loaded Glock 22. I gave that kid an ass chewing from Hades, I explained the potential ramifications of his actions. I told him to secure the pistol and to park off of school property, etc. The incident went no further at school, but I did speak with his father about what happened. I won't/can't discuss the third incident.
The reason I am sharing this is because I am one of those who responded early in the tread that I would advise the local authorities. I just want you to know I am not one to overreact at the mere presence of a firearm. My interpretation of the scenario, right or wrong, is that I see a person (illegally) with a firearm walking down the road (I also interpreted this as a road on campus). It matters not that the gun is a black rifle. Yeah, for all I know the headline on the sports page in the local newspaper the following morning might read "Senior ROTC member at Straight Shooter University wins Service Rifle Division for the Third Time."
In my training in education, and in training with the emergency services, we speak of warning signs and indicators. In after action reviews, folks often speculate on how much different things might have been had people been more vigilant (situational awareness). A person with a rifle on campus (my interpretation of the scenario) is simply a heads up. It could be nothing. It could be something. Did the person post his intentions via a social media to shoot people? Did he post intentions to win a service rifle competition? Was he expelled from school and is he emotionally distraught? Is there a gunsmithing class at the college and is he carrying his semester project? I don't know. Still, I would pass the information on to the dispatch center in a non-emergency fashion with an appropriate size up. I feel it is my duty to do so considering my training and in light of my position in the emergency services. That doesn't make me a hysterical, anti-gun, the sky is falling, liberal...
Let me add this twist, then I am finished. If a school shooting were to transpire at the conclusion (just a what if) of the scenario, and you found out a high ranking official with the fire department, who is trained in the components of active shooting scenarios from warning signs through response, saw the shooter on campus with a weapon before the incident and did nothing...
Last edited:
fallout mike
Member
Bc if one specific kid was chosen to be killed then they would have been killed by a baseball bat, metal pipe, knife, tree branch, or anything if a gun wasn't available. Taking guns away doesn't stop violent crimes. It just changes the weapon used. I'm so sick of hearing about the kids safety. Where is the parents responsibility in this? Me and everybody I associate with all have something in common. We raise respectful kids.
NavyLCDR
member
You would be mistaken:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...v8&view=text&node=39:1.0.1.4.21.0.1.1&idno=39
Title 39: Postal Service
PART 232—CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY
§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.
(q) Enforcement. (1) Members of the U.S. Postal Service security force shall exercise the powers provided by 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in this section in a manner that will protect Postal Service property and persons thereon.
(2) Local postmasters and installation heads may, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 1315(d)(3) and with the approval of the chief postal inspector or his designee, enter into agreements with State and local enforcement agencies to insure that these rules and regulations are enforced in a manner that will protect Postal Service property.
(3) Postal Inspectors, Office of Inspector General Criminal Investigators, and other persons designated by the Chief Postal Inspector may likewise enforce regulations in this section.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked