Concealed carry weapon discussion

[randay]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: randay
none of you deserve to own a gun.

didn't you learn from your little warning yesterday?

what are you gonna do about it? shoot me? yeah thats what i thought.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: randay
plus, who the fvck in their right mind walks into a bank with a concealed weapon.

Why not? There is no federal law that forbids the possession of a CCW inside a bank. It is only illegal if the particular state in which the bank is located forbids it. The signs that banks post are not legally enforceable, either, if your state doesn't forbid guns in banks. Of course, they could kick you out and close your account.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: randay
plus, who the fvck in their right mind walks into a bank with a concealed weapon.

Why not? There is no federal law that forbids the possession of a CCW inside a bank. It is only illegal if the particular state in which the bank is located forbids it. The signs that banks post are not legally enforceable, either, if your state doesn't forbid guns in banks. Of course, they could kick you out and close your account.

I think that's a matter that will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, because there is clearly a US Constitutional conflict between the rights of a property owner to control what happens on their property, and some states wildly liberalized ccw laws.

 

[FallenHero]

Ahem, to quote one of my instructors: "You make a better witness than a corpse."

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: randay
plus, who the fvck in their right mind walks into a bank with a concealed weapon.

Why not? There is no federal law that forbids the possession of a CCW inside a bank. It is only illegal if the particular state in which the bank is located forbids it. The signs that banks post are not legally enforceable, either, if your state doesn't forbid guns in banks. Of course, they could kick you out and close your account.

I think that's a matter that will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, because there is clearly a US Constitutional conflict between the rights of a property owner to control what happens on their property, and some states wildly liberalized ccw laws.

Yes, and no. The property owner has the right to post the signs and have you removed from his/her property if you do not follow the rules, but the actual act of carrying the weapon is not illegal, per se. It definitely doesn't carry the same weight as a CCW in a courthouse or the likes

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: randay
plus, who the fvck in their right mind walks into a bank with a concealed weapon.

Why not? There is no federal law that forbids the possession of a CCW inside a bank. It is only illegal if the particular state in which the bank is located forbids it. The signs that banks post are not legally enforceable, either, if your state doesn't forbid guns in banks. Of course, they could kick you out and close your account.

I think that's a matter that will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, because there is clearly a US Constitutional conflict between the rights of a property owner to control what happens on their property, and some states wildly liberalized ccw laws.

Yes, and no. The property owner has the right to post the signs and have you removed from his/her property if you do not follow the rules, but the actual act of carrying the weapon is not illegal, per se. It definitely doesn't carry the same weight as a CCW in a courthouse or the likes

I don't want to go back and forth again..I'm not disagreeing about the current situation as people understand it, I'm talking about why it needs to be resolved in the courts.

In some states it would be trespassing to go onto property against the property owner's restrictions, which may be illegal.

Utah is the only state I know of that seems to be hell bent on taking property rights away, in favor of gun owner's rights, maybe there are others though.

 

[Turin39789]

If I were in that bank, I sure as hell would appreciate the ccw not risking my life by pulling his piece out in a simple robbery. He obviously has no idea what is going on, how many people may be outside with guns, if there are other people inside the bank with guns. I'd prefer he has a cell phone and call the police as the robber leaves the bank with his money.

Anyone who would pull and fire in this situation has piss poor judgement.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Hell, cops can't even shoot someone unless their life is in danger.

You, my friend, are completely misinformed.
Florida statues

Read up on 'forcible felonies'.

i'm just having fun here.


(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

...

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.


so you're riding along on your ten speed, you see someone try to jump you to steal your bike, you're entitled to shoot them.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: randay
plus, who the fvck in their right mind walks into a bank with a concealed weapon.

Why not? There is no federal law that forbids the possession of a CCW inside a bank. It is only illegal if the particular state in which the bank is located forbids it. The signs that banks post are not legally enforceable, either, if your state doesn't forbid guns in banks. Of course, they could kick you out and close your account.

You could be charged with trespassing as well.

 

[randalee]

One of the most common assault/robbery situations that happen:

A person approaches an ATM -- usually at night, where darkness allows a bit of extra stealth. Robber hides in a bush or somewhere else nearby, to remain undetected until the right time. Robber knows a person leaving an ATM usually has a bit of cash on-hand. As the person finishes, the robber slowly approaches, asking for some spare change, or if they can use the phone, etc. Anything to distract the victim while closing distance.

As soon as the robber is close enough, wield/brandish a knife/gun/whatever and order the person to hand over money. Oops, they already have complete advantage.

Anyone know about the 21-foot doctrine of distance in self defense? (Edit -- it's called the "Tueller" rule.)

 

[getbush]

Ok i so I didn't read the whole thread but i'm pretty sure human males don't have a mens rea

 

[ShellGuy]

FYI at least in FL you can't legaly carry in to a bank or any federal location.. So his actions are not warrented as he shouldn't have been carrying in the firstplace. and in the state of FL he would prob be found guilty...



Will G.




PS how far from the hold up man was he that he only hit 2 out of 5 shots?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Specop 007
I dont know why everyone assumes you HAVE to engage a bad guy just because you carry a gun.

Man, people are just fvcking stupid.

"I have a gun so i HAVE to do something".

No, its called tact and situational awareness.

not to mention that everyone who owns a gun is just itching to shoot people with it.

I own guns and I'm not itching to shoot people with them. Thanks for lumping me in with every hard on who owns a gun and wants to kill people though.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: randay

its quite obvious from the replies in this thread. its thier constitutional right to kill you if you threaten thier life or the life of someone else, apparently.

You're damn right it is. The right to self defense is essential to liberty.

I will not simply lay down and die, or stand idly by as others get killed. Anyone who would is a disgusting coward.

Neither would I. But that wasn't the question...in case you didn't notice.

 

[randalee]

Originally posted by: ShellGuy
PS how far from the hold up man was he that he only hit 2 out of 5 shots?

We'll be fairly realistic here and say 10 feet. Under duress, I would hope I could make 40% of my shots. I would REALLY hope for 100%, but that isn't realistic whatsoever.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'M GOING TO MAKE IT PAINFULLY FVCKING OBVIOUS FOR YOU...:roll:

Regardless of what they teach you at "I'm a fvcking hard-on and can carry a concealed weapon legally school" in the real world most people would have a difficult time believing that you would be justified in shooting someone you perceived to be robbing another person.

This post just proves that point x 100,000. The OP assumes that the guy with the gun intends to shoot the teller and because of his training he shoots and kills the robber, who was probably a total piece of sh!t to begin with, but he was, in fact, holding a fake gun (really, a moot point).

Here's the real point. Since most bank robbers go into a bank with the intent to steal money and do not shoot tellers it would be entirely illogical to assume that most bank robbers go into a bank with the intent to kill people. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that the tellers life was in danger (which is why banking institutions tell their employees to cooperate with bank robbers-FYI-that's what insurance is for).

What I have stated is fact. Anyone who is able to legally carry a weapon should be aware of this. If you aren't then you have no right legally to carry a gun.

Edit-So, what it comes down to is the OP is staking his life on some lofty notion that he's protecting some innocent bank teller when really he's just sticking his neck waaaaay the fvck out there to protect an insurance company that wouldn't even notice the hit on their bottom line...I'm sure the bank teller will be grateful but will your family??? I guess that doesn't matter to you.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus


Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that the tellers life was in danger

Next time some crack head puts a gun to your head I will be the first in line to tell you how illogical it was for you to pee your pants.

Give me a break, while it darn sure isn't smart to go blasting away inside of a crowded bank, to make the comment that a person being held at gunpoint by a criminal is in no life threatening danger is idiotic.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'M GOING TO MAKE IT PAINFULLY FVCKING OBVIOUS FOR YOU...:roll:

Regardless of what they teach you at "I'm a fvcking hard-on and can carry a concealed weapon legally school" in the real world most people would have a difficult time believing that you would be justified in shooting someone you perceived to be robbing another person.

This post just proves that point x 100,000. The OP assumes that the guy with the gun intends to shoot the teller and because of his training he shoots and kills the robber, who was probably a total piece of sh!t to begin with, but he was, in fact, holding a fake gun (really, a moot point).

Here's the real point. Since most bank robbers go into a bank with the intent to steal money and do not shoot tellers it would be entirely illogical to assume that most bank robbers go into a bank with the intent to kill people. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that the tellers life was in danger (which is why banking institutions tell their employees to cooperate with bank robbers-FYI-that's what insurance is for).

What I have stated is fact. Anyone who is able to legally carry a weapon should be aware of this. If you aren't then you have no right legally to carry a gun.

Edit-So, what it comes down to is the OP is staking his life on some lofty notion that he's protecting some innocent bank teller when really he's just sticking his neck waaaaay the fvck out there to protect an insurance company that wouldn't even notice the hit on their bottom line...I'm sure the bank teller will be grateful but will your family??? I guess that doesn't matter to you.

Legally, self defense extends to defense of others. If you are justified in shooting an armed robber who is pointing a gun at you, you are justified in shooting an armed robber who is pointing a gun at another person. Pointing a gun at ANYONE is considered life threatening and imminent danger. In no way are you expected to "trust" that a criminal will not harm you once he points a gun at you.

You're wrong. So wrong in fact, I defy you to find an American case of a legal CCW permit holder being convicted of murder for shooting an armed robber who was threatening someone other than the shooter at the time.

Your post is absurd and made by someone who obviously has never been robbed at gunpoint. Not only have I been robbed at gun point multiple times, I have had an employee shot to death and have defended myself using deadly force.

Don't you DARE presume to tell me a criminal pointing a gun at me is not putting my life in danger. The same goes for a criminal pointing a gun at another in my presence. If I am armed, and have the opportunity, I will kill him without a second thought.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'M GOING TO MAKE IT PAINFULLY FVCKING OBVIOUS FOR YOU...:roll:

Regardless of what they teach you at "I'm a fvcking hard-on and can carry a concealed weapon legally school" in the real world most people would have a difficult time believing that you would be justified in shooting someone you perceived to be robbing another person.

This post just proves that point x 100,000. The OP assumes that the guy with the gun intends to shoot the teller and because of his training he shoots and kills the robber, who was probably a total piece of sh!t to begin with, but he was, in fact, holding a fake gun (really, a moot point).

Here's the real point. Since most bank robbers go into a bank with the intent to steal money and do not shoot tellers it would be entirely illogical to assume that most bank robbers go into a bank with the intent to kill people. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that the tellers life was in danger (which is why banking institutions tell their employees to cooperate with bank robbers-FYI-that's what insurance is for).

What I have stated is fact. Anyone who is able to legally carry a weapon should be aware of this. If you aren't then you have no right legally to carry a gun.

Edit-So, what it comes down to is the OP is staking his life on some lofty notion that he's protecting some innocent bank teller when really he's just sticking his neck waaaaay the fvck out there to protect an insurance company that wouldn't even notice the hit on their bottom line...I'm sure the bank teller will be grateful but will your family??? I guess that doesn't matter to you.

Legally, self defense extends to defense of others. If you are justified in shooting an armed robber who is pointing a gun at you, you are justified in shooting an armed robber who is pointing a gun at another person. Pointing a gun at ANYONE is considered life threatening and imminent danger. In no way are you expected to "trust" that a criminal will not harm you once he points a gun at you.

You're wrong. So wrong in fact, I defy you to find an American case of a legal CCW permit holder being convicted of murder for shooting an armed robber who was threatening someone other than the shooter at the time.

Your post is absurd and made by someone who obviously has never been robbed at gunpoint. Not only have I been robbed at gun point multiple times, I have had an employee shot to death and have defended myself using deadly force.

Don't you DARE presume to tell me a criminal pointing a gun at me is not putting my life in danger. The same goes for a criminal pointing a gun at another in my presence. If I am armed, and have the opportunity, I will kill him without a second thought.

The original post stated bank robbery. Show me statistics where even 20% of bank robberies end in a shooting. A lawyer for the victims family would take you apart in a civil suit regardless of whether you are convicted for the shooting. I've read this repeatedly in articles written by respected authors writing about concealed carry and self defense.

Like I said, if the guy starts shooting you can blast him to hell. If he's not shooting your best bet is to comply with his demands and let the cops handle it.

Oh, and I'll tell you whatever the hell I please. You can disagree with me if you want to but don't you DARE tell me what I can and can't say.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'M GOING TO MAKE IT PAINFULLY FVCKING OBVIOUS FOR YOU...:roll:

Regardless of what they teach you at "I'm a fvcking hard-on and can carry a concealed weapon legally school" in the real world most people would have a difficult time believing that you would be justified in shooting someone you perceived to be robbing another person.

This post just proves that point x 100,000. The OP assumes that the guy with the gun intends to shoot the teller and because of his training he shoots and kills the robber, who was probably a total piece of sh!t to begin with, but he was, in fact, holding a fake gun (really, a moot point).

Here's the real point. Since most bank robbers go into a bank with the intent to steal money and do not shoot tellers it would be entirely illogical to assume that most bank robbers go into a bank with the intent to kill people. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that the tellers life was in danger (which is why banking institutions tell their employees to cooperate with bank robbers-FYI-that's what insurance is for).

What I have stated is fact. Anyone who is able to legally carry a weapon should be aware of this. If you aren't then you have no right legally to carry a gun.

Edit-So, what it comes down to is the OP is staking his life on some lofty notion that he's protecting some innocent bank teller when really he's just sticking his neck waaaaay the fvck out there to protect an insurance company that wouldn't even notice the hit on their bottom line...I'm sure the bank teller will be grateful but will your family??? I guess that doesn't matter to you.

Legally, self defense extends to defense of others. If you are justified in shooting an armed robber who is pointing a gun at you, you are justified in shooting an armed robber who is pointing a gun at another person. Pointing a gun at ANYONE is considered life threatening and imminent danger. In no way are you expected to "trust" that a criminal will not harm you once he points a gun at you.

You're wrong. So wrong in fact, I defy you to find an American case of a legal CCW permit holder being convicted of murder for shooting an armed robber who was threatening someone other than the shooter at the time.

Your post is absurd and made by someone who obviously has never been robbed at gunpoint. Not only have I been robbed at gun point multiple times, I have had an employee shot to death and have defended myself using deadly force.

Don't you DARE presume to tell me a criminal pointing a gun at me is not putting my life in danger. The same goes for a criminal pointing a gun at another in my presence. If I am armed, and have the opportunity, I will kill him without a second thought.

The original post stated bank robbery. Show me statistics where even 20% of bank robberies end in a shooting. A lawyer for the victims family would take you apart in a civil suit regardless of whether you are convicted for the shooting. I've read this repeatedly in articles written by respected authors writing about concealed carry and self defense.

Like I said, if the guy starts shooting you can blast him to hell. If he's not shooting your best bet is to comply with his demands and let the cops handle it.

Oh, and I'll tell you whatever the hell I please. You can disagree with me if you want to but don't you DARE tell me what I can and can't say.

I see you failed to meet the chalange... because, of course, you're wrong.

Nice try twisting it into a civil case now. Care to find any successful civil cases where a legal CCW permit holder was sued for shooting an armed robber who was pointing a gun at them, or another innocent person?

Waiting for an armed criminal to start shooting is absurd. You are trying to SAVE a life, not wait until he takes a life.

Finally, the final twist: You call the criminal a "victim."

Wow... just wow.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Specop 007
I dont know why everyone assumes you HAVE to engage a bad guy just because you carry a gun.

Man, people are just fvcking stupid.

"I have a gun so i HAVE to do something".

No, its called tact and situational awareness.

not to mention that everyone who owns a gun is just itching to shoot people with it.

I own guns and I'm not itching to shoot people with them. Thanks for lumping me in with every hard on who owns a gun and wants to kill people though.

another person who can't read.
i already made a post stating that i was agreeing with amused. i'm a gun owner who is waiting for his application for a ccw to be approved.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'M GOING TO MAKE IT PAINFULLY FVCKING OBVIOUS FOR YOU...:roll:

Regardless of what they teach you at "I'm a fvcking hard-on and can carry a concealed weapon legally school" in the real world most people would have a difficult time believing that you would be justified in shooting someone you perceived to be robbing another person.

This post just proves that point x 100,000. The OP assumes that the guy with the gun intends to shoot the teller and because of his training he shoots and kills the robber, who was probably a total piece of sh!t to begin with, but he was, in fact, holding a fake gun (really, a moot point).

Here's the real point. Since most bank robbers go into a bank with the intent to steal money and do not shoot tellers it would be entirely illogical to assume that most bank robbers go into a bank with the intent to kill people. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that the tellers life was in danger (which is why banking institutions tell their employees to cooperate with bank robbers-FYI-that's what insurance is for).

What I have stated is fact. Anyone who is able to legally carry a weapon should be aware of this. If you aren't then you have no right legally to carry a gun.

Edit-So, what it comes down to is the OP is staking his life on some lofty notion that he's protecting some innocent bank teller when really he's just sticking his neck waaaaay the fvck out there to protect an insurance company that wouldn't even notice the hit on their bottom line...I'm sure the bank teller will be grateful but will your family??? I guess that doesn't matter to you.

Legally, self defense extends to defense of others. If you are justified in shooting an armed robber who is pointing a gun at you, you are justified in shooting an armed robber who is pointing a gun at another person. Pointing a gun at ANYONE is considered life threatening and imminent danger. In no way are you expected to "trust" that a criminal will not harm you once he points a gun at you.

You're wrong. So wrong in fact, I defy you to find an American case of a legal CCW permit holder being convicted of murder for shooting an armed robber who was threatening someone other than the shooter at the time.

Your post is absurd and made by someone who obviously has never been robbed at gunpoint. Not only have I been robbed at gun point multiple times, I have had an employee shot to death and have defended myself using deadly force.

Don't you DARE presume to tell me a criminal pointing a gun at me is not putting my life in danger. The same goes for a criminal pointing a gun at another in my presence. If I am armed, and have the opportunity, I will kill him without a second thought.

The original post stated bank robbery. Show me statistics where even 20% of bank robberies end in a shooting. A lawyer for the victims family would take you apart in a civil suit regardless of whether you are convicted for the shooting. I've read this repeatedly in articles written by respected authors writing about concealed carry and self defense.

Like I said, if the guy starts shooting you can blast him to hell. If he's not shooting your best bet is to comply with his demands and let the cops handle it.

Oh, and I'll tell you whatever the hell I please. You can disagree with me if you want to but don't you DARE tell me what I can and can't say.

I see you failed to meet the chalange... because, of course, you're wrong.

Nice try twisting it into a civil case now. Care to find any successful civil cases where a legal CCW permit holder was sued for shooting an armed robber who was pointing a gun at them, or another innocent person?

Waiting for an armed criminal to start shooting is absurd. You are trying to SAVE a life, not wait until he takes a life.

Finally, the final twist: You call the criminal a "victim."

Wow... just wow.

Main Entry: vic·tim
Pronunciation: 'vik-t&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin victima; perhaps akin to Old High German wIh holy
1 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite
2 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent <the schools are victims of the social system>: as a (1) : one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a victim of cancer> <a victim of the auto crash> <a murder victim> (2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment <a frequent victim of political attacks> b : one that is tricked or duped <a con man's victim>

So, what's the problem? It's just a word in the English language and I did not use it incorrectly. Since the guy is dead I'd say he was adversely affected...Would you prefer I said the guy you shot and killed in the bank? :roll:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Specop 007
I dont know why everyone assumes you HAVE to engage a bad guy just because you carry a gun.

Man, people are just fvcking stupid.

"I have a gun so i HAVE to do something".

No, its called tact and situational awareness.

not to mention that everyone who owns a gun is just itching to shoot people with it.

I own guns and I'm not itching to shoot people with them. Thanks for lumping me in with every hard on who owns a gun and wants to kill people though.

another person who can't read.
i already made a post stating that i was agreeing with amused. i'm a gun owner who is waiting for his application for a ccw to be approved.

Sorry, my bad. :laugh:

 

[Amused]

Just stop. You played your hand and got called on it... and you had nothing.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused
Just stop. You played your hand and got called on it... and you had nothing.

People sue police departments all the time for wrongful death. You're delusional if you think it can't happen to you.