ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 Your argument is emotive and therefore irrelevant. Post again when you've calmed down. If you're talking about my post, your comment is irrelevant. Me, I'm debating gun control with Fat_Teddy. But thanks for the advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icegirl Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Um, I'm quite fond of the fact that I can carry my semi-automatic automatic pistol around with me where-ever I want. Heck, I've used my CWP as a second form of identification before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Yes, my comment was directed to you. As a card carrying member of the NRA, a CWP holder, and federally licensed firearm instructor I really find your whole tone and argument dull to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swaterfall Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Um, I'm quite fond of the fact that I can carry my semi-automatic automatic pistol around with me where-ever I want. Such as schools and you place of employment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 Don't get me wrong there would be nothing stopping you from taking your gun hiking, but if you did use it, there would be a consequence, the severity of which depending on the circumstances, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Anyone who has a CWP has been duly educated by reading portions of the RCW's which specifically indicate areas where CW's are not permitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Don't get me wrong there would be nothing stopping you from taking your gun hiking, but if you did use it, there would be a consequence, the severity of which depending on the circumstances, of course. Such as a raging maniac with 3 dogs attacking you. Perfectly legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swaterfall Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Anyone who has a CWP has been duly educated by reading portions of the RCW's which specifically indicate areas where CW's are not permitted. Any one who has a drivers license has been duly educated regarding how to safely operate a vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I think that getting a CWP is a bit more involved than getting a drivers license. At least you have to pass a criminal background check and be fingerprinted. Most states require some type of education courses in conjunction with a 60 day wait period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 Yes, my comment was directed to you. As a card carrying member of the NRA, a CWP holder, and federally licensed firearm instructor I really find your whole tone and argument dull to say the least. OK, so you have gun-related credentials... I'm failing to see the point. Other than you are pro-gun. Which I think I already figured out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I think that getting a CWP is a bit more involved than getting a drivers license. At least you have to pass a criminal background check and be fingerprinted. Most states require some type of education courses in conjunction with a 60 day wait period. two separate courses, here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 Don't get me wrong there would be nothing stopping you from taking your gun hiking, but if you did use it, there would be a consequence, the severity of which depending on the circumstances, of course. Such as a raging maniac with 3 dogs attacking you. Perfectly legal. Again, no proof of a raging maniac, nor dogs attacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Again, no proof of a raging maniac, nor dogs attacking. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty", or does that only exist when it supports the liberal asshat agenda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 My point was that you are unable to discern the right to self defense which was duly adjudicated by the Law in Arizona. Are you more informed than the people that investigated and ruled on the event in question? Your emotional outburst regarding firearms and their relationship to the Constitution seems like frivolous spray rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 Again, no proof of a raging maniac, nor dogs attacking. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty", or does that only exist when it supports the liberal asshat agenda? By the same reason you are admitting that the dog-owner was innocent of any aggression toward the shooter. Which makes it murder. But that's not really debateable anymore. What's debateable is should people be allowed to carry guns around, and should there be a penalty for shooting someone to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 My point was that you are unable to discern the right to self defense which was duly adjudicated by the Law in Arizona. Are you more informed than the people that investigated and ruled on the event in question? Your emotional outburst regarding firearms and their relationship to the Constitution seems like frivolous spray rhetoric. There has been no emotional outburst, and I was not the one to bring up the constitution. And Arizona law is subject to change, last time I checked. But you are free to keep trying to flame me if you want. Just don't shoot me in "self-defense." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 By the same reason you are admitting that the dog-owner was innocent of any aggression toward the shooter By the same reason? Are you on crack? The authorities deemed it justifiable. Your whiny anti-gun agenda doesn't change that. What's debateable is should people be allowed to carry guns around, and should there be a penalty for shooting someone to death. Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to drive, either. Or own knives. Or make a fist. Or baseball bats. And there IS a penalty for shooting someone to death, unless it's justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I believe AZ is on the verge of allowing gun owners to carry into bars. So how's that for change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 By the same reason you are admitting that the dog-owner was innocent of any aggression toward the shooter By the same reason? Are you on crack? The authorities deemed it justifiable. Your whiny anti-gun agenda doesn't change that. What's debateable is should people be allowed to carry guns around, and should there be a penalty for shooting someone to death. Perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to drive, either. Or own knives. Or make a fist. Or baseball bats. And there IS a penalty for shooting someone to death, unless it's justified. No I am not on crack, nor is my "agenda" "whiny." Again, there was actual proof of justifiability. Was it self-defense? Probably. Could it have been resolved without shooting the owner three times in the chest? Probably. Is there way to know for sure? No. Is there a way to prevent people from being shot while hiking? Yes, ban guns in government-managed wilderness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat_Teddy Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Yes, ban guns in government-managed wilderness. We should ban cars to save people from being victims of road rage. We should ban knives to save people from stabbings. We should ban fists to save people from beatings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I support the right to own firearms. In fact I just got back from a hike on state administred rec lands where I carried a borrowed Glock 23 in .40 SW. Not my preferred caliber for an anti-grizzly round, but better than lugging a 12 gauge and with the wind we had today there's no telling where pepper spray would end up. Sounds like homer is getting away with one here. I don't know what the Payson area is like, but there are big cats in parts of AZ and I'd certainly want to ability to carry a firearm if I thought it was warranted. Nevertheless, dude fired one shot into the ground in front of the dog...if the dog owner guy then is pissed and running at me for shooting at the dog or near the dog, and I tell him to stop but he keeps charging, he gets at least one ear-whistler or dancer before I put one in his leg. Three to the chest with no real warning is a little excessive to say the least, especially when the guy hasn't produced any weapon. Where I come from the saying is "shoot to kill or pay the lawyer bills" or its corollary "dead men don't talk". Sounds like a nervous geriatric got trigger happy to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 So you're advocating removing the right to self defense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 I believe AZ is on the verge of allowing gun owners to carry into bars. So how's that for change? Yeah I remember hearing something about that... Sounds like an invitation to let guns solve all of the problems one normally encounters in a bar. Just like the Old West! Please tell me you agree, that is a bad idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Yes, I agree it is a very bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 The problem with the gun is that it represented a huge escalation of the situation. Once the warning shot was fired, a whole chain of events was unleased. Had the gun not been present, it is likely no one would have been hurt. A stick or hiking pole would have been a more suitable defense, and would have likely held the dog off until the owner arrived. Guns are so destructive that obviously they should be a last resort. For that to be so, you need a first resort, like a big stick. I was out running in Kinnear Park once. I had sprinted up a big hill and was out of breath. A big guy was walking his little white shaggy dog when the dog rushed me. I was forced to stop and and yell, "call your dog off". The guy did absolutely nothing. I kicked at the dog to keep it off me. He rushed me and grabbed my arm. I was so out of breath I was helpless. He raised a fist and only some fast talking and an "apology" got me out of a beating. If I had a gun, I likely would have shot the guy or his dog. It would have been far worse with the gun. If you bring you dog with you on the trail, please use a leash. I am sure you little puppy is an absolute angel, but I don't care. Use the leash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.