# Concealed Carry Justice



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

DON'T MESS WITH A MARINE WHEN HE'S TRYING TO EAT >>>>>

GOOD CASE FOR CONCEALED WEAPON LAWS 

Police called to investigate the scene: 
The 71-year-old retired Marine who opened fire on two 
robbers at a Plantation, FL, Sub shop late Wednesday, 
killing one and critically wounding the other, is described 
as John Lovell, a former pilot for two presidents. 
He doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he works out everyday. 
Lovell was a man of action Wednesday night. 
According to Plantation police, two masked gunmen came 
into the Subway at 1949 N. Pine Rd. Just after 11 p.m. 
There was a lone diner -- Lovell, who was finishing his 
meal. After robbing the cashier, the two men attempted to 
shove Lovell into a bathroom and rob him as well. They 
got his money. But then Lovell pulled his handgun, opened 
fire, shooting one of the thieves in the head and chest and 
the other in the head. When police arrived, they found 
one of the men in the shop. K-9 units found the other in 
the bushes of a nearby business. They also found cash 
strewn around the front of the sandwich shop according to 
Detective Robert Rettig of the Plantation Police Department. 
Both men were taken to Broward General Medical Center, 
where one, Donicio Arrindell, 22, of North Lauderdale died. 
The other, 21-year-old Frederick Gadson of Fort Lauderdale 
is in critical but stable condition. A longtime friend of 
Lovell, was not surprised to hear what happened. ''He'd 
give you the shirt off his back and he'd be mad if someone 
tried to take the shirt off your back,'' he said. 
Lovell worked as a pilot for the Marines, flying former 
Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. 
He later worked as a pilot for Pan Am and Delta. Lovell 
is not married and does not have children. He is not 
expected to be charged, authorities said ''He was in fear 
for his life,'' Rettig said. ' These criminals ought to 
realize 
that most men in their 70's have military backgrounds and 
aren't intimidated by idiots.' Something tells me this old 
Marine wasn't 'in fear for his life' even though his life was 
definitely at risk. The only thing he could be charged with 
is participating in an unfair fight. One 71 - year young 
Marine against two punks. Two head shots and one 
center-body-mass shot-good shooting! 
That'll teach them not to get between a Marine and his meal. 
Don't you just love a story with a happy ending? 
(Florida law allows law abiding citizens to carry a concealed 
weapon.)


----------



## lastv8 (Oct 11, 2004)

thanks for posting this shortdrift, I love stories with a happy ending.


----------



## snake69 (Sep 26, 2005)

Shame we don't hear more of that, maybe the thugs would think twice. Probably not, too ignorant.... That and the threat of having to actually *work *to get their money. Unacceptable in a criminals mind!!


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

I just started the timer on my desk to see how long before Athensfishin mixes in some intellect with regards to the negative sociallogical impact that armed citizens have on our communities and how a waitress could have been killed here.


----------



## mrphish42 (Jan 24, 2008)

I do very well believe in letting sleepings dogs lie, Shake them or push them far (or hard) enough and you'll get yours..... as a member of that older set that was mentioned... I have been a CCW carrier, since Ohio law was changed ..... I shot on a rifle team in high school ( in the 50's ) when things like that didn't raise an eye-brow......... Funny, how after all these years you know exactly just where to point that front sight af your weapon. Some things never change....... keep a sharp eye out there/////// it gets stranger out there buy the day...


----------



## capt-hook (Apr 27, 2004)

As one of the afore mentioned genre,
I dont carry ............but ............try me
in a life or death situation......nuf said.
Semper Fi

Capt Hook


----------



## Smallmouth Crazy (Apr 4, 2006)

Sounds like the former marine still knows his way around the iron


----------



## One Legged Josh (Jan 27, 2008)

Good for him. But he will most likely get a civil suit filed against him now.


----------



## triton175 (Feb 21, 2006)

I wonder if that Subway had a "No Guns" sign on the door.
Good for him - Nice shooting!


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

PapawSmith said:


> I just started the timer on my desk to see how long before Athensfishin mixes in some intellect with regards to the negative sociallogical impact that armed citizens have on our communities and how a waitress could have been killed here.


papasmith, when did you take up mind reading? because buddy, you read mine.lol.

thanks for the read shorty.


----------



## coolerzfull (Oct 15, 2007)

Shortdrift said:


> DON'T MESS WITH A MARINE WHEN HE'S TRYING TO EAT >>>>>
> 
> authorities said ''He was in fear
> for his life,'' Rettig said. ' These criminals ought to
> ...


LOL way to shot pops!! i like they say only thing he could be charged for is participating a unfair fight?!? lmao i never knew there was a such thing as a fair fight and what i see he made it a fair playing field. lol


----------



## Toolman (Jun 8, 2004)

I say good for him...and good for us as a society. The bad guys got theirs this time. Unfortunately he will probably be charged with some rediculous rap such as assult with a deadly weapon and/or a civil suit, which is total BSTim


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

HA your wrong, he should have shot them 10 times, then smacked their mommas for raising morons. Heck they should donate him the cash they were going to rob too, Medicare sucks and he needs to buy more scratch offs.

Didn't see that comment coming did you. now for reality, I'll spare you all my ideas, as nobody cares and I have already posted elsewhere.


----------



## MadMac (May 2, 2005)

Heww RRahh!!!


----------



## LEJoe (Jun 27, 2006)

The world is now a little safer place to live. I admire guys like that very much!


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Your right Athens, I didn't see that one coming. But don't think for a minute that I, and others, don't look forward to your viewpoint. Your's may often differ from mine but you always offer a competent and viable argument, albeit often in dissent of the majority here. You make a lot of us think and you always inspire constructive debate on these issues. Please keep em comin!


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

just one more example of how concealed carry is a good idea!


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Found the original newspaper article from June 2007. I got a good chuckle near the end of the story where they talk to the friends & family of one of the robbers.

_"Arrindell, friends said, found himself in a similar situation: no high school diploma and working odd jobs. So he went back to school. He was a man with past troubles, including a 2004 arrest for carrying a concealed weapon,* but he was improving his life, they said. He recently bought a car and had a girlfriend*."_ 

Oh sorry! He had a car and a date. How stupid of me to think this guy was just another punk loser!


----------



## reel (Dec 15, 2004)

I liked this one in the comment column.



> the difference between Marine Corps infantry and Marine Corps air wing. A grunt would have fired two rounds with two kills. Come on Lovell - 7 rounds and one kill? Get to the range more often buddy.


...


----------



## lastv8 (Oct 11, 2004)

One Legged Josh said:


> Good for him. But he will most likely get a civil suit filed against him now.



The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.


----------



## reel (Dec 15, 2004)

Wow hurray for The Florida "Castle Doctrine" 
Where do I sign the petition for Ohio to enact this.

One more thing. What is the Florida carry permit requirements ?
...


----------



## sporty (Apr 6, 2004)

reel said:


> One more thing. What is the Florida carry permit requirements ?
> ...


FL is a "shall issue" state.

Reqs. (from http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/FLSL.pdf)

The Department of Agriculture shall issue a license if the applicant:
(a) is at least 21 and a resident of the United States; 
(b) does not suffer from a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling of a firearm; 
(c) is not a convicted felon; 
(d) has not within a three-year period preceding submission of the application been convicted of a crime of violence or committed for drug abuse or been convicted of a minor drug offense;
(e) has not been adjudicated guilty even with a suspended sentence for a felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, unless three years has elapsed since probation or the record is sealed or expunged; 
(f)is not currently under any injunction restraining the applicant from acts of domestic violence or repeated acts of violence; 
(g) has not been adjudicated an incapacitated person, unless he has waited five years from the date of his court-ordered restoration to capacity, or been committed to a mental institution, unless he possesses a psychiatrists certificate that he has not suffered from the disability for five years; 
(h) is not a chronic or habitual drunkard; 
(i) demonstrates competence with a firearm by a variety of means; and 
(j) states that he desires a legal means to carry a concealed weapon or firearm for lawful self-defense.


----------



## Wannabitawerm (Apr 13, 2004)

Too many times, society coodles the criminal because they are a "victim of society". Rarely does anyone hold the individual responsible for his/her actions. Guaranteed if you ask Mr Lovell if he would do it again, he would say "Hell yes!" (I bet if you asked the robbers, they would say, yes, but somewhere else where their intimidation and terror tactics work.) Those men are cowards and their family should understand, they were responsible for what happened to them.

I've never been in the service, but I sat Heww Rahh!!! Good job, man.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

Wannabitawerm said:


> Too many times, society coodles the criminal because they are a "victim of society". Rarely does anyone hold the individual responsible for his/her actions. Guaranteed if you ask Mr Lovell if he would do it again, he would say "Hell yes!" (I bet if you asked the robbers, they would say, yes, but somewhere else where their intimidation and terror tactics work.) Those men are cowards and their family should understand, they were responsible for what happened to them.
> 
> I've never been in the service, but I sat Heww Rahh!!! Good job, man.


Yeah you nailed it on the head, Also we should extend the punishment for speeding to death too. Also when people cut me off(which is illegal) I should be justified in shooting them, After all It makes me fear for my life and dangers my occupants, and after all a car can be more dangerous than a gun. Where are you going to draw the line? where is the guy next to you going to draw the line? He did not pull his weapon to protect himself or anyone else from harm. He pulled it to save a few bucks which is covered by insurance, and at the same time if things had not played they way they did he could have endangered a lot of people.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

PapawSmith said:


> I just started the timer on my desk to see how long before Athensfishin mixes in some intellect with regards to the negative sociallogical impact that armed citizens have on our communities and how a waitress could have been killed here.


well papasmith, it took athensfishin' a bit longer than we thought....but, you sir are correct he did his best to play along (we call that "playing possum"), i just think it was giving him headaches to pretend that he supported anything to do with CCW and couldn't take it any longer.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> He did not pull his weapon to protect himself or anyone else from harm. He pulled it to save a few bucks which is covered by insurance, and at the same time if things had not played they way they did he could have endangered a lot of people.


you've outdone yourself with that one 
let's see if i have this right.................2 guys point guns at him,tell him to give up his money,try to force him into a small space(after robbing someone else at gunpoint)but he had no right to defend himself because they only wanted to assault him and take his money(and maybe his life)again,at gunpoint? 
i will say it's tragic that someone lost their life,but as mentioned,the actions that brought it about,were his doing.those guys,like many others,made poor choices and threatened the lives of others.people need to realize that bad choices bring bring consequences.to assert they were "good guys" who just made a mistake and were "victims" is asinine.yes,they were victims.victims of their own bad judgement and lack of respect for society.
that is a big problem with people.they use every excuse in the world for their actions,while expecting society to pity them.

LOL,EZ


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Misfit, Ezbite, It's my fault. I asked for it in my second post. I think it just took Athensfishin this long to think of a nerve hitting position to take. He probably laughes his a$$ of while he types. I don't think he believes this stuff, he's too smart for that. I think he just loves debate. 
At least this thread will go on now to probably, I don't know, maybe 100 posts.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> I think he just loves debate.


i won't debate that point


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

athensfishin' said:


> He did not pull his weapon to protect himself or anyone else from harm. He pulled it to save a few bucks which is covered by insurance, and at the same time if things had not played they way they did he could have endangered a lot of people.



Loss of cash is not covered under insurance. Next time your house or car is broken into, tell them you had X amount of dollars in cash that was taken, and see what they say.

My only beef with the story is that he only shot them three times.


----------



## katfish (Apr 7, 2004)

> Get to the range more often buddy


Reel
Range time might help but I would like to point out that range targets are in good light and immobile.


They also don't shoot back.

If you ever see the video of the Kehoe brothers and an Ohio State police officer trading shots at 12 feet you will get a little understanding. I think 16 shots and absolutely no hits.


----------



## HCF (Apr 7, 2005)

Good shooting, now they felt what the victims felt..well for a very short time


----------



## reel (Dec 15, 2004)

I think the decision making process about when to actually use the weapon is the most critical.

If someone breaks into your house and is in the act of stealing your TV, then that is not a good excuse to use deadly force. I also would never threaten with my weapon either. 

The situation, in my opinion, is that a weapon should only be used if there is immediate life threatening danger that only killing to stop it can be justified. Otherwise expect some problems down the road. 
...


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Reel, I must respectfuly disagree. If someone breaks in MY house and I am home I don't care what they came to steal. I will, most definitley, shoot them. If someone breaks into a home, whether they know it is occupied or not, they represent a danger. And, once again, if I'm home they're dead. I don't care at all about property but I care very much about my family that lives in my home. And anyone willing to 'break in' is a threat to them. It's that simple.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

misfit said:


> i won't debate that point


Tis true I am a master debater.

On a side note this is why they decided to call that new movie the great debaters, Master was not a wise choice of words.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

PapawSmith said:


> Reel, I must respectfuly disagree. If someone breaks in MY house and I am home I don't care what they came to steal. I will, most definitley, shoot them. If someone breaks into a home, whether they know it is occupied or not, they represent a danger. And, once again, if I'm home they're dead. I don't care at all about property but I care very much about my family that lives in my home. And anyone willing to 'break in' is a threat to them. It's that simple.


Again where do you draw the line? Someone walking up to my door that I do not know might pose a threat to me. They are trespassing, and they might intend to break into my house. 

Whenever these issues come up you guys tend to favor personal judgment, but in the same instance you complain about how people have poor judgment these days. I just think if the world worked the way you are wanting it to you might not like it, that is unless you think every other person in the world shares the exact same view as you to which I will let you in on a secret, they don't.

In my view people running around making judgment calls and dispensing vigilantly justice can be just as dangerous or more than the thieves themselves.

But your right, I tried to make hints of my opinion but my self control broke. I will attempt to stay out of the thread.


----------



## Columbusslim31 (Sep 1, 2007)

PapawSmith said:


> Reel, I must respectfuly disagree. If someone breaks in MY house and I am home I don't care what they came to steal. I will, most definitley, shoot them. If someone breaks into a home, whether they know it is occupied or not, they represent a danger. And, once again, if I'm home they're dead. I don't care at all about property but I care very much about my family that lives in my home. And anyone willing to 'break in' is a threat to them. It's that simple.


This is where I sort of agree with you. The only thing is, I was under the assumption that Ohio has no "self-defense" laws. I'm all for protecting my family. But if I go to jail for killing someone who entered my home, how could I protect them from an invader in the future? If I'm wrong and the law does protect the homeowner, then I say fire away!


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Columbusslim31, I don't think the law is that cut & dried. The detectives will take into account where the invader was positioned in relation to the shooter. If you shoot the guy in the back while he's running out the door, the detectives will know that without being told. That's when you'll have some 'splainin to do . If you shoot the guy within the confines of your home, 99&#37; of the time it's justified.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> Again where do you draw the line? Someone walking up to my door that I do not know might pose a threat to me. They are trespassing, and they might intend to break into my house.


there is,an cannot be a "definitive" line.whether or not you agree or even can comprehend,it is a "personal judgement" call.that's where common sense and rational thinking comes into play.this is why people like you tend to argue against the right of self defense.you want clear cut black/white "rules" when it's just not that simple.yes,there will always be a chance of someone making a bad decision,but to take that right away from the whole based on that,is not the answer.
btw,if you i might feel threatened by someone walking up to your door,then there's your first clue that you should not consider owning a firearm,lest you cross that line you mentioned


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Athensfishin, I do not support 'vigilante justice'. And don't 'stay out of the thread'. Would you please stop that crap! I have lots more to say but I have to leave my office for a while. I'll straighten you out later.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

misfit said:


> there is,an cannot be a "definitive" line.whether or not you agree or even can comprehend,it is a "personal judgement" call.that's where common sense and rational thinking comes into play.this is why people like you tend to argue against the right of self defense.you want clear cut black/white "rules" when it's just not that simple.yes,there will always be a chance of someone making a bad decision,but to take that right away from the whole based on that,is not the answer.
> btw,if you i might feel threatened by someone walking up to your door,then there's your first clue that you should not consider owning a firearm,lest you cross that line you mentioned


Your right I want the smallest possible gray area. I am fully aware that there is never black and white but with the vague and open-end policies some on here would like, are far too gray. We are not talking about speeding tickets and fines here we are talking about life and death. Therefore I want the smallest amount of gray possible.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> I am fully aware that there is never black and white but with the vague and open-end policies some on here would like, are far too gray.


ah,the impersonal world of the internet.i think you're reading more into some of the replies than is actually there.


----------



## MadMac (May 2, 2005)

How to draw the line. It's simple. If someone chooses, of their own free will, to commit a crime while armed or enter my home uninvited, they crossed the line and I will find out what their intentions were later.


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

athensfishin' said:


> He pulled it to save a few bucks which is covered by insurance, and at the same time if things had not played they way they did he could have endangered a lot of people.


According to investigators, two armed men entered the restaurant, pointing guns and demanding money. *Lovell turned around and saw a gun pointed at his face.* Plantation police said 
Story Here
*Or saved a lot of lives*


----------



## ohiou_98 (Mar 19, 2007)

The use of deadly force on someone in public versus someone breaking into your home are entirely different. As for the narrow circumstances of the gentleman in the subway restaurant deadly force worked as CCW legislators intended. Overall I'm not sure if gun toting civilians are best for our society. 
When I think of a bunch of people pack'n heat, I think of more "Benhard Goetz" type situations..... I'm not sure if this is the ugly side of CCW, or the poster child for CCW... ?


----------



## Wannabitawerm (Apr 13, 2004)

We are all responsible for our actions and the consequences of them, whether it results in injury or death to others or ourselves. The root cause is the person who of their own free will decides to commit a crime. Why do we debate the "gray areas"? This situation is on the shoulders of the 2 men who decided they wanted something for nothing. End of discussion. Their actions resulted in the death of an individual. If they would've stayed home, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

athensfishin' said:


> Again where do you draw the line? Someone walking up to my door that I do not know might pose a threat to me. They are trespassing, and they might intend to break into my house.
> 
> Whenever these issues come up you guys tend to favor personal judgment, but in the same instance you complain about how people have poor judgment these days. I just think if the world worked the way you are wanting it to you might not like it, that is unless you think every other person in the world shares the exact same view as you to which I will let you in on a secret, they don't.
> 
> ...


vigilante justice can be just as dangerous.....for the bad guy.
some day when you actually own a home and have a family and property to protect you may just see things differently.
that's the difference between the classroom way of thinking and real life!


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

if (and i do pray that it never happens!) someone would ever enter my home,then in my opinion they pose a threat to me and my family,because i seriously doubt that they are going to take the time to explain just what their intentions are!
now,this is just my opinion but i would much rather spend the rest of my life in prison knowing that i did what was necessary to protect my family than be a free man and have to live with the fact that i did nothing and it cost one of them their life.


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.


----------



## PITCHNIT (Nov 2, 2004)

Ohioans now have the right of concealed carry. As well, we also have the responsibility to all become armed to prevent. This will endeed reduce armed violence that may be enacted against us or our loved ones. Eventually the criminal idiots will be educated to the point of understanding and they are taking a huge risk in their attempt. Mr Darwins theory will take care of the remaining to stupid to learn. IF YOU DO NOT CARRY CONCEALED SERIOUSLY CONDSIDER IF IT IS FOR YOU IT IS YOUR RIGHT AND REPONSIBILITY. OHIO MUST PASS A CASTLE DOCTRINE LAW. CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND VOICE YOUR OPINION.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

Good god, how is it whenever we have these discussions it ends up who can repeat the most bumper sticker rhetoric? I suppose one day when I "get a real job" and "own my own stuff" I'll receive my NRA pamphlet in the mail with all these fun quotes.


----------



## BobcatAngler (Jul 28, 2006)

PITCHNIT said:


> OHIO MUST PASS A CASTLE DOCTRINE LAW. CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND VOICE YOUR OPINION.


Someone posted the Florida laws earlier in the thread, but what are the laws in Ohio regarding this matter and home invasion?


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

Also again to keep on focus of the article. We are not talking about home invasion we are talking about public places. There is a difference, what you choose to do in your own home, with your own family at risk is your choice. But when someone decides to go gun-ho in a public building they are effecting all the people in that environment, my faith in humanity is non-existent, and I DO NOT trust the judgment of some random person to decided how he will dispense justice when my family is in the room.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2008)

There is no castle law in Ohio, yet. It was explain to me that your best bet is to show a form of retreat befor using deadly force. That the suspect had you corned and you were in fear of bodly harm and death. The problem I see is my step daughter is at the other end on the house. If a bad guy is my house I will have to retreat into her room with my wife and I guess I will have to cross that path when it comes. Hope this helps. This info came from a lawyer who spoke at a NRA class Basics of Personal Protection in the Home. It is also in the book for the class.


----------



## junkyardbass (Mar 19, 2006)

Hetfieldinn said:


> My only beef with the story is that he only shot them three times.


Way I see it he went a little over board shooting three times

"ONE SHOT, ONE KILL" I'll give him a break though because he was old.
Semper Fi. One more point for the good guys.
Any one who theatens someone with a gun for illegal reasons deserves to die. Period!


----------



## Columbusslim31 (Sep 1, 2007)

BobcatAngler said:


> Someone posted the Florida laws earlier in the thread, but what are the laws in Ohio regarding this matter and home invasion?


That's what I was hoping for when I posed a similar question. Apparently, it depends on the position of the intruder when they're fired upon. (Thanks Net) Leaving home=don't shoot. Which I guess also equates to back turned=don't shoot. Maybe we can get some further confirmation. Hopefully the law is a little more specific.


----------



## junkyardbass (Mar 19, 2006)

Way I learned it from Ohio law is:
You have the right to use deadly force 
1) for self defence 
2) in defence of another person provided that person has legal justification to use deadly force.
Doesn't matter if it is in your home or a public place. If your LIFE is in jeopordy or the LIFE of someone else you have a legal right to use deadly force. Its all how you right your report after the fact.


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

athensfishin' said:


> But when someone decides to go gun-ho in a public building they are effecting all the people in that environment, my faith in humanity is non-existent, and I DO NOT trust the judgment of some random person to decided how he will dispense justice when my family is in the room.


So,... You would rather have no justice served; call 911 and hope LE arrive before the BGs decides their leaving no witnesses??
That sounds like an intelligent move. Just sit there on your liberal butt and watch some pond scum waste your family before getting to you. The only thing you can hope for is that they get you first so you dont have to watch!


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

No I would not sit on my "liberal ass" but on the same token I'd rather not have some random person start shooting up the place, someone for all I know is the dumbest person on the planet, to fulfill some Hollywood fantasy of playing hero. 

Seems like some of you are failing to realize that it's not when it goes right that is the problem, it's when it goes wrong. Also someone feel like backing up your statements and show me some fact that every time a store gets robbed someone gets killed or raped or an actual ratio.

Learn how to make an argument without attacking someone, it makes you look foolish and unable to discuss things like an adult, let alone wield a weapon in public. Also is a good way to get threads shut down, but I guess thats easier then discussing your stance.

Scare tactics might help motivate you, but unlike the masses I am not going to make decisions based on the scare tactic logic being used here.

So what happens when hero bob missed or the shot goes through the target and hit little billy in the head. Hey bob saved the day guess losing little billy was worth it. I mean after all not everybody is a good shot, but you want a policy where we are all allowed to carry firearms to protect our families, unless of course you mean just you or your friends. Then again that wouldn't be a policy would it.

Weapons are exponential, the more people have them the more people will start to carry them. If a few have them less people feel the need to carry a weapon. Not everyone carries a weapon today, so to many there is not a desire to carry a weapon, the more people that start to carry them the more people feel the need to have one themselves. Now tell me how many people can you think of that you would not trust to point or use a weapon near your family, spread that over the total population, and then tell me how much danger has just increased in day to day life. That is unless you would prefer a wild west life style.

Not to mention if you are any bit rational you will realize that the odds of the senarios people are presenting are extremely thin, then there is just as much chance that things don't go your way as there is they do. So you've created a dangerous culture and actually increased your odds just to solve something that is likely to happen 1 in a million. Just having the weapon is not a 100&#37; solution.


----------



## auglaizewader (Aug 30, 2007)

athensfishin' said:


> Seems like some of you are failing to realize that it's not when it goes right that is the problem, it's when it goes wrong. Also someone feel like backing up your statements and show me some fact that every time a store gets robbed someone gets killed or raped.


Yes, that is true. 

Risk assessment is the key. I think the criminal poses far more risk to me than the gun carrying, law-abiding citizen ever will. Mistakes are always possible, but I think the risk is worth the benefit.


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

athensfishin' said:


> Learn how to make an argument without attacking someone, it makes you look foolish and unable to discuss things like an adult, let alone wield a weapon in public.


 I was hoping someone would say that. Some of you praise athens' for providing the debate and then hit him below the belt to see if he buckles. I don't understand it. 

Man this thread is on life support. Clear!!


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

auglaizewader said:


> Yes, that is true.
> 
> Risk assessment is the key. I think the criminal poses far more risk to me than the gun carrying, law-abiding citizen ever will. Mistakes are always possible, but I think the risk is worth the benefit.


There are diminishing returns, The more people that carry guns the more the risk increases. So to solve the black and white issue of robbery and criminal activity, we have opened up the world where the fuzzy areas like personal dispute and altercations will start to be solved by weapons on a larger scale. If any of you can honestly tell me people would not solve personal disputes with weapons, seeing as they do it now. See my comments below on exponentials and weapons and you see it doesn't take long before those risks become a large danger. At this point in time the majority of people don't feel the need to wield weapons, but that all changes the more people start carrying them around.

I agree with your point, and if it ended there I would have no problems. The problem is all the other doors that start to open and all the other problems that are created as a side effect. There are no ways to control for these problems because the problem is human nature. The same way a person solves a problem by name calling and attacking is the same way a person in a heated argument resolves an issue with a weapon rather than words. The more weapons there are the more this sort of activity increases, it's not a theory it's fact, See the past. Weapons are power, and power corrupts.


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

Net said:


> I was hoping someone would say that. Some of you praise athens' for providing the debate and then hit him below the belt to see if he buckles. I don't understand it.
> 
> Man this thread is on life support. Clear!!


Sorry if using the words Liberal A$$ offended anyone. I changed my post to read Liberal butt instead. Not meant as a personal attack by any means&#8230;


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

It isn't that its offensive per se, it is just a poor debating technique. as well as a ad hominem logical fallacy. 

I will say that the last few posts in this thread are well put, on both sides of the issue. see? we can talk politics and get along


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

athensfishin' said:


> No I would not sit on my "liberal ass" but on the same token I'd rather not have some random person start shooting up the place, someone for all I know is the dumbest person on the planet, to fulfill some Hollywood fantasy of playing hero.
> 
> Seems like some of you are failing to realize that it's not when it goes right that is the problem, it's when it goes wrong. Also someone feel like backing up your statements and show me some fact that every time a store gets robbed someone gets killed or raped or an actual ratio.
> 
> ...


good writing but nowhere true!
1 in a million?,where did that stat come from?
here's one!
in michigan after just the 1st year of concealed carry,the crime rate dropped 3%. over 90% of that 3% was a drop in armed robbery.seems that the bad boys weren't so quick to stick a gun in someones face when they weren't sure who was carrying and who wasn't.so yes,concealed carry does work.
now,there's a fact.


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

jeffmo said:


> good writing but nowhere true!
> in michigan after just the 1st year of concealed carry,the crime rate dropped 3%. over 90% of that 3% was a drop in armed robbery.seems that the bad boys weren't so quick to stick a gun in someones face when they weren't sure who was carrying and who wasn't.so yes,concealed carry does work.
> now,there's a fact.


do you have a source for those numbers? as well as a confidence interval and standard deviation for the stats?


----------



## Columbusslim31 (Sep 1, 2007)

I took it upon myself to look up CCW law and found the online document from the Attorney General. Here's the link for those interested:

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/pubs/cc_booklet20070314.pdf

Pages 22 through 30 covers the use of deadly force as an argument for self defense and explains what happens if deadly force is used without justification. It's important to note that, "This publication is designed to provide general information only. It is not to be used as authority on legal issues, or as advice to address specific situations." (per page 22 of the document) Yet it does provide insight.

I also feel it's necessary to note that the conclusion reads:
A license to carry a concealed handgun does not bring with it the
automatic right to use deadly force. The appropriateness of using any
force depends on the specific facts of each and every situation.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

And you failed apply what I wrote. 

What is the &#37; of people in Michigan that carry?, it's too small of a sample size of both people and time for effect to happen, wait 5-10 years. Side effects are not instant, it takes time and a couple of generations for effects to carry through. Re-read the exponentials then add increasing carriers and time, then guess on the outcome.

I can take a 1 year observation of eating led paint chips and tell you that it doesn't effect your health. Or I can wait 20 years and ask your kid that has 3 arms and 4 legs. 

I guess it might just be liberal of me to think of how the world we create today will effect later in my life and future generations.


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

ah yea, sample size, I knew there was something I was missing. its been a few years since I took stats.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

athensfishin' said:


> But when someone decides to go gun-ho in a public building they are effecting all the people in that environment, my faith in humanity is non-existent, and I DO NOT trust the judgment of some random person to decided how he will dispense justice when my family is in the room.


well there you go,democracy in action!
you trust the BAD GUY and HIS sense of judgement.i'll go with marine and his!


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

jeffmo said:


> well there you go,democracy in action!
> you trust the BAD GUY and HIS sense of judgement.i'll go with marine and his!


I hear ya. I'd rather take stray from an armed citizen trying to defuse the situation than take a bullet meant for me by the thug in a room full of people sitting on their hands.


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

what about taking a stray from an armed citizen who got into a heated argument with someone else and started shooting, and there was technically nothing illegal happening before the shooting?

not every situation will involve a scumbag and a brave marine, which IMO is the crux of the issue.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

seethe303 said:


> what about taking a stray from an armed citizen who got into a heated argument with someone else and started shooting, and there was technically nothing illegal happening before the shooting?
> 
> not every situation will involve a scumbag and a brave marine, which IMO is the crux of the issue.


i see your point and yes it COULD happen.but,who is more likely to make a deadly mistake?,the criminal who doesn't care WHO gets hurt or the armed citizen who has had the concealed carry training?


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

Here, let me spew a few more facts (that were copied from one of those Pro Carry web sites):
*Fact:* Medical Mistakes kill over 400,000 people per year. That translates to 1 in 6 doctors causing an accidental death, and 1 in 56,000 gun owners accidently shooting and killing someone.
*Fact:* About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person  about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000. That is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times each year. 
*Fact:* The rate of gun accidents are so low the US Consumer Products Safety Commission doesnt even mention them in their annual safety report.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

Again sample size, It'll be the last time I say it, but I feel I'm not going to get through. All your statistics are gathered from a small &#37; of the population. Now raise them to the entire population or even 60-70% of the population and you get very different results, which is what you are calling for, Remember you cannot deny someone the right to carry their weapon just because you don't like them, there has to be a reason. While I realize that the folks on that pro-carry site have an agenda their ethical use of statistics is up for debate. You are using statistics of a small sample of gun enthusiast, and professionals to support a policy where most everyone can carry a weapon, you have to see the logical fallacy in this. And you can't say well only people who really like guns can carry one, because if you and your buddies are walking around with a weapon so will many other people.

Also that number on 2,500,000 is bogus I don't buy it for a min.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

"Not to mention if you are any bit rational you will realize that the odds of the senarios people are presenting are extremely thin, then there is just as much chance that things don't go your way as there is they do. So you've created a dangerous culture and actually increased your odds just to solve something that is likely to happen 1 in a million. Just having the weapon is not a 100% solution."



"Again sample size, It'll be the last time I say it, but I feel I'm not going to get through. All your statistics are gathered from a small % of the population. Now raise them to the entire population or even 60-70% of the population and you get very different results, which is what you are calling for, Remember you cannot deny someone the right to carry their weapon just because you don't like them, there has to be a reason. While I realize that the folks on that pro-carry site have an agenda their ethical use of statistics is up for debate. You are using statistics of a small sample of gun enthusiast, and professionals to support a policy where most everyone can carry a weapon, you have to see the logical fallacy in this. And you can't say well only people who really like guns can carry one, because if you and your buddies are walking around with a weapon so will many other people."

as opposed to the factual stats that you provided on these posts?
"1 in a million"???, now,i'd enjoy knowing where that stat came from.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

It was a guess at the odds, I'm not claiming it's infallible, nor stating it as a fact. But it's closer to the real odds than the 1 in 4 that you would think it is by the response of some people on here. Would an unbiased party Look over the scenarios presented and give a guess at the odds of it happening and we can go with that then. I'm not trying to pass of hard numbers as facts like many on here, You can't find hard numbers, your dealing with theory. I am presenting a theory based on past cultures, human nature, and probabilities.
Where as my opponents present a scenario of a marine vs a robber which probably has the same odds of occurring again as winning a state lottery. I am worried about society as a whole and looking at the big picture, while others want to focus on the issue just using themselves or someone who will react properly as an example, that isn't how it will work in the "real" world.


----------



## auglaizewader (Aug 30, 2007)

Ever carried a gun? Though I think it is beneficial to do so, it is also a lot of work. I don't think most people have enough interest to carry a loaded gun every day of their lives. It is a huge responsibility and burden.

I don't think I buy the exponential theory on guns. Is that your opinion or from a study? Guns are very accessible today to anyone who wants one. There are both legal and illegal ways to get them. They are both outlandishly priced and extremely reasonable. People from all walks of life have them. If you are a criminal, and you want to carry a gun, you can get one. I think law abiding citizens should be able to do the same. In fact, the opposite may happen. If there are more law-abiders carrying guns, I will have less need to carry myself. 


If you take away all the guns in the entire country, will the problems disappear exponentially, too?


----------



## Columbusslim31 (Sep 1, 2007)

Hetfieldinn said:


> I hear ya. I'd rather take stray from an armed citizen trying to defuse the situation than take a bullet meant for me by the thug in a room full of people sitting on their hands.



What's the difference? Getting shot is getting shot. Dying is dying. Me personally, I'd be grateful if my life were saved as a result of someone who carries stopping a crime, but if I lose the use of any part of my body as a result of that person's actions, I can't help but be bitter for the rest of my life. I personally wouldn't sue simply because I'm not litigious. But the other bystanders who were involved might feel differently. But I guess that's one more thing people who carry have to worry about. Let's just hope there's never a need to require people who carry to also carry some sort of insurance. But then again, all it would take is a lot of innocent people injured in crossfire, the odds of that happening increases as the number of people who carry increases. Once again, I'm willing to bet that not everyone who carries has the control of their mental faculties and training in using a weapon as the gentlemen on this forum claim to have.


----------



## junkyardbass (Mar 19, 2006)

athensfishin' said:


> Also that number on 2,500,000 is bogus I don't buy it for a min.


I buy it. Keep in mind that this number would not only include shootings but also the threat of a gun or showing of a gun to detour a crime.

Athensfishing, I'm with you on one point and thats that not everyone should be allowed to carry. While I'm in theory for the CCW laws. I don't believe for one minute that the little 20hr class make someone qualified to carry. Classes and training need to be much more in depth. Former Millitary/Police should be alowed to carry with a 20hr refresher every year, but a civilan w/ a 20hr class??? I don't know. I for one don't really care who a bullet comes from, I don't want to take one at all! I work for a security company and I see some of the yahoos that go through that "training" class and pass. Makes me even more worried who gets through the CCW classes.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

auglaizewader said:


> Ever carried a gun? Though I think it is beneficial to do so, it is also a lot of work. I don't think most people have enough interest to carry a loaded gun every day of their lives. It is a huge responsibility and burden.
> 
> I don't think I buy the exponential theory on guns. Is that your opinion or from a study? Guns are very accessible today to anyone who wants one. There are both legal and illegal ways to get them. They are both outlandishly priced and extremely reasonable. People from all walks of life have them. If you are a criminal, and you want to carry a gun, you can get one. I think law abiding citizens should be able to do the same. In fact, the opposite may happen. If there are more law-abiders carrying guns, I will have less need to carry myself.
> 
> ...


There have been studies done on it. I don't have them in front of me so I'm paraphrasing. 

As for carrying a gun, No I do not own a sidearm. I have shot my share of hand guns and I own 2 shotguns. I am not gun illiterate , I grew up in southeast Ohio, there is no way to grow up and not be exposed. I just do not want to accept the responsibility and burden that should be applied when carrying a weapon. So being a responsible person I choose to not carry, I also feel there are probably a chunk of people who do not fully understand the responsibility that carry now, they know they want a gun to protect themselves and family, but really don't grasp the responsibility involved. Increase the amount of carriers and this level of irresponsibility increases.

Yes, everyone has access to guns today, but there is not a large enough chunk today for everyone to rationalize having one. The more people that decided to get them the more the feeling of need people have to have one themselves. this builds and build.

Very few people would claim getting rid of all weapons would get rid of the desire. Because the fact is the primal human nature is power, most of us get this satisfied by functioning in society. But others won't, these usually become criminals, there will always be criminals. Since there will be people who do not react to rationalization there will need to be a way of protection. So to say that getting rid of weapons all together is just as ridiculous as saying everyone should carry one. They are both extremes of the spectrum.

As for the burden, driving a car is also a great responsibility and burden and I think we have all seen how some people handle that. Same thing with guns, the more hands you put them into the more irresponsible hands your putting them into. Should we get rid of cars? no, nor am I saying get rid of guns, But I do not think every tom, dick, and harry should be running around with them. Which is what the current CCW allows, and if it was less strict it would be even worse. If the current CCW were more strict than it was now and a person didn't feel it was worth it then they are not deserving or ready for the responsibility and burden. If that said person chooses to carry anyways, then clearly they are not a "law abiding citizen" and fall into the same category as the criminals.


----------



## junkyardbass (Mar 19, 2006)

athensfishin' said:


> , nor am I saying get rid of guns, But I do not think every tom, dick, and harry, should be running around with them.


Honestly the more I read your posts the more I think I side with you on this. Never would have thought that when I started reading this thread


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

junkyardbass said:


> I buy it. Keep in mind that this number would not only include shootings but also the threat of a gun or showing of a gun to detour a crime.


I should clarify, there is no way to measure whether the presence of a weapon was the cause or not, as there are many other causes. Also how they gathered the data, I highly doubt they have a survey guy chasing down the criminal who got cold feet to ask him if it was because of the gun or not. So based on where the "fact" was coming from I am writing it off as over inflated.


----------



## Columbusslim31 (Sep 1, 2007)

junkyardbass said:


> While I'm in theory for the CCW laws. I don't believe for one minute that the little 20hr class make someone qualified to carry. Classes and training need to be much more in depth. Former Millitary/Police should be alowed to carry with a 20hr refresher every year, but a civilan w/ a 20hr class??? I don't know. I for one don't really care who a bullet comes from, I don't want to take one at all! I work for a security company and I see some of the yahoos that go through that "training" class and pass. Makes me even more worried who gets through the CCW classes.


I think that's the point those of us who are challenging CCW are trying to make. It's not that we DON'T want people to carry, we just don't want JUST ANYBODY to be able to carry.


----------



## auglaizewader (Aug 30, 2007)

So we agree on:

1. everyone has access to guns.
2. removing guns from everywhere is bad
3. some people will not react rationally.
4. we want a safe world for ourselves/our families
5. some people should carry, but not everyone.

Not too far apart. The last few points will always be the kicker


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

" But I do not think every tom, dick, and harry should be running around with them. Which is what the current CCW allows,"
?????????????????????


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

> not everybody is a good shot, but you want a policy where we are all allowed to carry firearms to protect our families, unless of course you mean just you or your friends. Then again that wouldn't be a policy would it.


Not everyone in Ohio CAN legally carry a concealed weapon. First you must be at least 21 years of age undergo 8 hours of handgun training, range time and gun safety. Then you must apply for a Concealed Carry License from the local Sherriff&#8217;s office. You are then fingerprinted and your fingerprints run through AFIS, FBI background checks are done to insure you have no criminal background. 
As far as everybody being a good shot, I ask you this&#8230; How my LE Officers do you know? Ask all of them how much range time they have in a given year. I&#8217;ll bet that the only range time 85&#37; of them have is their re-qualification time once each year. I know a lot of men and woman that have their CC license and most spent time at the range at least once a month, some a lot more than that. So, if I had a choice in a SHTF situation, I would choose a CC license holder to defend me and my family&#8217;s life over most LEO.

Also, if you want to get some good information on crime stats, look at Florida. Florida had one of the highest crime rates of any state 10 years ago. Since passing their CC Laws and refining them continuously they have managed crime statistics far below the national average. It is because less people carried gun? No, it&#8217;s because more and more citizens are no longer sitting on their behinds and taking what the BG&#8217;s are dishing out. They are getting trained, getting CC licenses and getting GUNS. That&#8217;s what&#8217;s driving the crime stats down.


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

So what you are saying is the only facts you believe are the ones that you post? Seems like everyone else is wrong but you.I know better than to even post this but I just can't take it . I feel better now. I'm going back to the fishing reports this post turned out just silly.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

athensfishin' said:


> But I do not think every tom, dick, and harry should be running around with them. Which is what the current CCW allows QUOTE]
> ?????????????
> WRONG!


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

BigV said:


> Also, if you want to get some good information on crime stats, look at Florida. Florida had one of the highest crime rates of any state 10 years ago. Since passing their CC Laws and refining them continuously they have managed crime statistics far below the national average. It is because less people carried gun? No, its because more and more citizens are no longer sitting on their behinds and taking what the BGs are dishing out. They are getting trained, getting CC licenses and getting GUNS. Thats whats driving the crime stats down.


correlation != causation


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

jeffmo said:


> athensfishin' said:
> 
> 
> > But I do not think every tom, dick, and harry should be running around with them. Which is what the current CCW allows QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## BassCrazy (Oct 11, 2007)

athensfishin' said:


> Again sample size, It'll be the last time I say it, but I feel I'm not going to get through. All your statistics are gathered from a small % of the population. Now raise them to the entire population or even 60-70% of the population and you get very different results, which is what you are calling for, Remember you cannot deny someone the right to carry their weapon just because you don't like them, there has to be a reason.


Sample size has nothing to do with it...A small *unbiased* sample will be fairly representative of the population. Go back and read your statistics textbook again . CCW carriers in the statistics cited would represent a biased sample and therefore not necessarily representative of the entire country as a whole.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

A small *random* sample will reflect a larger population, the current CCW holders are far from a random sample, mainly consisting of retired law enforcement/military, and gun enthusiasts. Which I believe is what your pointing at in the second part of your post, Which I also pointed out 2 posts up from the one you just quoted. I can't hit everything in one post shesh 

Thats like polling at the republican national convention about who is going to be president, and then claiming it is reflective of the US as a whole.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

there are several others:



Persons not Eligible to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm
A sheriff could not grant a license to carry a concealed firearm to any of the following persons (sec. 2923.123(B): 

(1) A person under 21 years of age; 

(2) A person who is a fugitive from justice; 

(3) A Person against whom proceedings are pending for any felony, any misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, or the offense of falsification of a concealed firearm license or possessing a revoked concealed firearm license (see "New offenses of falsification of a concealed firearm license and possessing a revoked concealed firearm license" below); 

(4) A person who has been convicted of a felony of violence or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that would be felony of violence if committed by an adult, if the person has not been relieved from disability to have a weapon; 

(5) A person who has been convicted or pleaded guilty to an offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that would be an offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse if committed by an adult; 

(6) A person who is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic; 

(7) A person who is under adjudication of mental competence.


----------



## Columbusslim31 (Sep 1, 2007)

jeffmo said:


> (6) A person who is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic;
> 
> (7) A person who is under adjudication of mental competence.



So they DO give drug tests and psych evaluations before issuing a CCW license.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

what it does is allow for a wide scope of reasons to deny if the law sees fit.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

I don't believe so, Those are reactive policies, so that if someone does do something stupid later they can say, well he wasn't technically qualified he was on drugs, but he didn't tell us he was a coke head or drunk when we gave him the permit. 

As for the mental, it's says mental adjudication. This mean people who are receiving care or have been declared unstable. anyone who knows the state of mental care in the US knows that people barely get the treatment they need. Also think of the amount of people that are mentally/emotionally unstable and do not receive help either because of cost or the fact people don't realize they have a problem till someone tells them, or they do something like go to work and shoot the place up. Also you have the varying degree of definition of unstable, to me to carry a gun, someone who is unable to have an argument without restoring to physical or verbal abuse is a good reflection of someone too unstable to carry a weapon. If a person can not control emotions or actions they shouldn't be packing a gun around as another tool they cannot control.

One a side note, 5 more posts to the 100 mark. How many threads does a person have to drive to 100+ before they win OGF?


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

athensfishin' said:


> I
> One a side note, 5 more posts to the 100 mark. How many threads does a person have to drive to 100+ before they win OGF?


Ok, you win... A brand new Kimber CDP in .45 caliber!


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

1st you say this:
"But I do not think every tom, dick, and harry should be running around with them. Which is what the current CCW allows,

then when i show you that you were wrong here is what you post:
"I don't believe so, Those are reactive policies, so that if someone does do something stupid later they can say, well he wasn't technically qualified he was on drugs, but he didn't tell us he was a coke head or drunk when we gave him the permit. 

As for the mental, it's says mental adjudication. This mean people who are receiving care or have been declared unstable. anyone who knows the state of mental care in the US knows that people barely get the treatment they need. Also think of the amount of people that are mentally/emotionally unstable and do not receive help either because of cost or the fact people don't realize they have a problem till someone tells them, or they do something like go to work and shoot the place up. Also you have the varying degree of definition of unstable, to me to carry a gun, someone who is unable to have an argument without restoring to physical or verbal abuse is a good reflection of someone too unstable to carry a weapon. If a person can not control emotions or actions they shouldn't be packing a gun around as another tool they cannot control."

no,those are policies that allow alot of leadway for a local sheriff to deny an application for MANY viable reasons,not to cover their backsides.the ccw law was well thought out and took years to put into place.

i'm reminded of a line from jaws:
"well mr. hooper it proves one thing,that you college boys don't have the education to admit when you're wrong!"

hey,it's friday.you're in athens.head up to court street,have a couple and watch the girls! (i was there from '79-'83!)
we're near 100!


----------



## swantucky (Dec 21, 2004)

Well this has been a great discussion. I think I, like alot of other guys on the "pro" CCW side project _our_ level of skill with our weapons and level of responsibility on all who may have a CCW. I think that may be where alot of the rub comes in. Not everyone who has a CCW can hit the broad side of a barn under the best of conditions, let alone under extreme stress. BUT, I do not feel because there is imo a small % of people that carry that should'nt the rest of us should have ours rights infringed on. The car anology is a great example, because there are bad and drunk drivers should we all scrap our cars.

One other good point is no matter how "easy" it is to get CCW you are still only going to have a small % that actually carry. For those that have never carried a gun try and walk around with a full bottle of beer on your person and see what a pain it is to carry concealed and not drop or break it.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

jeffmo said:


> i'm reminded of a line from jaws:
> "well mr. hooper it proves one thing,that you college boys don't have the education to admit when you're wrong!"
> we're near 100!


Ah yeah, remind me what happened to that guy again? and what happened to Mr. hooper? 

Now about What I posted:

When I referred to the requirements for CCW I said that you needed to be 21, and not be a felon or criminal record. which is exactly what your post reaffirmed.

Now do you have a CCW?

If so did you have to take a blood test or pee in a cup? no, then they only reject based on previous arrests: see above

Did you fill out a psych exam? no, then they are depending on the fact that you were arrested and forced to go to a mental health facility or you checked yourself into one. These are not pro-active restrictions they are reactive.


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

athensfishin' said:


> Ah yeah, remind me what happened to that guy again? and what happened to Mr. hooper?
> 
> Now about What I posted:
> 
> ...


What would your expectations (or requirements) be for someone in Ohio to acquire their Concealed Carry License (yes it is a license, not a permit)?


----------



## Pigsticker (Oct 18, 2006)

Why is everyone in America soooo afraid to take a beatdown anymore? As soon as I saw the CC law take effect I thought to myself "how many idiots and cowards are going to go out and take advantage of this"? IMO unless you can prove that you deposit large amounts of money daily or are law enforcement of some type you have absolutely no right to carry a gun in public. Why was this old man carrying this weapon? Maybe he was just spoiling for a conflict so he could show off his skills and be able to brag about it to all the other silverbacks back in wrinkle city somewhere in FLA. 

All I know is that a gun does nothing but escalate things in a violent manner. If 2 guys are arguing in a bar and one guy is alot bigger than the other but the little guy has a gun maybe he'll change his behavior. Maybe if he wasnt armed he'd just walk away or take his beating and everyone would live to see another day and their kids and families again. But, if he's packin then maybe he'll hang around a little longer than he otherwise would've done and talk a little smack to boot because he's thinking about that steel in his pocket and now has a huge ego because in his opinion he'll never have to back down to anybody again, never be bullied again. 

This only goes for concealed weapons in public not for home defense. 

Why cant people just carry a Tazer so both parties will be able to live long enough to tell the tale another day. 

I really tried to keep my emotions in check on this one but I just envision the guy who got bullied in HS as the first guy to go out and want to get a CCL. 

I wish some of the law enforcement officers on here would chime in on this one. I wont out them on here. But I bet they would prefer the general public isnt packin for their and everyone elses safety. I bet a large majority of police dont agree with the CCL. 

Just and opinion. Now throw me to the pit-bulls im sure these same guys have in their back yards.


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

Remind me not to sit next to you the next time I go into a Subway.


----------



## BigV (Nov 11, 2004)

Pigsticker said:


> If 2 guys are arguing in a bar and one guy is alot bigger than the other but the little guy has a gun maybe he'll change his behavior.


First of all, its illegal in Ohio to carry a concealed weapon into an establishment that serves liquor by the drink. That includes restaurants as well.



Pigsticker said:


> I wish some of the law enforcement officers on here would chime in on this one. I wont out them on here. But I bet they would prefer the general public isnt packin for their and everyone elses safety. I bet a large majority of police dont agree with the CCL.


You should really get your facts straight before you post information regarding what LEO think. I happen to personally know LEO from Akron, Cuyahoga Falls and the State Highway Patrol. I also am good friends with one of the Firearms Instructors for US Customs. I can tell you that when a LEO runs the plates of a CC license holder, the information regarding CC comes up on their screen. The cops I know breath a sigh of relief as at least they know there not dealing with a felon or drug dealer or some other form of low life.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Man, you miss a day you miss a lot! Athens congratulations on finally drawing well deserved support out of the OGF shadows. I knew that there were members here that saw you as a purveyor of sanity but for some reason held back and watched as you took us all on single handedly. Once again you pose some very valid arguements against CCW laws. However you base your arguements largely on your own assumptions with regards to the average citizens ability to display any level of personal responsability. Along with that a whole myriad of unlikely hypothetical scenarios that seem, always, to result in the armed citizens inability to exercise good judgement. And when confronted with statistics, whether government (nuetral) or private (biased) you quickly dismiss them as unproven or unprovable. Sorry but all the statistics that we have are ones that we have. We can't run this issue 50 years forward to find out who was right.
Several things that must be realized here.No one is advocating guns for all. But you have to realize that criminals don't give a crap about laws. They carry whenever they want. They break laws, thats just what they do, doesn't matter to them. And a lot of those people that concern you "Tom, Dick, and Harry" and the people that can't pass the urine test, well they are probably carrying whenever they want too. You see, it's only the law abiding citizens that want a CCW law. Because we obey the law and wish to live within it. The others, the ones that concern you, don't give a crap. They will carry a gun whenever they want and they also hope we never do. 
Last time you and I volleyed, about 60 or 70 posts ago you asked "where do you draw the line?" Well I draw the line at my family, myself, and my home and I'll expound. It was not that long ago that a man had what was understood, by most, to be his personal space. It was basically comprised of the real property that he owned and all that fell within it. Barbed wire generally identified ones space but it was strung to keep livestock in not to keep others out. People then, for the most part, respected others personal space. When that space was violated, in those days, it was generally dealt with what you eluded to earlier as 'vigilante justice'. We don't condone that today but back then it was effective and most knew what was at stake for the intentional violation of another mans property/space.
I personally feel that Charles Darwin was a moron. "Evolution of species" is an intellectual slap in every humans face. However there has clearly been, throughout time, an evolution of social behavior and understanding. No longer,today, is there a respect for a mans space. It started with his real property. Not only is real property no longer viewed as an autonomus entity and posession to be utilized at the discretion and benifit of its owner, but now it has become a beacon of liability. Trespassers and thieves are no longer punished for their transgressions but instead rewarded in court for injuries incurred while they tresspassed and thieved. Fouling another mans crops or stealing his livestock used to be a hanging offense. Rather severe but than again people generally understood the law and respected it. Man has, through social evolution, somehow forefitted real property from his realm of personal space.
Used to be that if you stole a mans horse it was a hanging offense. Once again severe, but understood and effective. There were few repeat offenders. People today steal a mans car, while he's in it, without a second thought. Before Florida's CCW and Castle laws were refined there were numerous cases where vehicle owners were prosecuted and or sued for injuries inflicted on aggressors while they, the vehicle owner, tried to defend themselves and their family members from the violent actions of carjackers. 
It's kind of pathetic, when you think about it, that when in in any city center area and at a traffic light you have to be concious to leave enough space between yourself and the car in front of you to allow for escape in the event of a carjack attempt. Our vehicle, today's horse, that we rely upon to deliver us to our obligations is another example of our personal space that has been forefitted.
What now is left? The vast majority of what was once understood by most in society to be my hard earned autonomus personal space has eroded. What IS left is my family...myself...and my home. While i can no longer defend my hard earned real property, my hard earned personal property, or defend even the means of transportation that allows me access to the avenues that provide opportunity for me and my family's sustenance, I can, and will always, defend my family, myself, and my home.
Pull a gun on me or otherwise express an immediate threat to my life and one of us will die. Exhibit that type of threat to anyone in my family in my presence and one of us, me or you, will die. Break into my home, my family's last vestige of sanctuary, for whatever reason and YOU will die. That is where, Athensfishin, I draw the line.
You may not agree with me today. But when you are older and have worked for your success, and you will. And you have children and your children have children I truly hope that there is still a line for you to identify. You may well, at that time, think that my position today is quite liberal.


----------



## swantucky (Dec 21, 2004)

Pigsticker, I thought along your line of thinking but as far as I know that just has not happened. The biggest issue I see with your post is you are not allowed to carry in a liquor establishment, if you do you are breaking the law.

I have a few friends in law enforcement and not one has a negative opinon of the CCW permits. To a man they have all clearly stated to a man that "the criminals carry no matter what" why should we keep guns out of the hands of lawful citizens?? You should really look at taking the CCW course and see how much responsibilty it really is. I am not shooting (bad choice of words there) personally, but I don't think you realize how mmany rules there are.

By the way I have gotten my a$$ kicked plenty of times......never got my piece to even the score.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

" Why was this old man carrying this weapon? Maybe he was just spoiling for a conflict so he could show off his skills and be able to brag about it to all the other silverbacks back in wrinkle city somewhere in FLA. "

well i guess that all of the honest folks in that subway were lucky that he was there huh? if not,then only the BAD GUYS would have been armed!!!!!


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> Why is everyone in America soooo afraid to take a beatdown anymore?


LOL.i had to laugh when i read that one
i'm gonna go out on a limb here)like athensfishng did on another subject.it's just a wild guess,but i doubt most people support ccw because they are afraid of a "beatdown".that is the weakest argument i've ever head against ccw 


> If 2 guys are arguing in a bar and one guy is alot bigger than the other but the little guy has a gun maybe he'll change his behavior. Maybe if he wasnt armed he'd just walk away or take his beating and everyone would live to see another day and their kids and families again. But, if he's packin then maybe he'll hang around a little longer than he otherwise would've done and talk a little smack to boot because he's thinking about that steel in his pocket and now has a huge ego because in his opinion he'll never have to back down to anybody again, never be bullied again.


by those statements,you make it sound like you're against people carrying a gun,cause you may have to think twice about "bullying" a guy half your size knowing he could possibly be "packin"?

ps................my last statement was in jest,and should not be taken any more seriously than your line of thinking.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

Why I question peoples ability to make rational decisions, herm, let's see, Aha take a look at the videos in this link:

http://www.metacafe.com/tags/stupidity/

Oh but athens thats not everyone, there are about a million more of those all over the internet. And the sad part 90&#37; will qualify for CCW. While people like that usually do not choose to carry weapons at this time, the more people that do, the more they will feel a pressure to not be the only non-armed person in the room.

I have no answers, as for the presented theory on the fact that as more people get armed, others will continue to feel a pressure to arm themselves also. We will see as time plays it out, perhaps there will be no effect, perhaps we will revert to mid-evil methods of justice.

I am fully aware that regardless of laws criminals will still get guns. But just because criminals will still get guns and break laws doesn't mean we should just get rid of laws and restrictions and just let people sort it out by who gets the first kill shot.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Honest to God Athens, I truly respect your ability to rationalize and discuss. Please tell me that you did not respond to my post with this crap internet link.
Let me add that I truly hope that you use these types of sites for entertainment purposes as oposed to educational or informational purposes.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

LOL,papaw.just when you thought..................................... 

btw,excellent post you made earlier.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

It's far from academic, but then again were talking about the idiots of society, where else do you expect to find them, most struggle to read let alone write a report or textbook. You asked "why I don't hold the average citizens judgment in higher regards" and that is just an example of why. I have watched people make some of the dumbest decisions possible, I've watched people sit and smoke a pack of cigs and drink a beer while complaining about how they can't afford food for their kids. I have no faith in people as a collective unit, A person is fine, people as a whole are prone to stupidity. Everyday you read about people doing some of the dumbest and dangerous things imaginable, the shock in my opinion is not the video link but the fact that you can still have faith in people. Call me cynical, but I don't trust a majority of the nation running around with guns. trying to avoid criminals is bad enough let alone worrying about someone who is a danger to everyone around him with a weapon.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

athens,do you ever get lonely up there?


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

A little, hey I'm not telling them they don't have the right to be stupid, I would just rather have no part. Then when they start carrying guns, I start worrying. I don't hate all people, in fact I have met quite a few people that meet my criteria


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

I'ts far from academic? I'ts infinatly non-academic. The "idiots of society" already don't regard laws. Thats kind of the point. This discussion is about the citizens with the total capacity to respect laws and the inherent desire to do so.
You, of all here, can do much better than that.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

PapawSmith said:


> I'ts far from academic? I'ts infinatly non-academic. The "idiots of society" already don't regard laws. Thats kind of the point. This discussion is about the citizens with the total capacity to respect laws and the inherent desire to do so.
> You, of all here, can do much better than that.


Because someone is unable to make rational decisions does not instantly make them a criminal. But it also doesn't mean I want them running around wielding weapons. By your definition people are either criminals or perfectly rational citizens, I don't think it is that clear cut. In fact I would argue that it's very middle heavy, with a lot of people on the fringe of law abiding and gray area, depending on the circumstances. Under dire circumstances very few people make the best decision, they act from their perception.

One a side note: now you see why I fish alone, I've had fishing buddies but after about 4 hours fishing they usually drown themselves. But the fish usually bite just to shut me up.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

athensfishin' said:


> Because someone is unable to make rational decisions does not instantly make them a criminal. But it also doesn't mean I want them running around wielding weapons. By your definition people are either criminals or perfectly rational citizens, I don't think it is that clear cut. In fact I would argue that it's very middle heavy, with a lot of people on the fringe of law abiding and gray area, depending on the circumstances. Under dire circumstances very few people make the best decision, they act from their perception.


"I Would argue that it's very middle heavy". Wrong. 
I can not begin to tell you how an education, such as yours, will benifit your future. You, obviously, have paid close attention to all you've been taught. That is important but educational tunnelvision can sometimes cloud your vision of reality. Don't abandoned your ability for self reason. Remember that if your Prof's were as smart as they let on to be, they sure as hell wouldn't be teaching school. They would, instead, be applying themselves in the real world of business and getting paid. And if they tell you that they are teaching out of conviction, than you can add liar to their resume as well.
Your most recent responses have been a perfect example of those whom "can't see the forest through the trees".... seriously.
I'm dissapointed.


----------



## athensfishin' (Aug 15, 2006)

When it's the middle of the night and nobody is around do you sit at a red light?

If your kid comes to you and tells you that their addicted to heroin do you turn them into the police?

We could go on and on with examples

This is what I mean about people living in the gray, people vary on their interpretations of the law and it all depends on perception and association with the situation. Most of the time it's not an issue of life and death, Enter a weapon and now their interpretation becomes a matter of life and death.

or for more relevance,

When your walking through the park and it's dark and you hear a girl scream on the ground and a guy above her what do you do?

How many of the average citizen would just shoot? well congratulations you just shot a guy and his girlfriend who were chasing each other and goofing off at the end of their date.

These are the things I question. when faced in these situations nobody has all the answers at that moment and people act on perception. Very few people truly, LEO included, have the ability in these moments to process what is going on and make the proper decision. the more people "packing heat" the more this becomes a problem. That is all I am saying.

The only piece of advice that I follow to heart from my years in school is: Question everything, When you stop questioning and acting on faith or because everyone else does, you cease to be a rational person and become a sheep.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Regarding your post script, I would be glad to fish with you anytime. Just think of the world problems we can solve (or dispute) between ourselves in that '4 hour' time frame. And I, for one, will not drown myself I promise. It might not be a bad idea for you to practice swimming a bit though.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

seethe303 said:


> do you have a source for those numbers? as well as a confidence interval and standard deviation for the stats?


those stats came from an nra publication.


----------



## reel (Dec 15, 2004)

Post #35 By the "Master deBater".



> But your right, I tried to make hints of my opinion but my self control broke. I will attempt to stay out of the thread.


...


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

athensfishin' said:


> Question everything, When you stop questioning and acting on faith or because everyone else does, you cease to be a rational person and become a sheep.


quoted for emphasis. 


a writer I hold dear to my heart (and mind) once said, "belief is the death of intelligence"


----------



## DaleM (Apr 5, 2004)

This topic has ran it's couse guys. Lets put it to bed and let it die. Opinions are like***** well you know what I mean. We all have our own. Time to let it go and move on.


----------

