PT111
Regular Member
imported post
grishnav wrote:
grishnav wrote:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Shots fired by two drunk idiots with CPLs...
- Thread starter grishnav
- Start date
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
Unlike you (apparently), when I say shouldn't, I don't mean "government people should use violence against that person to prevent them from..." I mean, well, you know, just exactly what I said: they shouldn't! As in should not. Like, you shouldn't jump off a bridge, you shouldn't shoot yourself in the head, and you definitely should not troll on the interwebs. Shouldn't. As in should refrain from. How it is you've confused the two is beyond me...
So, do you get it now? No?
Maybe it'll help if I rephrase:
Bottom line: Some people should choose not to drink; some people should choose not to own guns.
Wow. First of all, way to mess up the quoting.
Unlike you (apparently), when I say shouldn't, I don't mean "government people should use violence against that person to prevent them from..." I mean, well, you know, just exactly what I said: they shouldn't! As in should not. Like, you shouldn't jump off a bridge, you shouldn't shoot yourself in the head, and you definitely should not troll on the interwebs. Shouldn't. As in should refrain from. How it is you've confused the two is beyond me...
So, do you get it now? No?
Maybe it'll help if I rephrase:
Bottom line: Some people should choose not to drink; some people should choose not to own guns.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Much better. There is great debate on here on who should be allowed to have guns. Some say that there should be no restriction on anyone and others are much more selective. You see how easy it is to call someone stupid and ignorant because they don't agree with your interpretation. The simple term arms is among those than few can agree on. I am of the minority opinion on this board that there are some people that should be denied access to firearms. I am also of the opinion that if you are $###faced drunk and trying to drive home you should be locked up at least until you are sober whether you have had a wreck or not.
But then there are lots of people that should not drink at all or have guns and know it therefore do not. Then there are those in the same way except continue to do both. I/we cannot be the judge for them until they prove othrewise.
Much like the man telling the woman to take her computer back to the store for a refund. She asked what reason, he said "Tell then you are too stupid to use a computer". Maybe sometimes we need to tell more people that and they need to listen.
Much better. There is great debate on here on who should be allowed to have guns. Some say that there should be no restriction on anyone and others are much more selective. You see how easy it is to call someone stupid and ignorant because they don't agree with your interpretation. The simple term arms is among those than few can agree on. I am of the minority opinion on this board that there are some people that should be denied access to firearms. I am also of the opinion that if you are $###faced drunk and trying to drive home you should be locked up at least until you are sober whether you have had a wreck or not.
But then there are lots of people that should not drink at all or have guns and know it therefore do not. Then there are those in the same way except continue to do both. I/we cannot be the judge for them until they prove othrewise.
Much like the man telling the woman to take her computer back to the store for a refund. She asked what reason, he said "Tell then you are too stupid to use a computer". Maybe sometimes we need to tell more people that and they need to listen.
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
Why do they need to be locked up? Why do they need to be charged with a crime? What good do those things bring about?
PT111 wrote:
Why not cart them home, tow their car home (or to a lot), and charge them them for towing, storage (if they use the lot), and "cab fair"? Oh, and call their insurance company and let them know what an irresponsible ass they are shielding from liability.
Why do they need to be locked up? Why do they need to be charged with a crime? What good do those things bring about?
FMCDH
Regular Member
imported post
Regardless of the punishment or the underling politics about who should and who should not be allowed to own/carry a firearm, I have to assume that the vast majority of us agree on a basic principle, one we all agree on every time we have an OC picnic....
Alcohol and Firearms DO NOT MIX! :uhoh:
That being said, they chose to drink, they chose to carry their firearms while drinking (or soon after) and in so doing their actions may have endangered the lives of others because they did something they normally wouldn't (and you have to assume that since they still had valid CPLs) and never had done before.
Maybe a few years of being disarmed (not prison) would help them see the error of the culmination of their choices. Yes? No? Fair?
And if they had actually hurt an innocent person by the culmination of those choices....I say we call it what it would have been, Murder, and thrown the book at them.
Personally, I want to hear the rest of the story. :?
Regardless of the punishment or the underling politics about who should and who should not be allowed to own/carry a firearm, I have to assume that the vast majority of us agree on a basic principle, one we all agree on every time we have an OC picnic....
Alcohol and Firearms DO NOT MIX! :uhoh:
That being said, they chose to drink, they chose to carry their firearms while drinking (or soon after) and in so doing their actions may have endangered the lives of others because they did something they normally wouldn't (and you have to assume that since they still had valid CPLs) and never had done before.
Maybe a few years of being disarmed (not prison) would help them see the error of the culmination of their choices. Yes? No? Fair?
And if they had actually hurt an innocent person by the culmination of those choices....I say we call it what it would have been, Murder, and thrown the book at them.
Personally, I want to hear the rest of the story. :?
FunkTrooper
Regular Member
imported post
FMCDH wrote:
I don't actually think they will lose their right to bear arms as I'm sure the actions they committed don't constitute a felony. I do hope they lose their CPLs over this. But seriously the more guns are in the public's hands the more incidents we will have but you can't regulate human nature or stupidity.
FMCDH wrote:
I disagree with doing that as anyone who has a negligent discharge or an accidental discharge could face charges of murder by an all too easily corrupted government. \
I don't actually think they will lose their right to bear arms as I'm sure the actions they committed don't constitute a felony. I do hope they lose their CPLs over this. But seriously the more guns are in the public's hands the more incidents we will have but you can't regulate human nature or stupidity.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I started to write a bunch of stuff but to avoid unintentionally derailing this into another debate about whether or not it is ok to consume any alcohol while carrying I'll say no and not fair to FMCDH's question based simply on prior restraint. They did NOT apparently hurt anyone. If they had there are laws already against them doing so and they should be appropriately punished.
I started to write a bunch of stuff but to avoid unintentionally derailing this into another debate about whether or not it is ok to consume any alcohol while carrying I'll say no and not fair to FMCDH's question based simply on prior restraint. They did NOT apparently hurt anyone. If they had there are laws already against them doing so and they should be appropriately punished.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
grishnav wrote:
You're changing the proposal. I mean "prohibited" as in driving a motor vehicle is "prohibited" when a driver has a BAC of .08 or over. That there is a "prohibition" against thatbehavior. That it is illegal and punishable by fine/jail.
In my proposal, there is no dispatching "big, burly men in silly costumes with guns, body armor, and backup to commit violence against a person for engaging in an activity." There is no "doing violence to somebody" for violating the "prohibition." You're making that up.
It's simple. Any LAC who is drunk and measures .13 or higher is to be charged with an offense similar to DUI model. I guess we could call it AUI or something like that.
Field sobriety test, Breathalyzer, the usual and standard stuff. Arrest, arraignment, bond.
.13 or higher. Carrying (OC or CC) in public. Simple.
And you would be against that? Why?
grishnav wrote:
You're changing the proposal. I mean "prohibited" as in driving a motor vehicle is "prohibited" when a driver has a BAC of .08 or over. That there is a "prohibition" against thatbehavior. That it is illegal and punishable by fine/jail.
In my proposal, there is no dispatching "big, burly men in silly costumes with guns, body armor, and backup to commit violence against a person for engaging in an activity." There is no "doing violence to somebody" for violating the "prohibition." You're making that up.
It's simple. Any LAC who is drunk and measures .13 or higher is to be charged with an offense similar to DUI model. I guess we could call it AUI or something like that.
Field sobriety test, Breathalyzer, the usual and standard stuff. Arrest, arraignment, bond.
.13 or higher. Carrying (OC or CC) in public. Simple.
And you would be against that? Why?
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
Sigh. Do we really have to do this?
aka. police officers
aka., arrest for violating a so-called prohibition
You mean to tell me you wouldn't send police to make an arrest? But you just said:
My understanding, in that case, is that police make an arrest. So what am I "making up"? Gosh you're a confusing individual to converse with...
Measured by who? Big burly men in silly costumes with guns, body armor, and backup, perhaps?
Charged, chained up and thrown in a cage, away from his family, friend, and job?
And if they don't consent to the test? Might the big, burley men threaten to use their guns to force you to take it? Might they actually use them?
Chain 'em up, throw 'em in a cage, and hold 'em 'till they pay you off. At the expense of everyone you're supposedly "protecting" by doing so, I might add. Sounds like a great system. Torture camps. Real civilized of you there, Mr. Hank T.
Know what? If that's the system you want, you can have it. But I caution: the system you want might be the system you'll get.
Me, I'd like something better.
HankT wrote:
Sigh. Do we really have to do this?
aka. police officers
aka., arrest for violating a so-called prohibition
You mean to tell me you wouldn't send police to make an arrest? But you just said:
My understanding, in that case, is that police make an arrest. So what am I "making up"? Gosh you're a confusing individual to converse with...
Measured by who? Big burly men in silly costumes with guns, body armor, and backup, perhaps?
Charged, chained up and thrown in a cage, away from his family, friend, and job?
And if they don't consent to the test? Might the big, burley men threaten to use their guns to force you to take it? Might they actually use them?
Chain 'em up, throw 'em in a cage, and hold 'em 'till they pay you off. At the expense of everyone you're supposedly "protecting" by doing so, I might add. Sounds like a great system. Torture camps. Real civilized of you there, Mr. Hank T.
Know what? If that's the system you want, you can have it. But I caution: the system you want might be the system you'll get.
Me, I'd like something better.
I'll repeate it slowly for you: Do...no...violence...against...people...who...haven't...hurt...anyone. It's a fairly simple, highly moral, and totally practical principal. Might want to give it some thought. Even our ugly, barbarous American "justice" system at one time recognized this in various forms an incarnations, ie., corpus delecti, (no) prior restraint, mens rea, etc. I can provide you with some reading material, if you think it might help.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
grishnav wrote:
OK. I'll modify the proposal. You drive a hard bargain.
Here it is: .15 BAC.
But that's my final offer. No higher.
LAC. Armed. Drunk. In public. .15 or higher. AUI. Field sobriety test, breathalyzer, arrest, arrainment, bond, trial, the usual.
Simple. Surely you can't be against that.
grishnav wrote:
OK. I'll modify the proposal. You drive a hard bargain.
Here it is: .15 BAC.
But that's my final offer. No higher.
LAC. Armed. Drunk. In public. .15 or higher. AUI. Field sobriety test, breathalyzer, arrest, arrainment, bond, trial, the usual.
Simple. Surely you can't be against that.
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
imported post
I tend to disagree with more rules on that topic. If your home watching the game and you have a "home invasion" or some drunk runs into your house etc. etc. of course you call LE, but if you have a situation thats escalating what do you do in the meantime. The protection of your family comes first. and it is YOU that can make the best decision. not a breath machine. I have drinks at night and 98% of the time my XD lays on the nightstand, if I party to much I rely on the boys in blue. if you drink, you shouldalways be checking where you stand with your skills even if yourfirearm is in the safe.Dave
I tend to disagree with more rules on that topic. If your home watching the game and you have a "home invasion" or some drunk runs into your house etc. etc. of course you call LE, but if you have a situation thats escalating what do you do in the meantime. The protection of your family comes first. and it is YOU that can make the best decision. not a breath machine. I have drinks at night and 98% of the time my XD lays on the nightstand, if I party to much I rely on the boys in blue. if you drink, you shouldalways be checking where you stand with your skills even if yourfirearm is in the safe.Dave
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
While drunk can mean violent, it doesn't necessarily. I am and will remain against bringing violent action to somebody who isn't violent. Period.
HankT wrote:
You obviously aren't reading my posts, so I guess there's no further point in engaging you.OK. I'll modify the proposal. You drive a hard bargain.
Here it is: .15 BAC.
But that's my final offer. No higher.
LAC. Armed. Drunk. In public. .15 or higher. AUI. Field sobriety test, breathalyzer, arrest, arrainment, bond, trial, the usual.
Simple. Surely you can't be against that.
While drunk can mean violent, it doesn't necessarily. I am and will remain against bringing violent action to somebody who isn't violent. Period.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I've been over this with HankT before. It's become apparent to me that he harbors a fear of alcohol as an inanimate object very similar to the fear of guns possessed by the Brady Bunch.
I, on the other hand, have actually drunk alcohol before, and have reasonably assessed that alcohol does not prevent me from: stopping when I've had enough, and maintaining enough judgement to not suffer any negative consequences.
grishnav is right; HankT's favorite proposed law (he has pushed it repeatedly now) would serve as yet another stepping stone in the replacement of responsibility with compliance, weakening the link between a person's decisions and the direct consequences of their actions, and encouraging the use of alcohol as an excuse to disregard self-control and social norms.
HankT, I oppose your proposition, because what small problem there is now with armed drunks would only be made worse.
HankT's mountainous molehill is as well a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I've been over this with HankT before. It's become apparent to me that he harbors a fear of alcohol as an inanimate object very similar to the fear of guns possessed by the Brady Bunch.
I, on the other hand, have actually drunk alcohol before, and have reasonably assessed that alcohol does not prevent me from: stopping when I've had enough, and maintaining enough judgement to not suffer any negative consequences.
grishnav is right; HankT's favorite proposed law (he has pushed it repeatedly now) would serve as yet another stepping stone in the replacement of responsibility with compliance, weakening the link between a person's decisions and the direct consequences of their actions, and encouraging the use of alcohol as an excuse to disregard self-control and social norms.
HankT, I oppose your proposition, because what small problem there is now with armed drunks would only be made worse.
HankT's mountainous molehill is as well a self-fulfilling prophecy.
kparker
Regular Member
imported post
Could we just have HankT go away again?
Could we just have HankT go away again?
cynicist
Regular Member
imported post
I feel I should say in their defense:
I've been in somewhat similar situation to what they described where I live, and I think their response, if truthful, was reasonable, though not the actions of internet-trained gun enthusiasts.
In one particular incident, I was walking about 1am down a road in an industrial part of town with fences and factories for 3/4 mile on both sides so nowhere to run, and this was during an unusually high level of drive-by shootings in the area, and a car with four bald-headed guys drives past me and stops about 200 feet ahead of me, turns it's lights off, and starts backing up. While I know how things like this frequently end up, you can't shoot until you're sure. Fortunately, another car came around the corner, and the car took off. Another night this had happened to me twice on the same road, so I promptly bought a gun.
A reason why they might have fired warning shots is that if they weren't 100% sure that they actually were being threatened, they wouldn't want to kill someone by mistake. And even if they saw a gun, maybe they just didn't want to kill someone if they had a way around it. As for two shots, I think one will suffice.
As for drinking, BAC was not specified, nor whether they had their weapons at the bar.
It seems to be slanted in a way to make it look as though completely dangerous drunks are allowed to carry guns in the street and shoot randomly.
I feel I should say in their defense:
I've been in somewhat similar situation to what they described where I live, and I think their response, if truthful, was reasonable, though not the actions of internet-trained gun enthusiasts.
In one particular incident, I was walking about 1am down a road in an industrial part of town with fences and factories for 3/4 mile on both sides so nowhere to run, and this was during an unusually high level of drive-by shootings in the area, and a car with four bald-headed guys drives past me and stops about 200 feet ahead of me, turns it's lights off, and starts backing up. While I know how things like this frequently end up, you can't shoot until you're sure. Fortunately, another car came around the corner, and the car took off. Another night this had happened to me twice on the same road, so I promptly bought a gun.
A reason why they might have fired warning shots is that if they weren't 100% sure that they actually were being threatened, they wouldn't want to kill someone by mistake. And even if they saw a gun, maybe they just didn't want to kill someone if they had a way around it. As for two shots, I think one will suffice.
As for drinking, BAC was not specified, nor whether they had their weapons at the bar.
It seems to be slanted in a way to make it look as though completely dangerous drunks are allowed to carry guns in the street and shoot randomly.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
cynicist wrote:
cynicist wrote:
HankT would be thrilled at what he would see as the only objective journalistic approach.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
marshaul wrote:
My, my, that would set an interesting precedent indeed...
marshaul wrote:
Huh?
Isn't that dangerous?
marshaul wrote:
So, you think a lawfully armed citizen, drunk to.15 BAC or more level, in public...is an event that our society should simply tolerate and approve?
My, my, that would set an interesting precedent indeed...
marshaul wrote:
Huh?
Isn't that dangerous?
compmanio365
Regular Member
imported post
Our justice system is supposed to punish ACTIONS that HARM others, not arbitrary numbers that you have happened to cross. A society where you constantly have to measure everything to make sure you are in compliance with arbitrary regulations is not a free society. A society where you are free to do as you will, so long as you cause no harm to others, IS.
Our justice system is supposed to punish ACTIONS that HARM others, not arbitrary numbers that you have happened to cross. A society where you constantly have to measure everything to make sure you are in compliance with arbitrary regulations is not a free society. A society where you are free to do as you will, so long as you cause no harm to others, IS.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
compmanio365 wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
Shouldn't our justice system also protect our citizens from being harmed? If we only punish actions that harm others then there would be no need for such laws as attempted murder or assault. If you were to shoot at someone and miss then that would be OK, only if you hit them would there be a problem.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
HankT wrote:
Back in the real world, this precedent has happened before, and doubtless occurs without incident (and, thus, unnoticed by society) all the time, and the reason we haven't needed (and never will need) such a law should be obvious to anybody not possessing a MADD-like hysterical fear of alcohol: right now today, there are laws prohibiting all the behaviors which might become a problem with armed drunkards: disturbing the peace/drunk in public, assault, brandishing, neglegent discharge, etc. Of what benefit is an additional law prohibiting an act which isn't, in and of itself, a problem like any of the above specific acts (which are specifically outlawed)?
In the real world, armed drunks with a BAC of .15 are either A: not a problem (essentially undectectable) or, B: prosecutable under current law.
HankT wrote:
So is it automatically, inherently, unavoidably, or necessarily a problem the instant a person attains a BAC of .15 (or any other arbitrary amount) while armed?
Back in the real world, this precedent has happened before, and doubtless occurs without incident (and, thus, unnoticed by society) all the time, and the reason we haven't needed (and never will need) such a law should be obvious to anybody not possessing a MADD-like hysterical fear of alcohol: right now today, there are laws prohibiting all the behaviors which might become a problem with armed drunkards: disturbing the peace/drunk in public, assault, brandishing, neglegent discharge, etc. Of what benefit is an additional law prohibiting an act which isn't, in and of itself, a problem like any of the above specific acts (which are specifically outlawed)?
In the real world, armed drunks with a BAC of .15 are either A: not a problem (essentially undectectable) or, B: prosecutable under current law.