Monday, December 26, 2016

New bill targets businesses that don't allow guns on the premises

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

Per Missouri Carry law as of now, if someone conceal carries where prohibited...

" If the individual refuses to leave after being asked and the police are called, he or she may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed $100; a second offense within 6 months is a $200 fine and suspension of the ccw permit for one year; a third offense within 12 months is a $500 fine and the loss of the ccw permit for 3 years."

Sounds reasonable enough, why the hell should a customer denied carry have the right to sue the business for non-protection and a non-carrying customer not have the same right. The business doesn't owe you protection, nor do the police unless there is a known threat. You can't sue the cops if an armed robber shoots you, but you sue the owner of the bar, day care center, school, hospital, courthouse or one of seventeen places deemed illegal to carry if it occurs at their location?!

Seventeen locations where carrying is not allowed is not unreasonable. The concealed carry people need to put on their big boy pants, leave their weapon in the vehicle, and come into the seventeen probhibited places with the rest of the unarmed citizens. The children at the day care center will appreciate your maturity.

Anonymous said...

Well, guess what Mr. Hand-wringing Businessman? You'll never know.

Anonymous said...

Sounds reasonable enough, why the hell should a customer denied carry have the right to sue the business for non-protection and a non-carrying customer not have the same right.

Because the business took an specific action to prevent the carrying customer from defending himself, and thus becomes morally culpable of any harm that arises from preventing from said customer carrying. In no way does this change the right of a non-carrying customer to sue for inadequate protection, which happens all the time, it creates an additional right for a group of people you clearly loathe ("need to put on their big boy pants"), which is one reason we don't pay serious attention to people like you.

Although I'm not sure why you're so upset, our Missouri Plan picked appellate judges are very hostile towards citizen self-defense and would likely find some reason to strike this down as they have with our strong Castle Doctrine.

Anonymous said...

It is true, the inmates are now in control.

Anonymous said...

@ 10:44

You're the kind of law abiding citizen that police are forced to waste their time on. What other laws do you violate? Better be careful, there is an armed citizenry now ready to kill lawbreakers.

Anonymous said...

Just to be fair to all, it is time to allow convicted Felons the right to carry weapons also. After all, we need to allow criminals the right to defend themselves against all of the idiots carrying guns.

Anonymous said...

What the hell happened to Castle Doctrine. My store is my castle and I have the right to expel anyone I chose to expel for whatever reason I choose. If you try to carry a weapon in my store then I will draw my weapon and force you to leave. If you don't then I am perfectly within my rights to shoot your dumb ass.

Anonymous said...

6:19 AM: Reread the law as cited by 9:31 PM, it's not a crime unless the business owner asks you to leave and you refuse. The rest of your post is a lie as well, do you think anyone believes your ludicrous exaggerations? Do you even believe them?

8:01 AM: See the above, and now that you've stated your intent, you'd be convicted of first degree, that is, premeditated murder, with an automatic sentence of life without parole, unless of course the stunt earns you the death penalty.

And, like it or not, Missouri's strong Castle Doctrine has been nullified by our Missouri Plan selected appellate judges, be it your home or your business, once inside your "castle" the standard rules of self-defense apply, you are not allowed to assume an intruder has lethal intent, the only difference is that you don't have a duty to retreat from your castle (what I call weak Castle Doctrine).

Missouri case law was mixed on duty to retreat outside your home or I assume business, the new law if not already in effect for this, will be January 1st, eliminates any duty to retreat in a place you have a right to be, but I wouldn't depend on our appellate judges allowing that to stand as well....

Anonymous said...

It is true, the inmates are now in control.

If by inmates you mean our Missouri Plan selected judges, you're right.

To specifically answer 8:01 AM's question about what happened, see Vilos' Self Defense Laws of All 50 States for the details. My copy is in a box right now, but this is highly recommended, it's the only reference I know that goes to the trouble of digging up the controlling case law.

A or the appeals courts, as I remember, the level below the state Supreme Court, have promulgated a set of jury instructions that specifically deny the statutory law as passed by the legislature that until then gave us a strong Castle Doctrine. I suppose if appealed to the state Supreme Court there's a chance those might be reversed, but I wouldn't count on it, for they too are of course Missouri Plan selected.

What, you thought we lived in a "democracy" (technically, a republic)? As long as we let judges "make law", not a chance.

Anonymous said...

I suppose the next step is to allow the gun carrier to wear his ski mask while shopping at your store.

Anonymous said...

@8:01

Hell yeah!

It's your castle and not the dumb klukkkers castle!

Anonymous said...

@ 3:01AM

"Because the business took an specific action to prevent the carrying customer from defending himself, and thus becomes morally culpable of any harm that arises from said customer carrying."

Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? Morally culpable, LMAO. Juries don't find awards for plaintiff's claiming their business didn't protect them from someone's actions they have no control over. It doesn't matter if you are armed or unarmed, to hold the business responsible for the actions of another is ludicrous.

And again you're wrong, I don't loathe anybody, I just find people that need a weapon to leave their home to be scared. If you think anyone over 18 with no gun safety classes, no training or shooting experience, no classes discussing liability and responsibility should be able to buy a weapon at WalMart, stick it in his pocket, and walk around other citizens with it concealed, then you are as ignorant as these legislators.

Anonymous said...

It's hard not to notice that the group of people most concerned with this (at least in this forum) are small business owners. Some of which have admitted to having guns on the premises of their businesses but want to prevent others from doing so?

Anonymous said...

@ 3:01AM

"Because the business took an specific action to prevent the carrying customer from defending himself, and thus becomes morally culpable of any harm that arises from said customer carrying."

Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? Morally culpable, LMAO. Juries don't find awards for plaintiff's claiming their business didn't protect them from someone's actions they have no control over.


You're ignoring not one but three things: that the business owner did, by declaring his premises a victim disarmament zone, encourage "someone's actions"; a bit like attractive nuisance doctrine. While they weren't always such due to the owner's decision, it's no accident that all of the recent and not so recent massacres happened in such zones, save the Arizona congresswoman's shooting.

The second is one I can't imagine you don't at least see the principle of: if you disarm people, you then, morally at least, assume the duty to defend them as they would otherwise do if it were not for your action disarming them.

The third is, of course, that juries would be following the new law, not your attempt to twist existing tort law into a silly straw-man.

As for "scared", so be it, that means I have a functioning mind. As for the claimed ignorance of the legislators, you're the grossly ignorant one to make such a fuss when so many other states have gone Constitutional Carry without major problems, including neighboring Kansas for a solid year and a half.

Doubly ignorant, outside of Alaska, Walmart doesn't sell handguns! (Not counting BB guns and the like.)

Anonymous said...

@ 5:46

Listen cupcake, according to Missouri law, there are 17 places where concealed weapons cannot be carried. These include police departments, courthouses, day care centers, schools, sports arenas, airports, etc... You can call them Victim Disarmement Zones or whatever you like sweetie, but that's the law. Ignorant Arizona, Kansas, Illinois, and Georgia have tried to bypass the laws on these places and failed. So you new law doesn't stand much of a chance here either.

I notice you still haven't answered whether you think any moron over 18 without a felony be allowed to buy a pistol and carry it concealed. That's what is allowed after January. Do you, the gun fanatic, think that allowing any booger eating moron without ANY gun safety course, without any shooting experience, without any knowledge of responsibilities or liability be allowed to purchase a firearm and carry it concealed. If you think that a good idea, then you are without conscious or conscience.

Anonymous said...

Listen cupcake

Do you really think your constant stream of insults accomplish anything but making you feel better?

according to Missouri law, there are 17 places where concealed weapons cannot be carried.

Again, you at best misstate the truth, which was covered in the very first comment in this discussion. For many of these venues, it is only illegal if you refuse to leave after being asked, and an officer then has to be called to remove you. And the penalty in the first instance is a wrist slap, although independent of the law about concealed carry you'd probably run afoul of trespassing law.

You can call them Victim Disarmement Zones or whatever you like sweetie

Again with the silly insults; do you normally address grown men as "cupcake" and "sweetie" ... ah, well, maybe I can see why you really don't want people to be able to legally carry concealed. And I'm so very sorry our rhetoric about what so called "gun free zones" really are is not something anyone has a good answer to, in your case, just citing the law as it is now does not make this any more just, or stop those of ill intent from seeking out these venues for their massacres. Those who've created these exceptions to effective self-defense have a lot of blood on their hands.

Ignorant Arizona, Kansas, Illinois, and Georgia have tried to bypass the laws on these places and failed. So you new law doesn't stand much of a chance here either.

We'll see; the pattern with many laws, just not in this domain, is that they don't get passed the first time they're proposed, but do eventually as people get used to the idea, think about it, etc. It's certainly the case that many of the states of the union are severely disappointing you when it comes to gun laws, including the 10 that have passed Constitutional Carry (CC), and, rather interestingly, Oklahoma, which requires a license for its residents, but not one for residents of CC states as long as they have a photo id from that state and otherwise satisfy the requirements for CC in their home state (!!). Which means, come January 1st, you won't need a license to carry concealed in any direction until you hit the Arkansas border, where they might have CC, it's disputed. (Illinois, of course, doesn't have reciprocity with any other state, but we're working on that.)

I notice you still haven't answered whether you think any moron over 18 without a felony be allowed to buy a pistol and carry it concealed.

No, you fail to acknowledge the many times I've pointed out that in practice, in the real world vs. your personal fears, CC doesn't turn out to be a problem. Which at this point I'm having difficultly ascribing to poor reading comprehension, so I'll repeat what I said in the comment you are replying to:

"[why do you] make such a fuss when so many other states have gone Constitutional Carry without major problems, including neighboring Kansas for a solid year and a half[?]"

It's not like we don't know what's happening, or as the case may be, what's not happening, that is, problems with Constitutional Carry, in nearby Kansas. As I like to say, Dodge City has not become "Dodge City".

Anonymous said...

8:01 AM: Found my copy of the 2nd edition of Vilos' Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States. Per pages 233-4, what happened to our strong Castle Doctrine is State v. Goodine, 196 S.W.3d 607, 613 (Mo.App.S.D. 2006) and Perkin c. State, 77 S.W.3rd 21 (Mo.App.E.D. 2002), two cases in which the Missouri Courts of Appeals in the southern district (ours) in 2006 and eastern district in 2002 decided to rewrite the plain language of the law. And that's not all, for example, Goodine also narrows the law's "any real property" language (pg. 237 of Vilos' book).

Anonymous said...

I never cease to be astonished that there is always a segment of the population that tries to force their views on the rest of the population. If you feel so strongly about your right to carry, simply do not enter an establishment that does not allow you to carry that weapon on their property.

Anonymous said...

@ 3:29

I talk to children in this manner, particularly ones frightened by nightmares. So let's go sugar bear. If you carry into a bar, you are told to leave, possibly permanently, and if you refuse, cops are called and you are fined $100. 2nd time another fine and possible loss of license(which is no longer required) for a year, hmmm, sounds like you violated a law, much like a traffic infraction. Even driving requires a license, you know where the applicant must know the laws, signs, and be tested by a trooper before issuance. But not guns, give me a break.

Have you been foolish enough to try to walk into the courthouse yet with your concealed weapon? How about the Police Station? It won't end well for you. Whether you agree there are places weapons shouldn't be carried, doesn't matter to me or the laws which prohibits concealed carry in these places. There are only 17 cited, again put your big boy pants on, suck it up, and try as we have done for over a hundred years and enter these places unarmed, or just stay the hell out.

Listen, I don't give a rat's ass what Kansas has done, they have also failed to fund their schools. Is that a good idea for Missouri as well, I think not. So there, I have answered you question, now why don't you show some honor and explain to us that don't feel the need to carry why a gun enthusiast with training would think it a good idea to allow any moron over 18 the right to carry concealed without a license, gun safety training, rights and responsibilities classes, and without shooting experience to purchase a pistol and stick it in his pocket?

I really don't expect you to answer my question. How could a responsible gun owner be in favor of such ignorance? And if you answer in the affirmative, then you have proven that you favor reckless behavior with firearms. The point is an remains, there are seventeen places you cannot carry, and that remains true today and until you can find enough ignorance in the Missouri (not Kansas) legislature.

Anonymous said...

I talk to children in this manner....

An admission which proves you are entirely unworthy of any more attention, even reading the rest of your latest rant. Go find someone else to troll.

Anonymous said...

I never cease to be astonished that there is always a segment of the population that tries to force their views on the rest of the population. If you feel so strongly about your right to carry, simply do not enter an establishment that does not allow you to carry that weapon on their property.

Get back to me when I can run a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a "gay wedding cake", hat ship sailed long ago.

Anonymous said...

@ 7:42

Look, I'm very sorry you are so scared that you feel you need a firearm to leave your house. But it is childish, plain and simple. Fear makes people do stupid shit. Walking into a bar with a gun, knowing it is prohibited is stupid. Walking into a courthouse with a weapon and thinking you will be allowed inside is stupid. You can't change these laws because of your irrational fear, all you can do is try to convince the majority which disapprove of your blather. You can expect to be called juvenile, cowardly, etc.. I mean what are you going to do? Shoot me? Lol, grow up and get a pair. I'll be here to call bullshit every time you start blathering.

Anonymous said...

@ 8:20

So not only are you a "fraidy cat", but you're racist and homophobic as well. That goes with the paranoia, I guess.

Steve Holmes said...

Thank you, 5:37. If someone objects to a store's policy against guns on the property, go to another store that allows them. If there are enough gun carriers demanding a pumpkin latte, some smart entrepreneur will open a coffee shop that caters to carry.

"Those who've created these exceptions to effective self-defense have a lot of blood on their hands."

3:29, more blood than the makers of the gun and the sellers of the gun? The user of the gun? You would blame a storeowner who simply tries to create a place where people feel welcome and comfortable?

You may be right that Dodge City has not become "Dodge City." This just makes my point that carry, open or concealed, is a solution in search of a problem.

Anonymous said...

Just what we need, a gunfight at McDonald's. The thing that scares me more than an armed individual shooting in a public place is a bunch of other armed individuals shooting back. How many people get killed in the crossfire?

Anonymous said...

"Those who've created these exceptions to effective self-defense have a lot of blood on their hands."

3:29, more blood than the makers of the gun and the sellers of the gun? The user of the gun?


Not the user of the gun, obviously. The makers and sellers? In the US at least, guns are used far more for good than evil, and even tight gun controlled states like France several times over show the bad guys will find a way to get guns if they want to. So those who create Victim Disarmament Zones for them to shoot up, yes, they most certainly have blood on their hands.

You may be right that Dodge City has not become "Dodge City." This just makes my point that carry, open or concealed, is a solution in search of a problem.

No, that just shows that the news sources you read don't report on all but the most local incidents of legal self-defense with guns (do you really claim they don't happen??), because you know very well that any illegitimate use by someone with a license or otherwise legally carrying in a non-criminal fashion would be well publicized. It shows that unlicensed legal carry is not a problem.

Steve Holmes said...

2:17:

Then please show me a list of legal self-defense incidents with guns? A list backed by proof, links to newspaper or TV stories or police reports or trial transcripts, not just "I read about it on the Internet" hooey. Of course, it happens. Did I claim it doesn't happen?

By the way, I do watch Fox News on occasion and recall no such stories. Is Fox too liberal for you?

It comes down to this. You see the world as far more of a threat than I do. In my 59 1/2 years on Earth, I have never come close to needing a gun, even traveling in some of the world's dicier places. If you feel you need a gun that much, you wouldn't *go* some of the places I have. You worry you're going to be shot by the bad guy. I worry I'm going to be shot by one of you. That's a basic difference we will never bridge.

List, please.

Anonymous said...

The thing that scares me more than an armed individual shooting in a public place is a bunch of other armed individuals shooting back. How many people get killed in the crossfire?

That's probably because you haven't studied this sort of combat, including what actually happens in such events. There's no "crossfire" as such, because among other things, the good guys don't try to shoot though innocents to reach the bad guy. That is, you know, one of the things that distinguishes the two, and you're welcome to cite any examples of it happening, I'm not aware of any, it's a canard.

Backdrop can be a problem. That is, what and who is behind the bad guy (Rule 4), and there have been some injuries and deaths of innocents from that, but, somehow, you think it's better that the bad guy can concentrate on shooting down innocents without one or more people shooting at him and, among other things, distracting him a mite?

Anonymous said...

@ 2:17

Do you really expect a court of law to allow firearms? Do you really think concealed weapons in an airport is a good idea? Do you think when the Chiefs play next that many fans had concealed weapons? Do you think it smart to walk into the Sheriff's office or Police Department with a concealed weapon? If you answer yes to any of these questions,then your opinion is in the extreme minority and not relevant.

Steve Holmes said...

"There's no "crossfire" as such, because among other things, the good guys don't try to shoot though innocents to reach the bad guy."

3:32:

Do you speak from experience? I was in an armed robbery last month. There is no "think". Just "do." Or "don't do."

I am willing to concede there are cool-headed, fast-thinking defenders who could take out a shooter without claiming other victims. Are you willing to concede there are Barney Fifes among your ranks who would do more harm than good?

We're talking about a situation, a life-or-death situation, thrust with lightning speed
upon a person. Panic. Chaos. People running everywhere. The situation changing by the second. Of course, the good guys don't *try* to shoot through people, but people may run into the line of fire. Do you trust *all* gun carriers to know exactly, precisely what to do in that situation? Do you carry supporters even acknowledge a potential problem?

Anonymous said...

Steve Holmes @3:31 PM: I have never come close to needing a gun...

Steve Holmes @9:13 PM: I was in an armed robbery last month.

You are at best projecting your own, at best, total lack of self-confidence on all gun-wielders, at worst lying though your teeth ("never come close"?? The latter wasn't the slightest bit "close"???). In either case, you're not worth the trouble of seriously replying to. Especially since you lack the initiative to do a simple Google search for properly cited civilian self-defense cases and somehow thing it's my duty to inform you about the most basic of facts pertaining to the topic, and have to be severely ignorant to truthfully not know about some of these cases.

(OK, I suppose there's a third possibility, you were one of the robbers but didn't have a weapon, again I'll note that you're another commenter who's advice is indistinguishable from what we'd expect from a criminal who wants an easier lifestyle. Doesn't matter, since we civilians who carry have heard it all before and made our own choices about what to do.)

Anonymous said...

Steve Holmes, I am in total agreement with you. In my 75 years on this earth, the only time I carried (or needed) a weapon was during the time I spent in the Military. I am at a loss to explain the widespread fear gripping the population which manifests itself in the compulsion to carry a weapon in public. In the course of my many years, I have had a weapon pulled on me three time. In each instance, I managed to disarm the individual without a shot being fired. The idea that a "gunner" becomes a Rambo when he straps on a side arm has a great potential to place that person in a position of danger when he encounters someone with military training.

Anonymous said...

@ 7:27

First off, Thank you for your service to our country! The person Steve and I have been communicating with is a scared, self-centered and a complete picture as to why our legislature should NOT allow anyone over 18 lacking a felony to carry concealed without any gun safety training, experience shooting, or classes without requiring a license. This person has never served his country, the only experience he has is watching Clint Eastwood movies, although Steve probably pegged him as a Barney Fife. He won't even answer whether he thinks concealed carry is a good idea when flying. I'm not worried about him shooting someone in crossfire, I think he will crap his pants and run. I expect this clown will carry loaded chamber, with safety off and shoot an innocent child. Given that occurs, his problems with law enforcement will be petty compared to the family's vengeance. If the moron actually target shoots, i expect he insofar the same ilk that I have seen at Crowder, that think they have emptied their weapon and point it in the direction of others, while removing the clip.

Anonymous said...

The idea that a "gunner" becomes a Rambo when he straps on a side arm has a great potential to place that person in a position of danger when he encounters someone with military training.

A potential that isn't actually realized in the real world of civilians vs. criminals. For years, decades I think it was, we on the pro-RKBA side were looking for an actual case where the canard of a woman having her gun taken away by a criminal actually, you know, happened. None were to be found until a few years ago; turns out women, and civilians in general, are pretty smart about when they choose to employ their guns against criminals. Millions of times every year....

7:27 AM: Were any of the people who pulled guns on you normal, non-criminal, undrugged up, etc. people? How far away from you were these individuals you disarmed? Any beyond the 21 feet of the Tueller Drill? At age 75, are you still absolutely sure you're physically fit enough to pull the same disarms again? Will you be so at 80 or 85, and if you think so, how can you be sure? This of course goes many times over for women with the great disparity they have compared to men in upper body strength.

We keep seeing people who say "I just find people...", "I have never...", or "I am at a loss..." (all quotes from different people in this very discussion), as if their personal experiences, including a couple triggered by either bad gun-handling or recently being in an armed robbery, applies to all other people. Sorry, your one size fits all advice is sorely lacking for the rest of the population.

And, hmmm, if I really want to turn on the paranoia, we know paid trolls have become a thing on the net, and Michael Bloomberg is now the Alpha and Omega of US gun control simply because the tens of millions of dollars we know he spends on gun-grabbing is pocket change for him and no one listens to the previous figures except Josh Sugermann. I bring this up because we've now seen 3 people all saying the same thing, as if they're going off the same rough script, and that script is so inane.

Yeah, there are a lot of ludicrously solipsistic people out there, but it's kinda surprising to see so many turn up on this relatively obscure blog just as the election cycle and its related efforts have ended, and Constitutional Carry begins a serious breakout, 3 states alone in 2016, Idaho, Missouri, and West Virginia. We gun owners do know people are out to "get" us, "paranoia" on our part is not axiomatically wrong.

Steve Holmes said...

6:12:

"We keep seeing people who say "I just find people...", "I have never...", or "I am at a loss..." (all quotes from different people in this very discussion), as if their personal experiences, including a couple triggered by either bad gun-handling or recently being in an armed robbery, applies to all other people. Sorry, your one size fits all advice is sorely lacking for the rest of the population."

6:12, I said, "I am willing to concede there are cool-headed, fast-thinking defenders who could take out a shooter without claiming other victims." How is that saying one-size-fits-all? You're the one who seems to be saying that carry is good for everyone in every situation. I just disagree. I can see times it would be good. I can see a lot of times it wouldn't.

"You are at best projecting your own, at best, total lack of self-confidence on all gun-wielders, at worst lying though your teeth ("never come close"?? The latter wasn't the slightest bit "close"???).

3:42, one of the robbers was standing next to me. I started pounding on him. Brown belt in Taekwondo finally came in handy. Fists, not gun. I don't expect you to believe me. Hell, sometimes I don't even believe it happened. So doubt away. I know what I did. That's all that matters.

Maybe it'll come out at the trial if they don't take a plea bargain. Or you can go into Pinnacle Bank on 32nd Street and ask if the guy who fought the robber was about 6'2", with reddish-grey hair, a few pounds overweight and in desperate need of a comb and a shave. That's me.

So the dual statements stand. I have never felt I needed a gun, and I was in an armed robbery.

Again, 3:42, it helps to read the post. I said, "I am willing to concede there are cool-headed, fast-thinking defenders who could take out a shooter without claiming other victims." I see possibilities a private citizen with a weapon could save a life. I know it's happened. Do you believe it's the answer in every situation?

"Especially since you lack the initiative to do a simple Google search for properly cited civilian self-defense cases and somehow thing it's my duty to inform you about the most basic of facts pertaining to the topic, and have to be severely ignorant to truthfully not know about some of these cases."

Either there is no list, or you can't give it to me. This seems to be a topic near and dear to your heart, so I figured you'd have all the gun-rights links handy and ready to send at a moment's notice. Assume I am severely ignorant. Educate me. List, please.

Steve Holmes said...

7:27, welcome to the fight! Grab a chair and start bashing someone with it!

I read someplace that for a concealed-carry permit in MO, a person needs to get a minimum number of hits on a stationery target placed at various distances. Sounds more like going for a Boy Scout badge than demonstrating competence with a weapon that can save lives or take them.

7:27, given your military background, will you please tell these civilians who seem supremely confident in the accuracy of every CC gun owner that a life-or-death decision won't be a stationary target? Look at the videos of the mall fights on the day after Christmas. People running everywhere. Guys wrestling on the ground. First, one's on top. He's the bad guy. You have a clear shot. But in a second, they've rolled over. The innocent one's on top. Have you shot yet? Watch out to your left! As you pull the trigger, someone bumps you. Your shot goes someplace you didn't intend.

Oops! My bad!

Anonymous said...

Steve Holmes: The truth is, in a situation such as a mall shooting, the number of people with guns showing only complicates the matter. The control forces have no idea who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. Collateral damage is not a joke but a reality in most of these cases. I will call your attention to the "Biker Shootout" in a Texas cafe not long ago. I will add that in my experience, the average person with a hand gun (or with any gun except a rifle) tends to lay down fire without much success of hitting a target. Even well trained LEO's who practice at a range with frequency are prone to indiscriminate fire in stress situations. I will point to one incident in downtown Joplin a few years ago in which the JPD laid down fifty-four (54) loose shots at a single target injuring two bystanders. And these were trained Police Officers. If the average citizen feels the need to be armed, then let them walk around with a baseball bat or such. Most people (including the majority of the gun culture crowd) do not have the training or temperament to carry weapons into public places.

Anonymous said...

So many lies, so little time at the moment. But for now:

Steve Holmes: You got lucky, first in location, then in being able to overwhelm your opponent in hand to hand combat. Change either of those, which you lack the imagination to do so, and it would have been quite a different situation.

4:18: Collateral damage is not a joke but a reality in most of these cases.

Name some cases with good guys, which most certainly do not include the Waco police in that "Biker Shootout". The reality is that it's quite easy to discern who's the bad guy and who's the good guy, assuming the rare occasions the police aren't the cleanup crew. The bad guy has victims piled around and people running away from him. The good guy is the one with neither and is facing the bad guy.

You bring up police marksmanship and general fire discipline, which few will deny is often beyond dreadful. But, strange thing is, civilians tend to practice with their guns more than the police, tend to be more careful, no Blue Wall to protect them, and thus there are far more horror stories about the latter, albeit with far too many of the cases not actually wounding or seriously injuring the actual target.

We know this is true because any civilian legal carrier who did such a thing as the JPD case you cite would be nationwide headline news.

Most people (including the majority of the gun culture crowd) do not have the training or temperament to carry weapons into public places.

So you claim, like almost everyone else on your side speaking from authority rather than facts, when we know the facts about the latter are that millions of American citizens carry every day without that being a problem a fraction of the one with the police.

Anonymous said...

Yeah right, we never hear about the guy who shoots himself in the foot at a football game, or those wounded by accidental mishandling or kids shooting other kids because the weapons were improperly stored. You attribute a hell of a lot more intelligence, ability and competence to the average American than I do.

Steve Holmes said...

"You got lucky, first in location, then in being able to overwhelm your opponent in hand to hand combat. Change either of those, which you lack the imagination to do so, and it would have been quite a different situation."

Bullshit. I TRAINED to defend myself, two years, four times a week, and I had thought over the years about how to handle just that VERY situation. I was not *lucky." I was READY.

5:11, I am trying to treat you with respect. I have not called you "sweetie" or "cupcake." And you accuse me of lying and lacking imagination. I have conceded that some CC people are qualified. You're the one who seems to believe all CC people know exactly what they're doing. Lack of imagination? Look in the mirror, bub.

Where's my list, by the way? All the people saved by a private citizen using a gun in public?

Anonymous said...

@ 5:11

So we are to take that you are more competent than a police officer with your shooting, thus not a threat to anyone but the bad guys. And we know your read Colonel Cooper's book, the self defense Tueller drill which makes you infallible. You're here to dispute the bad press that people who feel the need to carry when they leave their home get from the media, and be a spokesman for said gun owners. What you have admitted is that you're scared, and because you're scared you should be able to carry into a bar, airport or wherever you choose and sue if you get shot because you were unable to carry. you cannot even admit that concealed weapons on an commercial aircraft is probably not a good idea. None of the arguments you make justify you suing a business for prohibiting you to carry on THEIR premises and you are harmed while there by someone else. Your arugument and your reasoning is ridiculous. Your representation of your lobby does nothing to help it.

Steve Holmes said...

I've ignored my own advice: “Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and annoys the pig.”

With that, soooooey pig, I am out of here. The CC believers will never convince me it's a good idea, and I will never convince them it's a bad idea. I haven't even gotten the supporters to say it could *at times* not be the right thing. I am officially wasting my time. In parting, I bring this back to the original topic: Targeting businesses that ban guns.

I'm a lot more conservative than you think. That's why I believe in business owners' right to ban guns. Government telling private business what to do. Sometimes, it's necessary (don't put rat parts in the soup or the inspector will shut you down). Sometimes, it's not (you can get the gay wedding cake somewhere else). If I don't like a business's policies, I go somewhere else. So can you.

Adios, buttercup. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.

Anonymous said...

What we really have is a list of angry men abusing their right to carry. Killing a kid in the neighborhood because he did not recognize him, or killing a kid because he made noise in a movie theater, or best of all killing a kid at a gas station because he was playing his music too loud.

Anonymous said...

Killing a kid in the neighborhood because he did not recognize him, or killing a kid because he made noise in a movie theater, or best of all killing a kid at a gas station because he was playing his music too loud.

Zimmerman used lethal force on Martin because the latter was pounding his head into a concrete sidewalk, i.e. Martin initiated the use of lethal force and appropriately paid for it.

Curtis Reeves might skate because he's, wait for it, a retired cop, one of the Only Ones who can be trusted with guns, or so we're assured in general and by some in this discussion. But he's been properly charged with second degree murder.

The gas station atrocity has already played out in court, the only wrinkle was the first jury couldn't agree on the first degree murder charge, but the attempted second degree murder charges would have put him away for as long as 75 years. In the retrial, he got convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

The first and last had outcomes with we RKBA types agree with; is your complaint that citizen carry (concealed was not an issue in the gas station shooting) is imperfect, and therefore ... what? Do you expect or demand perfection out of people? If so, why aren't you calling for cops to be disarmed?

Me, I make sure I look at the big picture, and in actual practice—you do know the nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry started 30 years ago, yes?—vs. the endless bogus hypotheticals and imputations of ill will or incompetence on the part of civilian gun owners that have plagued this discussion and the general nationwide one, it's overwhelmingly turned out at net to be a good thing. Unless, of course, you're a criminal, supporter of them, or dependent on them.

Anonymous said...

What about the unintended consequences of this law? There will be an added cost for Law Enforcement due to the potential for deadly force present in every call they respond to. The days of a single Officer handling a call will be over. Literally, the Enforcement Agencies will need to place two Officers in each Police Cruiser (one literally riding "shotgun") and every traffic stop will require back up. This is expensive and that expense will fall upon already strapped local jurisdictions. Response times will fall even lower and this will place the public further at risk.

Anonymous said...

There will be an added cost for Law Enforcement due to the potential for deadly force present in every call they respond to.

Because, as everyone knows, today the police always assume there's not the slightest chance whomever they confront is armed with a gun. In fact, it's been this way forever! Totally my imagination that they've been wearing anti-bullet concealed body armor for decades.

Really, do you think anyone is stupid enough to fall for this?

I'd like to say that despite blowing 20 million on a Nevada flypaper law that got nullified by the FBI, who Nevada can't order around, in about a month, and using Shannon Watts as a mouthpiece after too many of his Mayors Against Illegal Guns proved themselves to the "illegal" (criminals), even Bloomberg's paid trolls wouldn't be this dumb, but I don't see how we can rule it out. But paid or not, this is a particularly poor effort.

Anonymous said...

@ 6;30

What is a particularly poor effort is your attempt to justify suing a business for not allowing you to carry concealed should the bogeyman shoot you there. What is a particularly a poor effort is your attempt to represent those frightened people like yourself that carry and think prohibited areas do not apply to them. Bloomberg has obviously gotten into your head, thinking he has paid trolls in Joplin, Missouri. You obviously have a great many psychological defects that should have diagnosed prior to you obtaining a weapon. You are the poster boy that represents why concealed carry for all citizens is as an ignorant idea.

Anonymous said...

The real problem is that our State Legislature is filled with certifiably insane members.

Anonymous said...

The real problem is that our State Legislature is filled with certifiably insane members.

Then so are the state legislatures of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma*, Maine, Mississippi, Montana†, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Given the accelerating trend (three this year alone), there will be quite a few more in the next decade or so.

*Oklahoma only for non-residents from Constitutional Carry States.

†Montana only outside city limits, which is of course most of the state.

Anonymous said...

Oh no, Montana's cities are "Victim Disarmament Zones"!!! I can't believe those morons in the legislature just left Helena, Billings, Missoula, and Bozeman to die without weapons.

Anonymous said...

10:45 AM: No, you have to have a Montana shall issue license.

If you're capable of thinking, on what earth would a state create such a Constitutional Carry carve out for their abundant wilds, but not allow any form of legal carry in cities??

Randy, here's hoping for a better cut of troll in 2017, these fish in a barrel types are tiresome at best.

Anonymous said...

@ 12:26

Listen, I'm not the creature that fears leaving his home without a concealed weapon, you are certainly far from a man if you can't manage to gather the courage to do so, in my opinion. Concealed carry was okay when you were required to take 8 hours of gun safety, practice and test shoot, advised of rights and responsibilities prior to the sheriff and the Department of Revenue issuing a license for such.

That is no longer the case, you get a permit (with no photo required) from the sheriff in 10 minutes and you can buy a firearm and stick it in your pocket. There will be careless idiots that do such, and you the experienced carrier can't even admit it, which gives you zero credibility. Airports, bars are victim disarmament zones...grow the hell up! Call me a troll if you wish, just a citizen that calls bullshit when you see it.