Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm so sick of hearing that fallacious anecdote....fact is people see each other armed everyday and this hadn't happened yet!
TWO DAYS AFTER?.......exaggerate much?
So you are saying that people see legally armed people and don't assume they are up to no good? Seems like that is exactly what happened in this instance and the man was arrested, and it took two weeks to sort everything out.
Secondly, did you read the story? Here is the lead sentence:
"The charge has been dropped against a Northglenn man who carried a holstered, licensed pistol into a Thornton movie theater two days after the Century Aurora 16 theater shooting." (emphasis mine).
I don't care if you exercise your right to carry a weapon, but with rights come responsibilities, and carrying a gun into a theater two days after the mass shooting was irresponsible.
I'm curious.....how obnoxious would YOU get if people were trying to abridge your right to speak?
The strawman was built saying another ARMED person might shoot them...not some spazz creaking out and crying to police.
I stand corrected on the two days...not that it matters...two minutes is enough time....beck it was too much time! Cops responded in 90 seconds and it was too late!
If anything there should have been CCW carriers IN that theater.
I guess to show sensitivity of a lamb slaughtered we should send more to the slaughterhouse!
It was a combination of a disturbed person and no one there to stop him that made this thing so bad! In April an Aurora church shooting ended with only two dead thanks to an armed citizen....not tragic or anti gun enough to make headlines though!
Last edited by Cyborgt800; 08-09-2012 at 11:35 AM..
While this man had every right to carry his gun when he did, he had a responsibility to refrain from exercising his rights in light of the events that had occurred just two days earlier.
To me this man is no better than the Westboro Baptist Church idiots. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. His actions showed a blatant disregard for feelings and frayed nerves of a city reeling from a mass shooting 48 hours earlier.
Regardless of the wisdom or sensitivity of it... if it was his right as you admit... he should not be arrested for it regardless of the feelings or sensitivity involved. Much like Muslims have a right to build a mosque wherever the heck they choose, even if people find it insensitive.
Regardless of the wisdom or sensitivity of it... if it was his right as you admit... he should not be arrested for it regardless of the feelings or sensitivity involved. Much like Muslims have a right to build a mosque wherever the heck they choose, even if people find it insensitive.
I never once said that he was not within his rights. Arrests are made when a person is suspected of committing a crime, not if an actual crime was committed. Police were correct to arrest him if they felt he had violated the law. The court system exists to sort out charges. This is exactly what happened.
If I had done something like this when I was a kid, my dad would have knocked me upside the head and asked what the hell I was thinking.
You and others may not give a damn about other people's feelings and sensitivities, but as we ignore other people's feelings and sensitivities we become less and less civilized, and our society suffers as a whole.
What did this man accomplish? He created a deeper rift in the debate on gun control. He showed that he is thoughtless and unconcerned with the sensibilities of others, and in the process hurt the popular perception of the concealed carry movement. There is an old saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar." He poured vinegar all over the popular perception of concealed carry crowd.
PS - Dear Mike from back east, I am done with this thread, nothing is accomplished by beating my head against this wall. Maybe it will evolve into something else, but I doubt it.
I think this guy ended up with what he deserved. Missed the movie, paid a lawyer, and was run through the system. The punishment seemed to have fit the crime in this case.
Perhaps it could be looked at in the opposite light as well...in light of recent events he could have seen it as his duty to potentially protect himself and others...
It's not clear to me if the gun was concealed or not. I assume it was, but then he blatantly printed (i.e. sticking out of his shirt, bent over and exposed grip, etc). Now, if that was the case, the only thing he was guilty of was bad etiquite (although, printing in some states is illegal as well).
Now, you can technically open carry with (and sometimes without) a permit in many states, but expect to get hassled. It freaks people out, and you can see that from the responses here. It may not be right, but it's just the way it is. Women will faint and men will cry at the site of a firearm. Ok that's an exaggeration, but Cops will be called, and they will hassle you. Again - may not be right, but that's the way it is. They can't press charges, but you will be hassled. And if you conceal, well - conceal means CONCEAL. Now, people are so self-obsessed that I can probably carry my weapon on top of my head and people will not notice, so he must have been open carrying or blatantly printing (on the other hand, I can usually tell when a person has a concealed weapon - there are several giveaways).
I expect the recent shooting will promote MORE legal carry into theaters (and maybe illegal carry). I carry into theaters (legally, at this point it's as natural as carrying a cell phone and car keys), but I keep my weapon concealed as well. I would never open carry or let my weapon print. It's not just to avoid freaking people out and the hassle factor (and I don't fear any legal consequences), but having a concealed weapon, and keeping it concealed, gives one a tactical edge if by chance things go bad. You don't want the bad guys know you are carrying either.
Concealed means CONCEALED!
Edit - I see he was open carrying. Legal, and his right, but I have to say it was not wise, for the reasons I listed above. On the other hand the police handled it wrong - they should have examined his permit, then let him go to enjoy the movie.
For one, many law enforcement carry open when they are in plain clothes, the FBI does it often as their "on scene" uniforms are often just pants with a collared shirt that has a little FBI symbol on the upper left side. Many cops here in Miami do with just a badge hanging around their neck on a chain, hardly a distinguishable uniform, and many times they are not even wearing that. I see open carry, I always assume a plains clothes officer.
If someone freaks out, that is their problem for not understanding laws of the land.
"but Cops will be called, and they will hassle you. Again - may not be right, but that's the way it is. They can't press charges, but you will be hassled."
And why is it allowed for cops to hassle someone who is not breaking any laws? Any logical explanation for that? If a cop does not like me drink bottled water, should I also get harassed? When since is it allowed and tolerated for cops to harass people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
bleck
