John Blankenship Posted December 16, 2011 Report Share Posted December 16, 2011 ... Regarding Senators lack of orange, he wasn't hunting game, that's not a game shotgun. That's his on-set persona which helps account for how he's survived all these years. While on larger gigs three or four boom poles live on my cart, on small stuff I carry two dressed booms (shotgun & hyper) in a gun case. When a crew member notes, "Is that a gun case? What's that for?" My reply is, "Respect." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Speaking, in another thread, of new laws for 2012, One of the most contentious issues was the ban on the open carrying of handguns, which put California in the minority of states that have adopted such restrictions. Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) said he introduced the measure in response to law enforcement officials who felt that public safety was jeopardized by gun owners wearing firearms on their hips at coffee shops and other public venues as they called attention to a right to bear arms. How, exactly, was "public safety jeopardized" ?? The practice had been legal for many years, with no issues of law abiding citizens, openly carrying unloaded firearms (for self protection) going around shooting them... it is has always remained against the law to commit robberies, murders, and other crimes, with or without firearms. And come to think of it, don't the police, legally carrying loaded firearms have a worse record for legally shooting unarmed and innocent folks? In recent years many states have been relaxing their "gun controls", and currently most of the states allow law abiding citizens, who pass background checks, to have permits issued to carry concealed, loaded weapons, and the experiences of all of these states has been clearly positive, with significant reductions in crimes*, and incredibly few permits revoked, or permit holders charged with crimes... the more restrictive a state's gun laws are toward law abiding citizens, the higher the rate of gun related crimes! * seems to prove that the theory that criminals prefer unarmed victims, who cannot fight back, and criminals do fear when their potential victims might be so-armed! Some gun-rights advocates say the new law will not keep them from appearing in public with weapons that are not covered by the ban... "Law-abiding citizens will start openly carrying unloaded long guns in public because their basic and fundamental civil right to self-defense, as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, is clearly being infringed upon,'' said Yih-Chau Chang, a spokesman for the firearms advocacy group Responsible Citizens of California. http://www.latimes.c...0,4146983.story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurence Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 How, exactly, was "public safety jeopardized" ?? You ask that as if it were a rhetorical question? Right back at ya... What idiot would actually say that more people carrying more guns in public places does not represent an increased threat to the community? In the old days, if someone got mad at you, they might punch you. But if they all have guns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lightstone, CAS Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 How does an unloaded gun shoot people? What idiot would say an unloaded weapon is a threat to the community? Is driving an automobile a threat to pedestrians? Is a store that sells cigarettes a threat to your health? This state has the dumbest legislators who create the stupidest laws. But then those idiots you speak of elect them to office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurence Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 I haven't read the bill, Richard. Are you saying that unloaded guns may not carried but it's ok to carry loaded guns? What idiot would write a bill like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lightstone, CAS Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Previously is was legal to carry guns, ONLY IF UNLOADED. The law has been changed to ban any carrying at all. It has ALWAYS been illegal to carry a loaded weapon, except police officers etc. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/10/local/la-me-brown-guns-20111011 From the article: "California has allowed weapons to be displayed in public, provided they are not loaded." Are you calling Gov. Jerry Brown an idiot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurence Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Richard, you are taking absurd positions. Don't wanna argue with you. Have a good night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lightstone, CAS Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 The one in the Second Amendment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylormadeaudio Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Two phrases come to mind: • peace thru superior firepower • peace thru mutually assured destruction neither of these concepts are easy for some people to wrap their brains around, but that doesn't negate the truth behind them, nor does it change the fact that in a sick world where people have the potential to commit unspeakably sick inhumane crimes against innocent people and their property, the fact that they could very well lose their life in the process is a pretty effective deterrent in most cases. Would you fuck with someone who had a plainly visible sidearm? Would you go in and rob some place at gunpoint if inside there were several armed citizens? It's a proven deterrent, like it or not. Until we reach that utopian dream where everyone wants for nothing and no one has cause (justified or otherwise) to bring harm on another person, I'll gladly put up with some citizens walking around with weapons -- I'm WAY less afraid of them than some of the overzealous officers many police academies are producing these days. I know, I know... police are good, without them... blah blah blah... I'm just sayin'... until we can be assured that criminals don't carry guns (which is never) I say the more law-abiding citizens that carry them, the better. ~tt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Waelder Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 I've never had much of a problem with people openly carrying a firearm in a holster or similar manner. I am inclined to think that the deterrent value of an armed civilian is greatly overstated. The people who commit crimes often have difficulty with impulse control and I think that the wild west mentality of many gang members and petty criminals is not likely to be deterred by the presence of someone with a firearm. Still, there may be some deterrent value. I expect that the deterrent value is probably effectively negated by the possibility of a crossfire between the criminal and the untrained civilian but that's a difficult thing to weigh. Probably sometimes it would be good to have an honest citizen nearby with a weapon and sometimes not. Now, I do have a problem - big time - with a bunch of guys parading around with their firearms as a demonstration of their rights. These fellows all strike me as aggressive individuals with an agenda and poor judgment. Having them in a crowd of like-minded fellows amplifies all the dangerous aspects. No one wants to appear wimpy in the company of the other gun rights people so that natural inhibitions tend to be suppressed. Since every one of these protesters is carrying lethal power, there is considerable potential for a very bad outcome. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) " You ask that as if it were a rhetorical question? " actually, no. " What idiot would actually say that more people carrying more guns in public places does not represent an increased threat to the community? " actually, there are quite a few well respected folks saying exactly that, and accredited researchers (John Lott, PhD and Dave Kopple come to mind, there are many.) proving it, in published, peer reviewed academic studies. " Are you calling Gov. Jerry Brown an idiot? " actually, yes, among others! " "California has allowed weapons to be displayed in public, provided they are not loaded." " unloaded, but ammunition (included loaded magazines) could also be carried separately. " These fellows all strike me as aggressive individuals with an agenda and poor judgment. " this theory has pretty well been shot down (pun!) by the reality not just here in California, where no specific issues led to this change, as well as the overwhelming majority of states which allow open and/or concealed carry by legally qualified citizens, including the almost 40 "shall issue CCW" states that issue Concealed Carry permits to law abiding citizens who pass background and fingerprint checks, and training. " considerable potential for a very bad outcome " well that same thing can be said about anyone who has a car key, even sober, but especially drunk. It has been legal (in California) for many years, not just recently, and I am still asking " How, exactly, was "public safety jeopardized" ?? " (that was given as the reason some chiefs of police were supposedly asking for this law. what is the problem that this solved?? bad people don't worry about this law, as they are "bad people"... they have been carrying usually unregistered, mostly illegally obtained contrary to numerous laws*, and using them while breaking numerous other significant laws, and this new law will not affect them (jeez--what's one more little law to break?) * in the entire USA it is generally illegal for a convicted felon to "possess" (or even touch!) any firearm or ammunition. read about the shootings, mostly by folks with prior felony convictions... guess the law doesn't apply to the?? (now that was a rhetorical question!) " police are good, " um... like the off duty Riverside Sheriff, legally allowed to carry in a bar, last week, he was drinking and got into a little spat, pulled out his Sheriff pistol and ... opened fire! Sure, he'll later say "... and fearing for my life, I ..." but the witnesses all said he started the fight. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/riverside-county-sheriff-deputy-murder.html " ...they might punch you. But if they all have guns? " less fights Edited January 2, 2012 by studiomprd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lightstone, CAS Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 They are carrying unloaded weapons! That is what the law allowed them. The "threat" is in the perception, not the reality. That's the only point I'm making. Like Tom, I'm certainly not threatened by someone lawfully wearing a weapon. "A bunch of guys parading around with their firearms as a demonstration of their rights" is just that, a demonstration. Since they are unloaded, what is the threat? "Since every one of these protesters is carrying lethal power, there is considerable potential for a very bad outcome." With unloaded weapons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 ... Since every one of these protesters is carrying lethal power, there is considerable potential for a very bad outcome. An even more convincing argument could be made for curtailing a great number of the people we allow to drive potentially lethal automobiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason porter Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 I would like to see the gun related crime stats on countries with looser gun laws VS stricter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundslikejustin Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Compare Australia to the US in the table on this wiki page. We have very strict gun laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Babb Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Caution is advised in reading the table. The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.[22][23][24][25] In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic[26] as is comparing data from different years among different countries. I also doesn't show how many lives were save/protected because of the availability of firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Waelder Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 They are carrying unloaded weapons! Richard, you keep emphasizing that these weapons are unloaded. I get it. I got it the first time before you bolded the text. A clip of ammunition carried on the same belt as the firearm, or in an adjacent pocket, can very quickly be loaded into the handgun and the dynamics of the situation become entirely different. One fellow walking about with a handgun on his hip is not necessarily a threat; it may even offer some level of deterrence. Two fellows with weapons are also OK. A whole crowd of armed people asserting a political agenda is another matter. An even more convincing argument could be made for curtailing a great number of the people we allow to drive potentially lethal automobiles. There are risks inherent in a modern society that I am compelled to accept. I have to share the road (and sometimes sidewalks!) with distracted fools talking on cellphones or driving aggressively because they are late and frustrated by traffic. And, if we are really honest, each of us would admit that sometimes we are the fool and depend on the other driver being alert. These are circumstances that regularly demand both attention and restraint but they are not, I think, comparable to twenty or thirty armed people asserting a common agenda. Just as I would stay clear of an area with an armed "flash mob," I would also try to avoid a convoy of truckers protesting diesel prices or insurance rates. Truckers have a right to protest too but the combination of a hot issue, a group or mob sensibility and a dangerous appliance (whether car, truck or weapon) seems obviously inflammatory. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 ... There are risks inherent in a modern society that I am compelled to accept. I have to share the road (and sometimes sidewalks!) with distracted fools talking on cellphones or driving aggressively because they are late and frustrated by traffic. And, if we are really honest, each of us would admit that sometimes we are the fool and depend on the other driver being alert. These are circumstances that regularly demand both attention and restraint but they are not, I think, comparable to twenty or thirty armed people asserting a common agenda. Just as I would stay clear of an area with an armed "flash mob," I would also try to avoid a convoy of truckers protesting diesel prices or insurance rates. Truckers have a right to protest too but the combination of a hot issue, a group or mob sensibility and a dangerous appliance (whether car, truck or weapon) seems obviously inflammatory. So, are you suggesting we ban trucks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylormadeaudio Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Richard, you keep emphasizing that these weapons are unloaded. I get it. I got it the first time before you bolded the text. A clip of ammunition carried on the same belt as the firearm, or in an adjacent pocket, can very quickly be loaded into the handgun and the dynamics of the situation become entirely different. One fellow walking about with a handgun on his hip is not necessarily a threat; it may even offer some level of deterrence. Two fellows with weapons are also OK. A whole crowd of armed people asserting a political agenda is another matter. There are risks inherent in a modern society that I am compelled to accept. I have to share the road (and sometimes sidewalks!) with distracted fools talking on cellphones or driving aggressively because they are late and frustrated by traffic. And, if we are really honest, each of us would admit that sometimes we are the fool and depend on the other driver being alert. These are circumstances that regularly demand both attention and restraint but they are not, I think, comparable to twenty or thirty armed people asserting a common agenda. Just as I would stay clear of an area with an armed "flash mob," I would also try to avoid a convoy of truckers protesting diesel prices or insurance rates. Truckers have a right to protest too but the combination of a hot issue, a group or mob sensibility and a dangerous appliance (whether car, truck or weapon) seems obviously inflammatory. David David, I'm confused... when and where did all these gun-toting maniacs converge? Forgive my ignorance, but was there an incident involving a bunch of 2nd Ammendment advocates going rogue and causing harm? I do understand your point, and yes, a weapon can be loaded quite quickly by someone who's had some practice at it. These still aren't the people who are commiting all these crimes with guns. It's become an overused clichè but there is so much truth in this statement: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws [and police] will have guns" Don't just scoff at this statement... think about it... really think about it. Weapons are a necessary 'evil' in this world. The cat's been out of the box for centuries... trying to put it back in by disarming all the sane people is sheer stupidity at best, and sheer evil at worst. ~tt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason porter Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 So, how do you explain lower gun related crimes in countries with stricter gun laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 " I would like to see the gun related crime stats on countries with looser gun laws VS stricter. " that is harder to do, because the USA, generally, does have more gun rights for its law abiding citizens than most comparable countries, though I believe Israel's gun laws are similar. What is possible to compare is the effects of stricter, and tightening gun laws, in countries like England and Australia. It is also easy to compare statistics amongst our USA states with strict gun restrictions vs the other states that more fully embrace our second amendment. All the places with the higher and highest violent (gun) crime rates have the most restrictive firearms laws: Washington DC, Chicago, New York City, etc. How can these places have so many gun related crimes when guns there are illegal? (another rhetorical question) " how do you explain lower gun related crimes in countries with stricter gun laws? " Which countries?? Mostly these laws create a huge category of "unarmed victims" who cannot fight back, and are thus tempting targets for the "bad guys"... Crimes using firearms have gone up in countries when gun laws were tightened... In England, for example After spending Billions, Canada is about to give up on its "long gun" registry system Meanwhile, in state after state, as less restrictive firearms laws have gone into effect (particularly shall issue CCW laws), crime rates have fallen significantly, as documented by numerous researchers, and specifically Dr. John Lott in his book "More Guns, Less Crime", through several editions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylormadeaudio Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Jason, There are several factors that influence how any given segment of population 'behaves' in relation to that segment's gun control laws -- one is economic, another is availability, and then you have basic social folkways and how people within a certain demographic treat each other in general. In short, it's apples and oranges. I don't mean to diminish your assertion that these countries are safer because they have tighter gun control laws -- that may even be true to a degree -- but those countries (and the socioeconomic environments therein) are different -- different enough that the comparison you're making might not be as valid as one thinks. Also, for most rules there are exceptions. We have to be careful and honest about which is which. ~tt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason porter Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Because, getting a gun is as easy as crossing the state line? Maybe there should be border checkpoints between states Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason porter Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Obviously it isn't an easy comparison to make. I do believe poverty is a much larger contributor to crime than anything else. There are several factors that influence how any given segment of population 'behaves' in relation to that segment's gun control laws -- one is economic, another is availability, and then you have basic social folkways and how people within a certain demographic treat each other in general. In short, it's apples and oranges. I don't mean to diminish your assertion that these countries are safer because they have tighter gun control laws -- that may even be true to a degree -- but those countries (and the socioeconomic environments therein) are different -- different enough that the comparison you're making might not be as valid as one thinks. Also, for most rules there are exceptions. We have to be careful and honest about which is which. ~tt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylormadeaudio Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Yes, economic conditions are probably the biggest single factor... as to the border crossings: Careful what you wish for -- that could very well happen in the not so distant future... ~tt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.