Officer in Ohio loses it.

[clangpap]

Now carry on you crazy fearful Canadians

Actually, the point is we aren't fearful. As Tammer said about where he has lived, most major crime in Canada is not random. It is pretty easy to avoid being the victim of serious crime by avoiding a high-risk lifestyle and remaining aware of your surroundings. As a result, there is no need to carry a gun in the city and I've lived and walked in the inner-city for over 20 years. I have traveled extensively in the US over the past 30+ years and have never felt unsafe by employing the same attitude. I might feel differently if I lived in a rural area where help is not close at hand, but even then I'd likely have a long gun or shot gun to improve my likelihood of hitting what I wanted to when the adrenaline is running high.

I'd support convenience store and gas station owners having a gun as they are more likely to be victims of a crime and I think if it was likely there was a gun behind the till, some thieves would think twice before trying to rob the store.

I have met and had great chats with some of you that told me you had conceal permits - maybe lots of you were armed and didn't tell me. Does the thought make me uncomfortable? No. Feel safer? No. Do I think we are "culturally different" because of guns? No. All the myE28 gun people I've met have been great guys! Just two countries with different histories.

Oh, and I don't care for biased statistical analysis from either side of any argument. I am always reminded of a short 1st year statistics text titled "How to Lie with Statistics".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

Back to the video, both those cops are incompetent. If the driver decided to make a run for it when the cop was leaning in the back seat he would have been dragged and possibly killed - forget about the gun. A cop up here a few weeks ago reached through the open driver's window to shut off the engine of a van with a 15 YO at the wheel. The kid hit the gas, cop was dragged, the van flipped and pinned the cop underneath. The cop radioed the accident in before the weight of the vehicle finally killed him.

[carnutdallas]

tammer, you are a smart guy and while I do not agree with all your beliefs, thought process, etc, that we may only see a snippet of on here, you do a good job of exercising you mental ability in prose.

I am thankful for the 2nd amendment and the belief that the founding fathers used to guide their structuring of our constitution. I am not a fan of the case law hi-jacking of our constitution in the last 50+ years and feel that our founding fathers never saw the rapid growth of knowledge and technology that has altered their original intent. Justice Scalia does a lot of writing and speaking on original intent which, I am very fond of. I also think that GOD is a central tenant in the founding of our country. 50+ years ago, I would imagine most Americans thought that way. Not so much today. I bring into the conversation my beliefs, my thoughts and my view point which all centers from a very, very strong respect and belief in one true GOD. I understand that it may turn or curve the arguments into an area not originally addressed or even a part of the original discussion. BUT it is the who, what, why and how I think. I have no problem sharing that and I have no problem with those who's views are not the same as mine. I believe they have the problem and there is nothing I can argue do or say to convince them otherwise when their core beliefs discounts GOD, the father almighty. I will make those statements at times, just to see the responses and to see where others stand in there beliefs. That is probably using a hand grenade in my argument, but it lets me know where this will eventually end up.....more than likely a believer versus a non-believer and I will never convince them of anything, politically, spiritually or even automotive for that matter.

In the end, the officer in Ohio screwed up big time. Really big time. I agree with others who say he knew he F'd up and was mad at himself, but no one deserves the treatment or the outcome. The CHL discussion afterward went lefty-righty when the Canadian chimed in. Americans and Canadians are wired different in a lot of ways. That is ok. Thankfully, I can visit Canada and not live there and I am sure they feel the very same way.

Have a great week and enjoy your 5'er.

[L_N_Love]

Some folks from Philly visted the area yesterday. Some people probably rested easier than others while knowing this guy roamed the woods last night: jewelry store robbery

[skip535i]

Handguns are primarily tools of the frightened.

Jeez, Tammer! That's a bunch of baloney.

Since I feel like you have done a bit of stereotyping, I don't feel badly making this analogy: Stereotypically, "Rednecks" are known to carry guns. Do they really seem scared? They take pride in their guns, practice with them, clean/modify them, hunt with them, and protect themselves and their families with them. Frightened? Seriously?

How about LEOs? Tools because they are afraid? Why can't a citizen whom is legally carrying just be thought to be another peace-keeper?

Also, do you really dissagree with the constitution? Men wiser than you seemed to think it was a pretty important thing. Were they wrong?

[Tammer in Philly]

Handguns are primarily tools of the frightened.

Jeez, Tammer! That's a bunch of baloney.

Since I feel like you have done a bit of stereotyping, I don't feel badly making this analogy: Stereotypically, "Rednecks" are known to carry guns. Do they really seem scared? They take pride in their guns, practice with them, clean/modify them, hunt with them, and protect themselves and their families with them. Frightened? Seriously?

How about LEOs? Tools because they are afraid? Why can't a citizen whom is legally carrying just be thought to be another peace-keeper?

Also, do you really dissagree with the constitution? Men wiser than you seemed to think it was a pretty important thing. Were they wrong?

When a primary argument is "if you live in an urban area you need one to protect yourself," that sounds frightened to me. I have lived in, worked in, and commuted through some reputed very dangerous urban areas for the past 9 years, gun-free, no issues. Enjoying guns is one thing; feeling like you need one for protection is asinine.

-tammer

[C.R. Krieger]

Also, do you really dissagree with the constitution? Men wiser than you seemed to think it was a pretty important thing. Were they wrong?

At the time, no. Today, yes. When the Revolution occurred, massed musketry was the most powerful armed force on earth, with simple artillery following a close second. Even the bayonet was a force to be reckoned with because it took a professional soldier a half minute to reload a flintlock musket and that musket wasn't accurate much more than a twenty-second run away. That meant that, if you missed the guy you were shooting at, he'd have enough time to run up to you and stab you before you got another shot off. I seriously doubt any of the framers foresaw anything like the weapons that came into common use as soon as the late 1860s - and we've clearly moved far beyond that in technology. So what do you think they'd do?

The prevailing view today is that the US government is so damned good that we won't be overthrowing it any time soon; but do you think Jefferson would leave it at that? "... no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law." The Constitution was intended to be a living document - or there would be no amendment process. Its interpretation, too, is, of necessity, dynamic. The progress of technology makes that imperative. Those who believe that any regulation of arms under the Second Amendment is absolutely impermissible are luddites who have already been left behind. Those who believe that carrying concealed handguns make them any safer are living 150 years behind the times and usually half a continent away from that truth.

So how do you think those framers of the Constitution would address that conundrum? I have my own opinions, but I'd like to see yours.

[turbodan]

Guerilla warfare can be very effective. Can't deny that.

Do you really think the framers of the constitution would favor disarmament of American citizens under the guise of safety? You don't think they felt we have a right to defend ourselves as individuals and as a nation? What do you think the whole purpose of the second amendment was?

[greenfield]

...militia and Indians (feathered Indians, not red dot and armed with nuclear capabilities Indians)... that was the original intent of allowing armed citizens under the 2nd Amendment.

Home invasion in the 18th and early 19th century meant the indigenous population was at your door politely requesting the return of their lands before scalping you, or that the Brits or Spanish were pillaging after burning down your home.

[Tammer in Philly]

Guerilla warfare can be very effective. Can't deny that.

Do you really think the framers of the constitution would favor disarmament of American citizens under the guise of safety? You don't think they felt we have a right to defend ourselves as individuals and as a nation? What do you think the whole purpose of the second amendment was?

When you read the entire wording of the amendment, it can be argued that the intent was clearly for arms to be used in militias. That is different from individual protection against crime, though I don't think the founders would have had an issue with that (though they did implement a very nice judicial system to handle crimes with some semblance of fairness).

The issue I take is the *necessity* of guns for protection against crime. A cost/benefit analysis of widespread handgun ownership doesn't seem to come up strongly for or against ownership. The cries of "I must have a gun or my wife will be raped and I will be killed" are just hyperbole. If you remove homicides that are committed in the context of criminal organizations, the rates of violence in most areas are very, very low. I can think of very few places to live where I would absolutely want a gun under my pillow, and guess what? I would never move to those places.

Making wise decisions about where to be and how you conduct yourself is a far better bet for ensuring safety of your person and property.

-tammer

[oldskool]

My 9mm would bounce off suckas windshields so I bought a 40.

[Ozarkhillbilly]

When you read the entire wording of the amendment, it can be argued that the intent was clearly for arms to be used in militias

Not really, the amendments are the rights of the people not the Feds, so why would the founders in the middle of the amendments they give the government a right? They did not, the Supreme Court said the same thing.

Yes Canada does have lower handgun violence then the US. They had lower handgun violence then the US when handguns where relative easy to get in Canada as well. But an interesting fact about Canada is that after they made their sweaping handgun bans the death rate by firearms went down, but their total death rates did not. In fact death rates by other means rose.

[Greg E34]

My 9mm would bounce off suckas windshields so I bought a 40.

QFT!

[turbodan]

When you read the entire wording of the amendment, it can be argued that the intent was clearly for arms to be used in militias. That is different from individual protection against crime, though I don't think the founders would have had an issue with that (though they did implement a very nice judicial system to handle crimes with some semblance of fairness).

Its common for the anti-gunners to make that argument, of course because it fits thier goals. I disagree. I don't think theres anything unclear about "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court also recently affirmed the individuals right to bear arms in Columbia v. Heller. Seems pretty well settled to me.

The issue I take is the *necessity* of guns for protection against crime.

They're only a necessity in the unlikely event that you find yourself needing one. Unless you're a police officer you couldn't say carrying was a matter of necessity. That doesn't mean a guy shouldn't be able to do so.

The cries of "I must have a gun or my wife will be raped and I will be killed" are just hyperbole.

Its also completely imaginary. A strawman. Never heard anyone say anything like that. Theres a lot of that kind of hyperbole going on with the gun control debate, but its not coming from the pro-gun side of it.

If you remove homicides that are committed in the context of criminal organizations, the rates of violence in most areas are very, very low. I can think of very few places to live where I would absolutely want a gun under my pillow, and guess what? I would never move to those places.

Making wise decisions about where to be and how you conduct yourself is a far better bet for ensuring safety of your person and property.

-tammer

As if violent crime only happens in certain bad areas. Bad things happen everywhere. Those that can't afford to live in nice areas have a right to defend themselves as well. Avoiding obviously dangerous situations is common sense, having a firearm doesn't have any bearing on that. The last thing I want to deal with is having to shoot someone. You would almost certainly end up in jail for some period of time regardless of the circumstances. Taking someones life even in self defense is no small matter.

[turbodan]

My 9mm would bounce off suckas windshields so I bought a 40.

I love when people "hate" on 9mm because .40 is so much more badass. Don't tell them .40 S&W is just a wimped-down sissy 10mm auto. .40 short and wimpy, anyone?

[rottenal]

A much more polite cop,although it could be argued that a good cop wouldn't be stopping a citizen for exercising his right to carry in the first place.

http://www.wimp.com/goodcop/

[Tammer in Philly]

Its common for the anti-gunners to make that argument, of course because it fits thier goals. I disagree. I don't think theres anything unclear about "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court also recently affirmed the individuals right to bear arms in Columbia v. Heller. Seems pretty well settled to me.

First off, you are becoming a tiresome waste of time because it's clear you don't read what I write. Otherwise you wouldn't be calling me an "anti-gunner." Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need some work. That said, I mentioned the FULL WORDING, then you quoted part of it. The full wording of that sentence is, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While I am fully aware of the SCOTUS rulings on this, as I wrote above, if you bothered to read it, "it can be argued that the intention of the founders was to protect gun ownership by individuals specifically for use in the context of a well-regulated militia. That is a valid interpretation, though it is not the one decided on by the court. That was offered in response to earlier questions about what the founders meant. Clear?

They're only a necessity in the unlikely event that you find yourself needing one. Unless you're a police officer you couldn't say carrying was a matter of necessity. That doesn't mean a guy shouldn't be able to do so.

And please point to where I said anyone should be barred from doing so (mentally ill aside).

Its also completely imaginary. A strawman. Never heard anyone say anything like that. Theres a lot of that kind of hyperbole going on with the gun control debate, but its not coming from the pro-gun side of it.

Funny that you are talking about strawmen, given how you are repeatedly accusing me of being anti-gun-ownership when I have repeatedly written that I am not. I am probably more of a libertarian than you are, given that my views of rights extend to everyone.

As if violent crime only happens in certain bad areas. Bad things happen everywhere. Those that can't afford to live in nice areas have a right to defend themselves as well. Avoiding obviously dangerous situations is common sense, having a firearm doesn't have any bearing on that. The last thing I want to deal with is having to shoot someone. You would almost certainly end up in jail for some period of time regardless of the circumstances. Taking someones life even in self defense is no small matter.

Of course not. But the vast majority of gun crime that happens in any area happens to people who are involved with crime in some way. Yes, there is a chance of getting mugged or robbed. There is also a chance that being armed when getting mugged might help. There is the chance that being armed when getting mugged might make things worse. Carrying a gun changes the dynamic, but it doesn't necessarily improve it. In a situation where you are not taken by surprise, carrying probably improves your chances. When you are ambushed, it is likely you won't be able to use it or doing so will frighten the perp into doing something he may not have done otherwise. Regardless, these are all speculations. The point is that, while you are free to carry, it is stupid to think that you will always have the upper hand in a bad situation. Further, the chances of a bad situation occurring are so, so remote that it is a perfectly valid response to simply say, "I'm not going to live my life being paranoid of this possibility."

At any rate, go back and read my posts. Try to separate the concept from the person delivering it. Try to understand that it is possible to explore an idea without holding it. I do deliver my own opinions, but I also offer reasonable interpretations of things that are intellectually valid, even if I don't disagree with them. And for the last time, I am not in favor of getting rid of guns, but I am also not in favor of fear being the primary motivation behind owning/carrying one. Scared people act stupid, and I want the people who carry to be smart and cool about it.

-tammer

[skip535i]

That's it...I'm buying a gun.

[Tammer in Philly]

That's it...I'm buying a gun.

Do the appropriate training and stay up-to-date on your skills.

-tammer

[Brad D.]

That's it...I'm buying a gun.

Go for it. I've bought several in the last couple of months and I've got plans for several more before the year is over. Tammer makes a great point about training. I also obliterated about 1500 rounds of .223 and .45 at the range last week doing training drills for 4 hours in 100 degree weather. Juggling empty water bottles (we had plenty) on the berm is fun when you are taking a break from rigorous drills. Good times. I guess I need to get into the reloading room and make more ammo...

[carnutdallas]

A much more polite cop,although it could be argued that a good cop wouldn't be stopping a citizen for exercising his right to carry in the first place.

http://www.wimp.com/goodcop/

Love That!

[skip535i]

That's it...I'm buying a gun.

Do the appropriate training and stay up-to-date on your skills.

-tammer

My brother will help with that. He owns a couple handguns and is an avid range-rat. Probably shoots $40-$50 a week in ammo.

[carnutdallas]

That's it...I'm buying a gun.

Go for it. I've bought several in the last couple of months and I've got plans for several more before the year is over. Tammer makes a great point about training. I also obliterated about 1500 rounds of .223 and .45 at the range last week doing training drills for 4 hours in 100 degree weather. Juggling empty water bottles (we had plenty) on the berm is fun when you are taking a break from rigorous drills. Good times. I guess I need to get into the reloading room and make more ammo...

Lover that too....

[Brian in TN]

Which optics ya got thar?

[Brad D.]

It's an Aimpoint Comp M3 with the tan optic "condom". It's got a 5 year battery life (50,000hrs) so I just leave the optic on and it's always ready to go. No need to turn it on in a hurry if you need the rifle in the middle of the night. It's the same unit as used by several special forces units. I think it's water resistant to 150ft. I should be fine if I do tactical ops in the tub then. My philosophy on gear is "buy once, cry once" and get the best you can afford. I also have a 3x magnifier on a quick disconnect mount that goes behind the Aimpoint for more accurate work out 100 yards and greater. As it sits though, this is a great gun for inside 100 yards. Target acquisition is amazingly quick.

[Ga4.6is]

I 3rd the roid rage sentiment. I also think the guy was scared shitless in the fact that he had an un-controlled suspect in the car at close range who had ample time to fire. Also, to pull up on an old Pontiac in a bad neighborhood with a suspected prostitute and another shady character in the back seat doesn't exactly instill comfort. I can imagine 7 out of 10 times that scenario could result in gunfire, suspects fleeing, drugs etc.

I definitely think the guy was waaayy over the top, but I can put myself in the situation of a rookie with a gun and some shady friends with him. I think the driver was an honest guy but I definitely wouldn't call him a savory character. Just my 02.

-Ben

I know you are an LEO, but you can't seriously be defending his actions. If the officer was scared at all, it was his and his partner's fault alone. You roll up on a car like that, you get everyone out, separated, then start doing the regular LEO things. He searches the car without consent. He does not allow the driver to speak. After he finds out about the CCW, he essentially threatens to execute the driver, harasses the driver, promises to harass the driver every time he sees him, threatens to unlawfully impound his car and incarcerate him, etc. That guy needs to resign and relax. I know it is a stressful job, but if you put yourself in a situation like that, it is your fault. Taking it out on a suspect who was not doing anything unlawful (yet,) merely something very suspicious, is leagues past the line.

I agree. I've been an LEO for 18 years. Those officers showed horrible tactics. It's easy to critique a police video, but these guys really screwed the pooch. Never search a car with someone still in it. I would agree that the guy probably flipped out because he found himself in a situation (as a result of his complacency, poor decision making and / or stupidity) which scared him badly. I have been scared badly by people in the course of my work. There is no reasonable justification for the way that this guy acted. He needs to find another line of work.

Thank you. Probably better conveyed the point I was attempting to make. I perhaps I made it sound like I was defending the wanna-be officer. I simply was trying to look at it from both sides. Besides the fact the cop made a complete asshat of himself, he's obviously suffering from a severe case of micro penis. His partner? Useless. What else can one say?

P.S.

I'm not a LEO.

-Ben

[Brian in TN]

Ive been looking at the EOTECHs. The guys over on the AR15.com forum seem to think they are the best overall. Im not against spending 500-600 for the best I can get.

[Brad D.]

I weighed both the EOTECH and the Aimpoint. I like each of them for different reasons. I ended up with the Aimpoint and the battery life was a big selling point. As a home defense carbine, I never have to turn it on. An EOTECH will auto-off and has a battery like of about 600hrs( depending on model). I do like the sight picture and reticle of the EOTECH though. They are both hell for tough and both work amazingly well. At the end of the day I think you would be happy with either one. I would go to the local gun shop and look through a couple and see what you like. Also, remember there is a proliferation of fake Aimpoints and EOTECHs on Ebay and at gun shows. Make sure you buy from a reputable dealer.

[Brian in TN]

I weighed both the EOTECH and the Aimpoint. I like each of them for different reasons. I ended up with the Aimpoint and the battery life was a big selling point. As a home defense carbine, I never have to turn it on. An EOTECH will auto-off and has a battery like of about 600hrs( depending on model). I do like the sight picture and reticle of the EOTECH though. They are both hell for tough and both work amazingly well. At the end of the day I think you would be happy with either one. I would go to the local gun shop and look through a couple and see what you like. Also, remember there is a proliferation of fake Aimpoints and EOTECHs on Ebay and at gun shows. Make sure you buy from a reputable dealer.

I hear ya. CR2032 batteries are not cheap either. Ive seen an EOTECH and I have a small Tasco that came with the weapon, but its real small. I would like a larger window even though I shoot with both eyes open regardless.

[turbodan]

Its common for the anti-gunners to make that argument, of course because it fits thier goals. I disagree. I don't think theres anything unclear about "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court also recently affirmed the individuals right to bear arms in Columbia v. Heller. Seems pretty well settled to me.

First off, you are becoming a tiresome waste of time because it's clear you don't read what I write. Otherwise you wouldn't be calling me an "anti-gunner." Perhaps your reading comprehension skills need some work. That said, I mentioned the FULL WORDING, then you quoted part of it. The full wording of that sentence is, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While I am fully aware of the SCOTUS rulings on this, as I wrote above, if you bothered to read it, "it can be argued that the intention of the founders was to protect gun ownership by individuals specifically for use in the context of a well-regulated militia. That is a valid interpretation, though it is not the one decided on by the court. That was offered in response to earlier questions about what the founders meant. Clear?

No need to be so defensive. I'm not implying you're anti-gun. I'm just saying its a common argument from those that are, and one I find invalid. I'm also aware of the full wording of the amendment. To infer that "the people" necessarily make up the "militia" is incorrect IMO. It doesn't make sense. The key part of it is perfectly clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I'm pretty sure we can say its settled.

Its also completely imaginary. A strawman. Never heard anyone say anything like that. Theres a lot of that kind of hyperbole going on with the gun control debate, but its not coming from the pro-gun side of it.

Funny that you are talking about strawmen, given how you are repeatedly accusing me of being anti-gun-ownership when I have repeatedly written that I am not. I am probably more of a libertarian than you are, given that my views of rights extend to everyone.

Feel free to expand on that. Some pretty significant charges there and I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

As if violent crime only happens in certain bad areas. Bad things happen everywhere. Those that can't afford to live in nice areas have a right to defend themselves as well. Avoiding obviously dangerous situations is common sense, having a firearm doesn't have any bearing on that. The last thing I want to deal with is having to shoot someone. You would almost certainly end up in jail for some period of time regardless of the circumstances. Taking someones life even in self defense is no small matter.

Of course not. But the vast majority of gun crime that happens in any area happens to people who are involved with crime in some way. Yes, there is a chance of getting mugged or robbed. There is also a chance that being armed when getting mugged might help. There is the chance that being armed when getting mugged might make things worse. Carrying a gun changes the dynamic, but it doesn't necessarily improve it. In a situation where you are not taken by surprise, carrying probably improves your chances. When you are ambushed, it is likely you won't be able to use it or doing so will frighten the perp into doing something he may not have done otherwise. Regardless, these are all speculations. The point is that, while you are free to carry, it is stupid to think that you will always have the upper hand in a bad situation. Further, the chances of a bad situation occurring are so, so remote that it is a perfectly valid response to simply say, "I'm not going to live my life being paranoid of this possibility."

I can't speak for everyone that carries but I'm fully aware of that. I'll take my chances. Sure beats just hoping not to be the one that gets shot or stabbed.

At any rate, go back and read my posts. Try to separate the concept from the person delivering it. Try to understand that it is possible to explore an idea without holding it. I do deliver my own opinions, but I also offer reasonable interpretations of things that are intellectually valid, even if I don't disagree with them. And for the last time, I am not in favor of getting rid of guns, but I am also not in favor of fear being the primary motivation behind owning/carrying one. Scared people act stupid, and I want the people who carry to be smart and cool about it.

-tammer

Who specifically does that apply to?

[Brad D.]

I weighed both the EOTECH and the Aimpoint. I like each of them for different reasons. I ended up with the Aimpoint and the battery life was a big selling point. As a home defense carbine, I never have to turn it on. An EOTECH will auto-off and has a battery like of about 600hrs( depending on model). I do like the sight picture and reticle of the EOTECH though. They are both hell for tough and both work amazingly well. At the end of the day I think you would be happy with either one. I would go to the local gun shop and look through a couple and see what you like. Also, remember there is a proliferation of fake Aimpoints and EOTECHs on Ebay and at gun shows. Make sure you buy from a reputable dealer.

I hear ya. CR2032 batteries are not cheap either. Ive seen an EOTECH and I have a small Tasco that came with the weapon, but its real small. I would like a larger window even though I shoot with both eyes open regardless.

I'm ok with the Hijack. I started the thread. We already determined that that cop was a complete idiot and I hope he receives proper punishment. Talking about firearms is more fun.