“I was the one arguing that he's criminally liable because of his
negligence of not knowing how to properly carry his weapon...so I'm not
sure where you pulled that red-herring accusation out of.
Since you don't seem to see the point of my statements about the police protection, I'll explain the flow of events:
The guns the police carry are just as safe when properly carried...is there a place where it's irresponsible for them to carry?
to your own post: no. Because you're the one saying that there are
places you can rely on police protection instead of carrying. So those
police guns, according to you, are perfectly safe in those locations.
response showed the fallacy in relying on police protection though.
Once factored in that means we've established (in your own words) that
the guns the police had were safe in that same place...but then (by my
court references) that the police are not a protection force and can't
be relied upon for that sort of thing.
That leads to the
conclusion that a citizen that carries just as safely as a police
officer is also perfectly responsible for carrying in those areas.
The difference between that and this story is that:
this guy didn't carry safely. And that's why he's criminally negligent
and will likely fact the consequences of it.”
“I'm referring to court cases, you're calling up stereotypes and assumptions. Who's being "illiterate" in that situation?
By "illiterate" I'm just guess you really mean uninformed, so I'm using it as such. I make that leap since accusing me of *reading* radical flyers at the same time as accusing me of being *unable to read*...well...lets just say that's not a very cogent argument, and I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just using the word incorrectly.”
“And I'm again just informing you about the law rather than actually engaging in useful argument...
The supreme court itself actually ruled that the police are not a protection force and cannot be held accountable as such. They are a reactionary force whose responsibility is to come to the scene of crimes after the fact only, and citizens must be responsible for their own protection.
You'd think at some point in this process you'd go "maybe I should google what I'm about to say before I respond so that I can stump this guy". Because that's literally all you'd have to do to be informed enough to present at least a somewhat viable argument...please...we all better ourselves via intelligent argument. I'm ASKING you to put such an informed argument forth so that we both can learn by discussing it, rather than me just filling in all the things you don't know.”
Sinister Minister on May 15, 2013 at 17:39:53
“So again how does that take the responsibility off of the gun owner? Or are you saying that because the police can only respond to a crime and not actually be held to prevent them that there is no place that it would be considered irresponsible to carry a loaded weapon. Rather thin argument even though you are so well informed. I would think you could at least come up with a reason to be armed while participating in a sporting activity other than the SCOTUS has determined that the police can not be held accountable for not preventing a crime.”
“Then why didn't you rebuke the part of my statement that addressed that?
Is it because you actually don't know much about the various safeties of modern firearms, or the safety methods of older firearms, and therefore don't have anything to rebuke with except for rhetoric and assumption?
Can you tell me the physical process that would lead to a modern revolver with said hammer/primer separation safety to go off without a trigger pull? Can you tell me the physical process that would make an older revolver without that safety go off if it was properly carried with one chamber empty? Because I know exactly the physical properties that went on to cause this discharge, which is why I even know what safeties this weapon had/didn't have without the story even telling me. And that's also the reason why I can tell you it would not have happened if it was carried properly.
Knowledge on the subject is a prerequisite for arguing it.”
“Actually he was a guy that didn't even know his own gun. Old revolvers that don't have the proper hammer/primer separation safety have to be carried one chamber empty in order to be safe. He didn't carry properly and will likely lose his second amendment rights and become a felon for his negligence.”
“Actually Florida requires training and licensing. Since the supreme court has ruled that no outright bans on concealed carry are legal, Florida literally has as strict of a concealed carry process as is permitted by constitutional law.
You should know these things before arguing about them...rather than finding them out mid-argument...”
“You had a reading comprehension lapse there buddy :) Read it again. I said that old revolvers are meant to be carried one cylinder empty in order to be safe. Just as a SA only pistol is meant to be carried hammer back safety on, a DA/SA is meant to be carried chambered but hammer forward, etc etc etc.
What I proposed is that each gun must be carried as it was designed to be carried in order to be safe or else the carrier is being negligent.”
“Florida requires training and licensing for concealed carry. You should know these things before you argue about them.
There are no laws backing concealed carry "just because a person wants to". They are unneeded, as the supreme court has ruled that concealed permits must be issued unless the governing body has a legal reason not to issue the permit.
You don't really know anything about the constitution or the current laws, do you? I feel like I'm just informing you of law rather than actually arguing any points...”
Sinister Minister on May 15, 2013 at 17:41:25
“"Florida requires training and licensing for concealed carry." Not working out too well then is it?
“If he did, he's still going to lose it for carrying an old revolver without a hammer/primer separating safety with all cylinders loaded. Those types of revolvers must be carried one chamber empty in order to be safe. That criminal negligence will likely lose him that license...maybe even put him in jail.”
“This guy may as well. Revolvers come in two varieties: ones with safeties that separate the hammer from the primer unless the trigger is pulled, and ones that don't (usually older). The ones that don't MUST be carried one chamber empty in order to be safe to prevent exactly this type of discharge.
“Slight modification: "A good gun carrier while bowling would have... (fill in the blank)__________________"
And the answer is: "not carried an old revolver that doesn't have a hammer block safety unless he carried with one cylinder empty to prevent hammer pressure discharges."
He will likely lose his license for criminal negligence because of unsafe carrying leading to the illegal and unsafe discharge of a weapon. Older revolvers without such a hammer blocking safety MUST be carried one chamber empty to be safe. He had a responsibility to know that.”
dtaylo75 on May 15, 2013 at 12:48:43
“Wait a second, are you proposing banning "old revolvers that don't have a hammer block safety"?
Sounds like you are classifying guns as either 'safe to own' or 'not safe to own'. But I thought the 2nd Amendment was absolute?”
“Though, philosophical reasons aside, it actually does say that in the constitution. The 5th and 14th amendments have due process clauses where, with due process, one can be stripped of rights and become a criminal. The criminally negligent discharge of a firearm in public due to him negligently carrying in a severely dangerous way will almost certainly lead to criminal due process which could make him a felon and strip him of his second amendment rights.
Rights are for citizens. Citizens are to be responsible or else they turn into felons instead. I support the second amendment...but know that my rights come with responsibilities.”
Sinister Minister on May 15, 2013 at 12:43:01
“Would it be asking too much to ask that one of those responsibilities be not encouraging everyone to get a gun before they prove whether or not they are responsible enough to carry one?
Perhaps by not backing laws that allow for concealed carry just because a person wants to.”
“He will likely lose his license for that reason. The constitution states that rights can be removed from criminals with due process.
The revolver he was carrying did not have the hammer block safety that allows all chambers to be loaded, the current chamber had to be empty for safe carry. Carrying in such an unsafe manner is criminal negligence leading to the unsafe discharge of a weapon. He could constitutionally be stripped of his right to bear arms.
“Not sure why you wouldn't care about someone carrying in an unsafe manner. Seems like something that one would care about...
As for reasonable gun controls...Florida requires a training classes and licensing to carry. The supreme court has ruled that banning it is unconstitutional, so Florida literally is as strict as it is constitutionally allowed to be about concealed carry. Maybe that's the reason you don't care about my "technical BS"...because you have a tendency to avoid research and learning wherever possible and prefer to talk without pesky knowledge affecting your argument.”
Just Say Noway on May 15, 2013 at 13:58:33
“If it didn't happen ever day, maybe your talk would mean something. Trust me, we have a LONG WAY to go before worrying about the Constitution. I mean the real Constitution, not the Radical nra interpretation.”
“He may. While the second amendment protects the right to bear arms, the constitution states in multiple places that rights can be removed from criminals with due process. Criminal negligence in discharging a firearm in an unsafe manner tried in court would be due process, and would be constitutional.”
“I'm a huge second amendment supporter. But even I can agree that when you carry you need to do it safely. Others have a right to life, and carrying in a way that the gun was not designed for directly risks that. In older revolvers that means 1 empty chamber is the responsible way to carry.”
Sinister Minister on May 15, 2013 at 12:18:28
“Being responsible might just also include not carrying you loaded gun everywhere you go. One would think that there must still be some places that you can depend on the police to handle any trouble without the need for armed civilians on the ready to shoot the place up. Perhaps enjoying an evening of bowling with your friends might be one of them.”
“Guy had to have been carrying an old revolver where there is not a trigger released safety between the hammer and the primer, and then carried with all cylinders loaded, then hit the hammer with the ball, making it put pressure on the primer. Which is NOT a proper carry method.
Modern revolvers have mechanisms to stop the hammer from contacting the primer unless the trigger is pulled in order to prevent this. They can be carried all chambers full.
Older revolvers without this feature are to be carried with 1 empty chamber, so that the hammer isn't over a round until the trigger pull or manual hammer cocking rotates the cylinder for the shot.
Basically: he effed up. When you carry you have a responsibility to understand your weapon and carry it in a way that is safe. The police learn how to do this for their guns, military personnel for theirs...and most CCW holders learn it for their sidearm. He didn't.”
Sinister Minister on May 15, 2013 at 12:06:32
“"When you carry you have a responsibility to understand your weapon and carry it in a way that is safe."
Oh yeah show me where it says that in the 2nd amendment.”
Just Say Noway on May 15, 2013 at 12:03:55
“No one really cares about you technical BS. Stupidity is only secondary to lack of reasonable Gun Controls.”
mpasmith on May 15, 2013 at 12:02:23
“He should lose his concealed carry permit for not carrying safely.”
Caymus77 on May 15, 2013 at 11:59:32
“Here is a better idea..don't carry a gun when playing sports.”
KaKaaw on May 15, 2013 at 11:58:44
“Yup, i stated something in reply to another post. This was a stupid way to carry, and a big mistake on his part, hardly the guns fault.”
“I'll make sure to write interesting things for you each time I'm on then. Here's one: did you know that double spacing between your sentences is an archaic practice that was done for monospace fonts of old typesetting, and was phased out in the mid 20th century? It made a slight resurgence with monospace typewriters, but since then has been removed from usage again after computers made monospace fonts abnormal for daily typing.”
“Actually it supports the theory. We've created a society that rewards freeloaders that have more children (we literally give them benefits per child), and then we can watch how that environmental pressure skyrockets the reproductive rates of the groups typically on such systems. The trait that they are willing to take advantage of societies welfare programs is very conducive to reproduction, and is very much showing evolution at work. Typical moral values and the current environmental pressures aren't always the same.”