Obama's NH townhall: More with the guns and arrests.

[Kamakazie Sith]

See, I understand the whole open carry thing being legal, but just like with concealed carry there are places and times where while it may be legal for you to do it, you probably should just leave your gun at the house (or at the very least locked in your car or someshit). Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should.

We have a problem in SLC where this one idiot will open carry two revolvers on each side of his hip during the LGBT parade. He makes people uncomfortable because he seems a bit off and I think it's fucked up to open carry in any place where large numbers of people are gathering due to all the mass shootings especially when one happened right in SLC.

Wait, four revolvers total, or one on either side?

My bad...just two. HAHAH, one on each side.

[General Zod]

See, I understand the whole open carry thing being legal, but just like with concealed carry there are places and times where while it may be legal for you to do it, you probably should just leave your gun at the house (or at the very least locked in your car or someshit). Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should.

We have a problem in SLC where this one idiot will open carry two revolvers on each side of his hip during the LGBT parade. He makes people uncomfortable because he seems a bit off and I think it's fucked up to open carry in any place where large numbers of people are gathering due to all the mass shootings especially when one happened right in SLC.

Wait, four revolvers total, or one on either side?

He's obviously talking about one revolver on each side.

[Mr. Coffee]

See, I understand the whole open carry thing being legal, but just like with concealed carry there are places and times where while it may be legal for you to do it, you probably should just leave your gun at the house (or at the very least locked in your car or someshit). Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should.

But at what point do you say that the risk of a complete lunatic openly carrying a gun into this space and shooting someone in the face trumps the merits of allowing people to openly carry guns into this space?

Because that actually happens. Some people are in fact disturbed enough to just walk up to someone and shoot them for no reason other than their own insanity, especially when the target is famous. Especially when a significant fraction of the crazy people in the country are all encouraging each other to hate that one guy.

I guess you're a slack jawed illiterate or else you might have noticed where I said " there are places and times where while it may be legal for you to do it, you probably should just leave your gun at the house (or at the very least locked in your car or someshit). Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should." See that, skippy? I'm saying that just because it's legal for Wacko McMilitialoon to openly carry doesn't mean that he SHOULD openly carry depending on the place and circumstances.

Jackass...

[Mr. Coffee]

We have a problem in SLC where this one idiot will open carry two revolvers on each side of his hip during the LGBT parade. He makes people uncomfortable because he seems a bit off and I think it's fucked up to open carry in any place where large numbers of people are gathering due to all the mass shootings especially when one happened right in SLC.

If I wanted to I could open carry here in Alabama. Thing is, I understand that most people aren't comfortable around firearms and/or flat out dangerous around them. So instead I just concealed carry and keep an eye out for places that it's illegal for me to carry even with a CCW. I always thought open carry was for wannabe cowboys and militia nuts, i.e. people that are after an image or don't understand that just because they can do a thing doesn't mean they should do it.

[Raj Ahten]

But wait, you can get AP rounds in the US?! Are you telling me that you can own them legally?
This stuff is prohibited by the Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz (regulation of war weaponery) around here...

Yeah you can buy steel core/ armor piercing ammo in the US and weapons up to and including .50 anti material rifles. In fact you can buy .50 armor piercing incendiary tracer rounds over the internet.

Some states and localities will not allow you to buy such ammo though. Personally though I don't know of any legitimate use of such weapons and ammunition beyond shooting down helicopters though........

[Uraniun235]

I don't think even the reddest-necked state considers shooting down helicopters to be a "legitimate use of such weapons", not even if they're piloted by black people.

[His Divine Shadow]

.50bmg is used for long range target shooting and hunting big game.

There are no bans against .50bmg in Finland and Sweden for instance. I know a swedish person that hunts (safaris) with a Heym .50BMG single shot rifle. There are other cartridges that approach .50BMG such as .700 Nitro Express and .408 CheyTac and .460 Weatherby Magnum, but .50BMG comes in a lot of different loads so it can vary a lot.

[Patrick Degan]

I don't think even the reddest-necked state considers shooting down helicopters to be a "legitimate use of such weapons", not even if they're piloted by black people.

My lack-of-god, man! Do you not understand the pressing need for such ammo for the day the Black Helicopters swarm?

[Simon_Jester]

I guess you're a slack jawed illiterate or else you might have noticed where I said " there are places and times where while it may be legal for you to do it, you probably should just leave your gun at the house (or at the very least locked in your car or someshit). Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should." See that, skippy? I'm saying that just because it's legal for Wacko McMilitialoon to openly carry doesn't mean that he SHOULD openly carry depending on the place and circumstances.

Jackass...

I think you missed my point; I didn't make it clear enough. Let Wacko McMilitialoon carry his guns around all day normally, fine. And yeah, there are places he probably shouldn't carry the guns, and ought to have enough brains to know it's not wise or necessary.

But how far are we going to trust his judgement? He's a goddamn wacko, and no one outside his head can easily tell him from an assassin or a mass murderer. There are situations that we know quite well are targets not only for marginal loons who enjoy carrying guns, but for hardcore loons who will actually use the guns because the voices in their head tell them to or whatever.

I like living in an open society on general principles, so I'm willing to trust the loons' judgement part of the way. Even if it slightly increases the chance that I'll get shot at by some deranged clown on the freeway who thinks I cut him off in traffic. So let him carry his gun around on the street, or at Burger King, or hell, in the bank. As long as he doesn't take it out and polish it at me or anything, I'll live with it.

But when it comes to carrying guns to presidential speeches, that trust breaks down. I don't trust political extremists to be the judge of when it is and is not permissible to carry guns at a political event. So I am very much OK with the idea of having security stop people who are carrying guns to such events.

And I must protest that my jaw is not at all slack.
_________

I don't think even the reddest-necked state considers shooting down helicopters to be a "legitimate use of such weapons", not even if they're piloted by black people.

My lack-of-god, man! Do you not understand the pressing need for such ammo for the day the Black Helicopters swarm?

Now you're just being silly. Black helicopters are piloted by an elite cadre of UN-trained pilots, many of whom are goddamn badass manly men.* Their tactics are precisely calculated and devastatingly effective. Your chances of shooting one down with an anti-materiel rifle are slim to none. No, that is what the stockpile of MANPADs my buddy Brett has buried by the creek doesn't have are for would be for if they existed.

*(like Jock from Deus Ex, if you're familiar with that game).

[Sea Skimmer]

Body armor is also really impractical when you have to do meet-and-greets, as well as a lot of waving and gesturing.

Remember, you do not want to appear as mistrusting your fellow patriots, so showing up to greet them with body armor on - which they will notice - is not a particularly popular idea.

The US president is nearly always wearing body armor. A big portion of the body armor industry industry exists for nothing but making special often custom fitted body armor that’s meant to fit concealed under suits and similar formal clothing. The demand for that kind of product has exploded in the last ten years, just as the market for private armored cars has also spiraled to many times what it once was.

Which does not make it useless - it still reduces the chance of a lethal hit.

But wait, you can get AP rounds in the US?! Are you telling me that you can own them legally?
This stuff is prohibited by the Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz (regulation of war weaponery) around here...

99.9% of true hard cored AP ammunition is illegal in the United States, but plenty of guns, like just about anything firing .30-06 will defeat the vast majority body armor without requiring an AP round. More importantly… making your own AP ammo while illegal, is entirely easy. Simply replace the lead bullet with one made of steel and you have already vastly increased potential armor penetration even if the steel is not at all a proper grade for that purpose. Someone could do this with a hacksaw and pliers if they really wanted. It wouldn’t take that much machine tool effort to get some round stock of the proper grade and make a real AP projectile either. Many many thousands of individuals have the equipment to do this.

[loomer]

And to top it off, the type of armour worn by the president is not going to be particularly strong in and of itself, because it does have to fit under the suit - and while I'm sure it's the best protection possible without making him look paranoid or silly, it WILL fall short of heavier armours.

Something in most rifle calibers could penetrate, but then, so could a few pistols.

[Simon_Jester]

Question for body armor experts:
Imagine you're wearing armor that is 'not quite' good enough to stop the bullet you're shot by (say, you're wearing Class I armor and you get hit by a 9 mm Parabellum FMJ round). Is the armor likely to significantly reduce the amount of damage you suffer?

I ask because with modern medicine, someone has a relatively good chance of surviving a gunshot wound, especially if body armor acts as partial damage control.

Note: "relatively," as in "compared to the past," not as in "I wouldn't mind getting shot 'cos da hospital would fix me up!"

[loomer]

It will reduce the penetration of the round and possibly stop it from fragmenting or mushrooming as much as it possibly could, so yes, you will have a higher chance of survival, but how much depends on where you are hit. With good medical care, a vest, and assuming the round does not penetrate into the heart or liver, then you would have a significantly increased chance.

[Mr. Coffee]

But how far are we going to trust his judgement? He's a goddamn wacko, and no one outside his head can easily tell him from an assassin or a mass murderer. There are situations that we know quite well are targets not only for marginal loons who enjoy carrying guns, but for hardcore loons who will actually use the guns because the voices in their head tell them to or whatever.

Well, gee, considering I never made an argument either for or against trusting Wacko McMilitialoon's judgment, why are you trying to pretend that I support his judgement?

Fact is, I don't.

But when it comes to carrying guns to presidential speeches, that trust breaks down. I don't trust political extremists to be the judge of when it is and is not permissible to carry guns at a political event. So I am very much OK with the idea of having security stop people who are carrying guns to such events.

That's nice. Can you show me where I ever said that we should trust the judgement of political extremists? Because I'd really like to know how in the holy blue fuck you get "trust the judgement of extremists" from "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it".

And I must protest that my jaw is not at all slack.

Which is why you've tried to put words in my mouth twice now so you could pretend that there was someone in this thread that agrees with open carry whenever/whereever so you could play debate hero?

Yeah, might want to tighten that jaw up a bit, clownshoes.

[Sea Skimmer]

And to top it off, the type of armour worn by the president is not going to be particularly strong in and of itself, because it does have to fit under the suit - and while I'm sure it's the best protection possible without making him look paranoid or silly, it WILL fall short of heavier armours.

Something in most rifle calibers could penetrate, but then, so could a few pistols.

Which is why the Secret Service never brings less then 200 agents along, and as many as 1,000 to major events. They literally do plan to simply cover every possible vantage point a sniper could fire from whenever he makes a planned appearance using hoards of counter sniper teams and observers. The local police only backup this coverage. The more visible agents on the ground meanwhile form a multilayered cordon that should keep anyone with a small concealable weapon out of range. The shear mass of people around the president in many situations is an additional protection, it might make spotting a gunmen hard but odds are the people will spot him for you, and they block lines of fire. Body armor is only a last insurance policy.

Its not for nothing that despite being wildly unpopular with certain groups both W Bush and Clinton never got hit. W did have that incident when someone threw hand grenades at the stands… but they got thrown from such a great distance they could have never reached him. The security does work, and anyone with enough brains to be a threat can tell it just won’t work. Attacking the president on the move meanwhile is largely nullified meanwhile by the use of multiple identical helicopters and armored limos.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, gee, considering I never made an argument either for or against trusting Wacko McMilitialoon's judgment, why are you trying to pretend that I support his judgement?
Fact is, I don't.

OK. Great.

I had no idea whether you thought that or not until you just said so. You were talking about how there are places where it's stupid to carry guns even if it's legal; I was talking about places where it's not only stupid, but dangerous enough that it shouldn't be illegal.

I didn't particularly care whether you thought it should be illegal everywhere or not. I wasn't trying to disprove your statement that carrying guns into some places was stupid; I was trying to prove that relying on the intelligence of the kind of people who like to carry guns everywhere isn't good enough by itself. Which we apparently agree on.

That's nice. Can you show me where I ever said that we should trust the judgement of political extremists? Because I'd really like to know how in the holy blue fuck you get "trust the judgement of extremists" from "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it".

No, I took "just because you can do something" and got "people can do something" from it. Then I decided to say "sometimes, people shouldn't be allowed to do that something, even if they're allowed to do it normally."

And I'm glad to hear you agree with that. I couldn't tell whether you agreed with it, but
that's not why I said it. I said it because I thought it was true, not because I thought you disagreed with it.
__________

Yeah, might want to tighten that jaw up a bit, clownshoes.

While my jaw isn't slack, I do have some shoes that are too big, so that one makes more sense.

[Knife]

No, I took "just because you can do something" and got "people can do something" from it. Then I decided to say "sometimes, people shouldn't be allowed to do that something, even if they're allowed to do it normally."

Thank you for being patient zero. In other words, you are the status quo, we actually want to change things... thank you for being your normal douche self.

[Mr. Coffee]

I had no idea whether you thought that or not until you just said so. You were talking about how there are places where it's stupid to carry guns even if it's legal; I was talking about places where it's not only stupid, but dangerous enough that it shouldn't be illegal.

Bullshit, skippy. You knew damned good and well with my first post that I didn't supposed people openly carrying in situations like in the OP or you're functionally illiterate and didn't read past "just because you can do something". So which is are you, dishonest or stupid?

I didn't particularly care whether you thought it should be illegal everywhere or not. I wasn't trying to disprove your statement that carrying guns into some places was stupid; I was trying to prove that relying on the intelligence of the kind of people who like to carry guns everywhere isn't good enough by itself. Which we apparently agree on.

If you agree with me then why have you been trying to make it seem as if I support open carry regardless of the situation? In fact, if you agree with me why are you still posting?

No, I took "just because you can do something" and got "people can do something" from it. Then I decided to say "sometimes, people shouldn't be allowed to do that something, even if they're allowed to do it normally."

Oh, so instead of reading my entire statement you instead cherry picked half of it and used that as the basis for trying to make it seem like I'm supporting open carry regardless of the circumstances. I guess that answers my previous question of illiterate vs dishonest.

[Simon_Jester]

Thank you for being patient zero. In other words, you are the status quo, we actually want to change things... thank you for being your normal douche self.

I infer that you are being sarcastic, and do not want to change the level of security provisions, or the level of legality of carrying guns.
______

What makes you think that just because I said something, I must think you disagree with it? Maybe somebody does, maybe nobody does. I don't know. Especially not when there's stuff like "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" flying around. As I saw it, that could go either way.

I could think people have a right to do X whenever they want, and still think there are places only a goddamn idiot would do X. That doesn't mean I think X should be illegal in those places, because I don't think that goddamn idiocy can or should be banned in all its forms. To me, a disconnect between those is at least possible.

Mr. Coffee is telling me that for him, there is no disconnect. The fact that there are places where you should not do something even if it's legal implies that there ought to be places where doing it is outright illegal, or at the least where it's OK for it to be outright illegal. And I should have been able to figure out that this is obviously true from what he said.

I didn't know that. I do not have the benefit of years of experience listening to him to tell me what Mr. Coffee was thinking, the way that I might be able to glean it from similar comments by other people in other places.
_________

Now that I know what he thinks, I agree with him, but I have a further question:

MrCoffee, I'm interested by the implication that
["There are places where you should probably just leave your gun" => "There are places where carrying your gun should be outright illegal."]

Does that generalize to all activities, or only to activities that have a high level of potential harm? There are a lot of harmless activities that it it's deeply stupid to do in some places; should they be legal or illegal in those places?

[Mr. Coffee]

There you go trying to put words in my mouth again. I'll make this real simple so your tiny fucking brain can comprehend...

Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do it. That's all. No where in that is there anything about "some places you should be allowed to do something" or any of this other horse shit you're dreaming up from that first statement. It means simply to use some fucking discretion and understand that there's a time and a place for carrying you gun in the open, but at a gathering the President of the United states of America is attending is not one of them.

So are you done dreaming up shit to argue about that no one has said or are you going to continue to be a dishonest and delusional little retard?

[Simon_Jester]

OK, so you weren't trying to say anything at all about the question of whether guns should be banned from certain places, except to call me an idiot for mentioning it. Which, in your eyes, somehow implied that I was misrepresenting you, because I mentioned it in connection to you.

Regardless of whether I ever actually said anything of the sort, such as claiming that you "supposed* people openly carrying in situations like in the OP."

Right.
______

*I assume that by "suppose" you meant "support;" if not then I have no idea what you said.

[Mr. Coffee]

*I ASSUME that by "suppose" you meant "support;" if not then I have no idea what you said.

Reason why I think you're a fucking idiot bolded and capped. If I'd meant support I'd have said support, asshole.

[Simon_Jester]

...with my first post that I didn't supposed people openly carrying in situations like in the OP...

OK. So you meant "suppose." That makes it still less clear what you meant when you said "I didn't supposed people openly carrying in situations like in the OP."

The combination "I didn't [past tense verb]" I can handle, but I'm not clear on exactly what there was to 'suppose' in the situation in question.

[General Zod]

Edit: Nevermind.

[Mr. Coffee]

...with my first post that I didn't supposed people openly carrying in situations like in the OP...

OK. So you meant "suppose." That makes it still less clear what you meant when you said "I didn't supposed people openly carrying in situations like in the OP."

The combination "I didn't [past tense verb]" I can handle, but I'm not clear on exactly what there was to 'suppose' in the situation in question.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ on star-spangled roller skates... I said it clearly in the first post and I've re-explained it, what, three fucking times now and you're still being arguing this shit? All I can figure now is either A. you're a fucking troll, B. you're the dumbest motherfucker on face of the Earth, C. a disingenious little shithead, or D. all of the above.

Tl;dr version: Whatever shithead rock you crawled out from under, for fuck's sake will please get the fuck back under it?