c13

No fights are ever average. Anyone that wants a fair fight must have fully accepted death or must not be smart enough to realize potential consequences, which is why cops always get backup when available for potentially dangerous calls and rarely make a fight fair (someone has a handgun, pull out a rifle and have several cops respond, someone physically fights, pull out pepper spray/tazer/baton, etc). While you were able to disarm the person who attempted to mug you, chances are that he wouldn't of shot you if he could have. Most criminals aren't willing to shoot someone over pocket change. However, it is the few that are willing to do so that require people, whether able bodied males, weak males, women, the elderly or physically handicapped to be able to fight back with equal or greater force. One of my favorite expressions I've heard about this is from a cop who had been in several gun fights, both on duty and off duty, is that he has "never wished he had less ammo." Pretty sure he meant that last part about assault rifles to back up what I said and to other people, not you.

Just because you can say you've done something doesn't mean everyone else can. Look, I've had people in wheelchairs buy guns from me. Are you saying that they are all panzys who need to man up?

And if the officer would've realized that no crime was being committed after responding to the call and if he didn't feel the need to "prove" he was better than the open carrier, then the entire thing would've been avoided.

It doesn't matter what you two believe when it comes to this. In the US, we have laws that bound the government. One of them is the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court, as well as multiple federal courts, have ruled multiple times that someone carrying a gun properly (ie: holstered for handguns or slung with rifles/shotguns) is not reason for police to detain someone. As cp702 pointed out, the judicial interpretation of it is the same as a "man with a wallet." Until a gun is used to harm or threaten to harm someone else by an individual, the police have no right to stop him, much like with free speech.

Regarding this, the ATF refuses to process automatics that were manufactured past 1986 (I have a part time job at a Class 3 dealer), so you could never order it. Some PD's, especially in rural areas, exploit LE exemptions to get fun guns for the department, but none of the officers could keep them after leaving the job. I know of one former police chief in Missouri who burned through tens of thousands of rounds of ammo a month with various PD owned full auto's. They will process suppressors and Short Barreled Rifles made past then though, which might be what has confused you. Once the paperwork is filled out, it takes a 6 month background check, and the gun has to stay in the shop the entire time.

Because what is typically claimed for abolishing carrying is that it will reduce crime rates. However, a majority of firearms crimes are committed be people who are already banned from owning firearms. Other crimes are committed in the home (which is much rarer than the majority of ghetto violence), but still not where the argument of someone legally carrying would be applied. My point was that having a label in front of a name doesn't mean anything in regards to skill level. A large majority of police officers only shoot when they are required to qualify, which in most places is about 2-4 times a year, with some as little as once a year. An average civilian goes shooting one or twice a month, and fires more rounds than the police officers do (typically 50-100 depending on qualification). Also, almost every single mass shooter has stopped as soon as someone with a gun, whether law enforcement or civilian, arrived. However, the difference between an armed citizen and law enforcement is that Law Enforcement is almost never in the area, and takes around 7 minutes to respond to large shootings. Where legally permitted (since almost all mass shootings are in gun free zones where only cops can carry guns), the chance of someone with a gun immediately responding drastically increases. Here's a few examples of armed citizens and off duty cops (under a system like some are proposing, cops would be unable to have a firearm outside of home or work) stopping situations that might have turned into mass shootings. http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

Handcuffs aren't required to detain someone. If he wasn't being detained, then the cop wouldn't skirt around the question "Am I free to go?" and said yes, he was free to leave. Unless someone is actually being detained/arrested or on a traffic stop (pretty sure it is still detainment), police can not order people to stay in an area.

And keeping and bearing arms is a right too. Just because you don't agree with the way someone exercises their right doesn't mean you can call the police on them (until and unless they harm or attempt to harm others). The fact is you clearly have no clue on legality. In order for a police officer to detain you, they need to have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. Under Terry v Ohio, police can not stop and detain someone unless there is evidence that they are connected to a crime or one is about to take place. Carrying a firearm where permitted is not against the law, which means no reasonable suspicion, which would mean the cops can not detain someone solely for doing that legally.

Because unlike Canada, America is filled with violence. But like Canada, a majority of violence occurs in major cities. What has been proven time and time again in America is that areas with strict gun control (California, New Jersey, Chicago, Philidelphia) have the highest rates of gun violence, while suburbs and rural areas, where gun ownership is highest, have some of the lowest. If you were to call the police and report someone saying "I hate the government," but not making any threats, would the cops come and illegally detain them?

Please list crimes committed by people legally carrying a firearm. The fact is that the only people who wouldn't carry should a law like that go into effect are law abiding citizens. Illinois had it nearly impossible to carry concealed until recently, and that never stopped the hundreds of gang bangers in Chicago (where it is illegal to step out of your house with a gun unless disassembled, let alone carry) from shooting each other. Besides that major flaw in it being for "public safety", police have proven they can't shoot straight either. My primary example being Chris Dorner. The LAPD mistook 2 hispanic women in a wrong make, model and color truck for a 6 foot tall black guy. They opened fire on the truck, firing a total of 113 shots and only hitting the truck 43 times. Of those shots, only one women was grazed with a bullet. Out of 113 shots, only one hit. Another example is this story from Ogden, Utah. Police felt the need to SWAT Team a veteran with PTSD, but no violent history, who was growing marijuana in his basement to self medicate (they couldn't find any evidence of dealing). Because of the need to act like tactical special ops badasses, they raided his home in the middle of the night. I don't know about any of you, but I don't think clearest when I have just woken up, especially to a high stress situation. The veteran walked out with a handgun and killed one officer, while wounding another 6 with only 30 shots. The 12 man SWAT Team fired 250 rounds in return, and only hit the suspect twice. Keep in mind, this was at point blank distance. However, when citizens are able to legally carry outside their home, it is not just their family they are saving from the too long average 7.5 minute response time of police, but other citizens. During the Clackamas Mall shooting just days before Sandy Hook in December, a man armed with an AR-15 attempted to go on a mass shooting. After killing two people and wounding one other, his gun had repeated jams, leaving him unable to fire until the casing was cleared. It was at this point that Nick Meli, a 22 year old concealed carry permit holder who failed to see the gun free zone sign, pulled out his Glock 22 and took aim at the shooter. While he didn't fire, fearing missing and hitting a civilian behind the shooter, the shooter noticed he wasn't the only one armed and ran around a corner, putting a fatal bullet in his head. Had he simply waited for police to respond, the shooter could have continued his rampage, resulting in more tragedy.

Again, where did I say I hate all cops? I hate pigs. To the uninformed, a pig is someone who abuses their authority, most commonly in violating constitutional rights and arresting people for stupid reasons. But saying pigs doesn't mean all cops. I could say I hate Jihadists, but that doesn't mean I hate all Muslims.

Again, simply having a name in a majority of police reports, not being charged or ruled guilty, is a drastic reduction in employment opportunity. And please point out where I said I hate all cops. Please do so. I'm begging you. Until then, you have no right to call me insane when you are seeing things that aren't even there.

And that is the problem with my name being in a police report. It victimizes innocent people by causing increased discrimination when trying to find a job, which is hard enough in today's economy with no criminal record.

So if I was investigated for murder, but nothing came up, would you still hire me?

What if it is my example? One is investigated for a crime, but charges are dropped. Do you hire him or the squeaky clean guy?

I listen fine. But last I checked, I am reading this. And you didn't answer my question. Would you rather hire a former suspect or a squeaky clean guy if you were an employer? That is the issue with a name being in a police report.

You said you hate people who annoy cops for trivial things. I said I hate cops who annoy people for trivial things. Again, police reports being associated with you is a bad thing to an employer. If you were hiring someone, would you hire the guy who was looked at as a potential suspect or the guy who has never had a run in with the police? And the analogy blew past you once again. You're saying that because I play LCPDFR, I must like all cops. With that logic, anyone who plays GTA must like people who go on shooting sprees and commit terrorism.

cp702 explained it perfectly for me. Thanks bud

State governments and municipalities cannot usurp the Constitution. This has been proven with civil rights cases relating to the 14th amendment.