Rilchiam has it spot on.
THe OP is a dangerous individual.
I’m with essvee.
I’m damn glad I’m not driving around Arizona with such a fool on the roads.
** FallenAngel** somebody needs to adopt this one for a sig. line: “BTW, only a dipshit brings only a knife to a gunfight. The first rule of gunfighting is (obviously) HAVE A GUN.” (From the OP)
Originally posted by jayjay: "A gun is not a moral issue. It’s a tool. Owning a gun doesn’t make you a bad person. Carrying a gun doesn’t make you a lunatic. Try to get a life, 'kay? "
Right on, jayjay!
I’m damn glad I’m not in cali with the sheep…
“Oooh look mommy, I can use Google and look like an didactic candyass!”
Please don’t come east, I beg you… We have enough of your kind in Massachusetts.
Arizona is one of the last bastions of sanity in this festering pile of phony self-esteem promotion and wishful thinking we call the USA.
-Rav
Jesus Hairy Christ. What a ridiculous load of unfounded horseshit. I’m surprised you didn’t throw in ‘right-wing gun fanatic’ as well.
The OP seems like a rational enough person to me. He knows and follows the laws concerning his weapon, is properly trained, and seems to have a good grasp of situation assessment. He clearly stated that even had he his weapon, he wouldn’t have used it. Yet the fact that he owns and/or carries said weapon, and would use it if necessary to preserve his own life, makes him “a dangerous individual”? How the fuck did you come to this conclusion?
I don’t think that everyone should carry a gun in public. Clearly there are some who would pose a greater threat to themselves (and others), hence the need for certification and licensing. But extremism in either direction is folly. Shall we confiscate all guns tomorrow? Fine. The day after, we’ll need to proceed with the collection of all rocks, sticks and pointy things. Face it, as long as mankind has the wherewithal to pick up stones and sharpen sticks, we will be forced to contend with lethal weapons. The most we can hope for is that more people will learn to use them properly and with utmost discretion.
May you hoplophobes never have to face the courage of your convictions, and if you do, may your compelling arguments win the compassion of your aggressors. As for me, I’ll stick with the more direct approach: they don’t shoot at me, I don’t shoot back.
I’m damn glad I don’t live in California, but I’m glad it’s there.
monty,may the chains of your ignorance, knee-jerk judgments, total lack of personal responsbility and complete disregard for any set of facts that contradict your prejudices set lightly upon you, and may your paranoid and delusional ass never have occasion to cross the border into Arizona and therefore not be challenged by the facts of the real world.
To all those who chimed in in support for me after Monty’s ravings, I thank you. I too had the thought that had I not mentioned wishing I had my gun with me, I’d have been praised rather than villified. In particular, jayjay, thanks for your eloquent summation of the role of guns and Rye for your also noticing that Monty couldn’t be bothered to read what (s)he was railing against.
Whoa now! I didn’t type a syllable in criticism of FallenAngel!
I was defending the charge that he was kept on the phone too long and bounced to too many different bureaus. Not so, as I said above.
I’d like to think that those two sentences were not corollary, and that you didn’t mistake my post for a character judgment. I don’t have an opinion about FA or anyone else’s right to carry, concealed or otherwise, and I haven’t said anything that would support the charge of his being a “dangerous individual”.
i was wondering where he got that myself. fallen angel, youve consistently taken the high road here. good on you. although i find your position untenable, im sorry about the gary cooper crack.
Rilchiam. I was saying that your posting was spot on.
Then, in another paragraph, albeit of one sentence, I was making my own statement that the OP is a dangerous individual.
“Chains of ignorance?” Cute, coming from an anarchist.
I became an anarchist after a lifetime (admittedly still in progress) of studying American history, political science and systems of human social interaction. To me, it is the most logical system of existance in order to maximize human freedom, personal responsibility and individual rights. Granted, your mileage may vary, but my social views are based on information and and derived from long study. That’s the antithesis of ignorance, but of course, I wouldn’t expect a knee-jerk reactionay such as yourself to get the distinction.
Okay then!
:::don’t want to offend FA; dude’s got a gun::: 
Rilchiam, thanks for one of the few posts that’s made me laugh out loud since this thread began.
Also, as frustrating as it was, I really did understand why the various operators had to transfer me around. All of them, particularly the DPS dispatcher, were very professional, and I appreciate what they do more than I can say. Thanks for clarifying for the rest of the readers why they had to do things the way they did.
essvee Thanks for the apology. I understand your postition and respect your right to it. I also think the apology for the dig showed a lot of class. It’s appreciated.
Rav, anytime you want to leave the right coast and head out here (great weather 10 months a year, thriving economy and sane carry laws, as well as a fairly high number of like minded people) we’d be glad to have you. With the influx of Monty-type calis we’ve had in the last several years, we need all the able bodies (and registered voters) we can get to help counter them.
Bravo! FA I have enjoyed your candor and comportment in this thread.
FA -
I see the idea behind the argument about “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
But I wonder what your opinion is about this:
I was fantasizing about gaining vengeance on some people in the one class I’m taking (just idly), and it occurred to me that if I flashed a gun (that I don’t have) and threatened them, it could make them just decide that I’m too dangerous to mess with face to face, and performing some kind of sneak attack is the only way to deal with me.
I know that in this case I’m the fantasy aggressor, but what if I were the one being threatened? I respond with a flash of holster, and then am later attacked with a car/knife/gun in a manner to which I have little/no time to repsond.
Or: A bunch of guys are drinking in the gloom of an evening, outdoors. A car going past emits a lighted cigarette butt into the group (accidently), then stops at a light. The group immediately hops in a pickup to chase down the evildoer. Both parties turn out to be carrying. Three days later, a funeral is held.
I realize that in both these cases it could be said that the gun owners were not part of the sane group you mentioned, but what is the “gun lover” response to these situations? I think these are what the Canadians and Europeans on the board are thinking of when this topic comes up.
You’re quite welcome, FA.
“He who turns and runs away, lives to run another day.” Bret Maverick
I think that sentence is just fine without the last four words.
Well, {b}Waldo**, the rule of thumb is this: It’s never justified to initiate force. I think that rule pretty much negates any of the situations you described as being justified.
Only when you are well and truly convinced that the other person means you direct and immediate severe bodily harm is it justified to make an armed response. If you are being threatened, as in, someone is making negative verbal statements, that doesn’t justify escalating the situation. If someone tells you (s)he’s going to shoot you, that is not the same as someone pointing a gun at you, or even displaying one while making threatening statements.
An armed person has a higher degree of responsibility for diffusing a situation before it gets to the level of violence, even to the point of backing down in an argument if he or she believes it may escalate into a confrontation.
Also, it is a damn poor idea to be armed and drinking.
Yes, there are stupid people in the world. That will never change, but the fact that some people may overreact in some situations is not an excuse or justification for curtailing the rights of those who will not. Since there is no way to differentiate between those groups and those who may fall in-between, the only responsable choice is to allow everyone their freedoms, and curtail the rights of given individuals AFTER they demonstrate that they cannot accept those rights responsibly, such as being given to inappropriate brandishment of a weapon, voting for a two-party candidate, etc. 
An interesting fracas to jump into.
Well, I take a more subtle approach but I’m on FallenAngel’s side except for possibly the anachy stuff. I believe it’s better to have it and not need it yada and yada. When you go out in the big bad world almost anyone can be carrying a gun even in states that don’t allow it. In states they allow it there are two kinds of civilians who carry guns: those doing so illegally and may intend to use them for ill and those who have gone through training in firearms safety and law as well as a background check. In states where it is impossible or difficult for law abiding citizens to carry a weapon there is only the first kind.
FWIW Arizona has no special requirement for carrying a weapon openly in places where they aren’t prohibited. Drawing and brandishing a weapons is another matter and may be a crime in itself. Concealed weapons permits are “shall issue” for those that meet the requirements and have the training.
Having a gun doesn’t make once invincible, far from it. It places a burden to avoid confrontation moreso than for people who don’t arm themselves. Having a gun should be the second rule of a gunfight IMHO. The first should be living in “yellow” so as to avoid gunfights whenever possible.
Oh look, the hoplophobes are out in force again! And, in the manner we’re all accustomed to, they have decided to jump in and deride the law-abiding gun-owner who did nothing wrong except to own the tool their psychological problems focus on and not even say a word about the person committing several crimes since, hey, that gun was probably illegal anyway. And, of course, they’ve put their usual blinders and insisted that the state or country they live in is some sort of gun-free paradise, despite (for example) Australia’s sky-high crime rate, skyrocketing gun crime rate, and (according to the police, at least) easily availible illegal pistols. Somehow, despite their crowd’s common calls for ‘tolerance’, they can’t seem to apply their greatest principle to the object of their various mental problems (“oh, certainly I’ll avoid passing judgement, such as some louts do by claiming that any homosexual is gnawing at the bit to go off and molest children, unless of course the person I’d normally not judge owns a gun, in which case I’ll immediately jump to the conclusion that they’re planning to shoot up a schoolyard!”).
My suspicion is that their raw hatred of any of those terrible, terrible gunowners stems from the fact that they know both that they simply lack the raw courage needed to defend themselves or others should the shit hit the fan (for example, a large crowd of non-gun-owners sat back on a New York subway and watched a woman being brutally raped, and neglected to even call the police, much less intervene - I suspect that deep down, that’s what the gun-haters in this thread know they’d do in the same situation) and the fact that they know they have self-control problems, as evinced by their constant claims that having access to a gun will immediately transform any person from an ordinary citizen (or subject, in the case of Oz and the UK) into a raving lunatic who will shoot everyone in sight - a clear case of projection if I’ve ever seen one.