BMW Luxury Touring Community - A "piece" of mind!!

tscholl

Oct 5th, 2005, 8:38 am

RaffyK

Oct 5th, 2005, 8:43 am

How about travelling when you cross the borders to other countries (i.e. US to Canada)?

Don't ever try this going into Canada or Mexico. The consequences are severe.

hoodoodrum

Oct 5th, 2005, 8:51 am

Good to know...

ATFLT

Oct 5th, 2005, 9:07 am

I have heard that carrying a gun loaded will cause more problems than an unloaded gun. I don't know if carrying one will cause you a problem if they find you have one-it would likely depend on the state you are in. Personally I have a gun but don't carry it when I ride on the bike. I have never felt the need to.

messenger13

Oct 5th, 2005, 9:23 am

I went a few rounds (no pun intended) with this subject before heading out west on my 6-7K mile trip before CCR. My final conclusion was...it's simply not worth the hassle and the consequences if all your ducks aren't in a row. I did go into Canada unexpectedly while in Seattle. I could just see what would've happened had they searched my bike and found a gun. (And they ALMOST did!) That would've been a mess!

My advise? . . . leave it at home.

EdBruce

Oct 5th, 2005, 9:29 am

This site will explain each state's laws on carrying a handgun

www.packing.org (http://www.packing.org)

Cheers

Bayliner2052

Oct 5th, 2005, 10:15 am

First of all no one should be carrying a handgun without the proper training and permitting. If you possessed that training and permitting, you would not be asking this question.

That aside, concealed weapon permits (CWP) are governed by individual state laws. These laws vary from State to State. Some States honor other States CWPs (reciprocity), some don't. In some States you do not need a permit under certain circumstances, in others you can't get a permit.

In general you should not have a weapon on you or the bike without a CWP. If you obtain a CWP, obtain knowledge about the laws, and stay proficient.

I have CWPs from quite a few States, and with reciprocity I am covered in around 27 of them. Don't go into Canada or Mexico, Federal buildings, or courthouses, police stations or airports with your weapon.

PS: Individuals in possession of an operable firearm in a national park are subject to arrest.

jpalamaro

Oct 5th, 2005, 11:33 am

The argument goes round and round, yet no one denies that taking a handgun on the open road may be a good friend "IF" the time comes.
On my summer trip, my riding friend insisted that I consider taking my 38 special. I did and on some occassions saw applications particularly in back roads where my little friend might come in handy.

Some questions to you "seasoned riders"...

Do you carry a piece when on a trip?
What are the laws when going from state to state?
Do you openly declare it when stopped by or assisted in and emergency by law authorities?
How about travelling when you cross the borders to other countries (i.e. US to Canada)?
I don't mean to be solicitous or insulting but your questions are somewhat naive and can't exactly be answered with any identication showing. Handgun laws vary so much from state to state (not to mention Canada's arcane requirements for transporting any weapon) that I would recommend joining organizations such as NRA, GOA (Gun Owners of America), among many others.

Once again, did not mean to be insulting, but those who are gun afficianados should understand my position. Some of the replys were excellent by the way! Perhaps, and again not to be insulting, if you have to ask these questions you are in no position to be carrying a weapon on/in your vehicle. Good luck!

Macker

Oct 5th, 2005, 12:18 pm

The LT has the benefit of a top case. (Locking trunk)
I could be wrong in regard to federal law but does this not allow for legal transport of a properly stowed, unloaded firearm nationally?

Bayliner2052

Oct 5th, 2005, 12:43 pm

Notwithstanding any state or local law, a person shall be entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he may lawfully possess it to any other place where he may lawfully possess such firearm if the firearm is unloaded and in the trunk. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm shall be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. This pertains to passage of persons with firearms in interstate travel, meaning that you are passing through (not stopping or staying) a state where you do not have legal standing to posses said firearm.

As soon as any firearm (handgun, rifle, or shotgun) is carried on or about the person, or placed where it is readily accessible in a vehicle, state and local firearms laws regarding carrying apply.
Once you reach your destination, state, and/or municipal law will control the ownership, possession, and transportation of your firearms.

jpalamaro

Oct 5th, 2005, 12:59 pm

We could thank Ronald Reagan for that law, BTW. Prior to that you could have been incarcerated, e.g. in Massachusetts for even bringing a handgun into that state. However, locals tend to put spin on the law and in many instances the law is really what the local constabulary want it to be. You get incarcerated and then it's sorted out later. For example, having a CCP/CWP here in FL and there are reciprocal states, I was talking with a LEO acquaintance and was surprised at his lack of knowledge of the state laws and some of its finer points. The attitude is "If I perceive it a problem we take 'em in, sort it out later." Also, as you know the laws are Draconian. Other examples are, FL and MI have concealed carry recipocity. MI and NY have reciprocity. But, FL and NY do not. Believe it was the 'distributive law of mathematics' Things equal to the same thing . . . etc.

So, a guod rule of thumb is use good judgment, hope you never have to declare, low profile it, and decide the level of risk you are willing to incur. Much like our decision to ride a motorcycle.

Sorry for the epistle!

KBandit

Oct 5th, 2005, 1:18 pm

The argument goes round and round, yet no one denies that taking a handgun on the open road may be a good friend "IF" the time comes.

please don't put words in my mouth, and i shall return the favor.

i do not carry handguns. i do not like it when others have them. i don't consider one "my friend." and i will vote against them every time.

thx for the opportunity to clear up this point. for me, it is an important one.

BillyOmaha

Oct 5th, 2005, 1:23 pm

I have heard that carrying a gun loaded will cause more problems than an unloaded gun.

What the hell good is an unloaded gun? :confused: Draw one and it's likely you'd have REAL problems. :eek:

I know what you meant, just couldn't resist.;)

.

Macker

Oct 5th, 2005, 1:24 pm

And this is where people can get into trouble and need to know the laws. For instance...If you were traveling to CCR this year, you would still be OK after arriving in Wyoming, because it is lawfull to carry a firearm in your vehicle in that state assuming that it is unloaded and in the trunk, or unloaded and locked up in the passenger compartment. (Hence, the number of hunting rifles we see out this way locked in a gun rack in the cabs of pick-me-up trucks) However, even though not all states a person choosing as a destination allow for carry in a vehicle at all, the one thing a traveler does have going for him is that, while traveling, even though you may be staying in your destination state for a period of time..you are, technically still transitory as your true intent and final destination is a round trip. This interpretation is, of course at the discretion of the Law enforcement officer and ultimately the court but most L.E. officers are O.K. in these situations.

BillyOmaha

Oct 5th, 2005, 1:32 pm

i do not carry handguns. i do not like it when others have them.

Then you'd better stay out of Florida. It's pretty much a law that "everyone has to pack heat". ;)

Seriously, just about anyone in Florida, with a few exceptions, can get a CWP in and since that's been the case, their crime rate has been dropping like a stone.

Here in California you've got less than "a snowball's chance in hell" of getting a CWP in a metropolitan area.

.

KBandit

Oct 5th, 2005, 1:37 pm

Here in California you've got less than "a snowball's chance in hell" of getting a CWP in a metropolitan area.

and that's JUST how i like it! LOL.

i know all about guns and the south. i was raised around guns deep in the bayou country of louisiana.

BTW ... not to hijack a thread or anything ... but what's the deal with florida cops? my son had a run-in with a couple of dirty-harry wanna-bes down there that he'll never forget. and he was doing NOTHING wrong.

Bayliner2052

Oct 5th, 2005, 1:48 pm

In the small town of Gueda Springs, Kansas, the city council has passed an ordinance that with few exceptions, requires homeowners to keep guns (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8584-2003Nov23.html). Failure to comply results in a $10 fine. Kennesaw, Georgia passed a similar law 21 years ago--and it's still in force.

Here in Oregon they have to issue a CWP to everyone who requests one, unless they do not qualify: felon, mental illness, ect. And it is legal, except in some cities to wear a side arm (as long as it is not concealed) with no permit.

BillyOmaha

Oct 5th, 2005, 1:54 pm

and that's JUST how i like it! LOL.

BTW ... not to hijack a thread or anything ... but what's the deal with florida cops? my son had a run-in with a couple of dirty-harry wanna-bes down there that he'll never forget. and he was doing NOTHING wrong.

Don't know about Florida cops. There's always a few "bad apples" and maybe your son ran into one. :(

In re California and the CWP stance. I'm of two minds about actually carrying one, but absolutely positive about the "right" to carry one.

I was on a family (wife and two young kids) road trip and chose the "road less travelled", a dirt road in the middle of nowhere in the dessert. In a car there were four, pardon the political incorrectness, low life scum bags, and they blocked our path. They mused out loud that our tires might fit the car they'd left behind.

On that particular trip the hangun was between the seats and my hand was resting on it, hidden from view. Fortunately for all concerned they decided that the tires wouldn't fit and moved on. The wife (now ex) is a very liberal, anti-gun type, but she said afterword that she was very happy that I'd made the choice to bring it.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I will also defend your right not to carry. ;)

.

DaveDragon

Oct 5th, 2005, 2:02 pm

Then you'd better stay out of Florida. It's pretty much a law that "everyone has to pack heat". ;)

Seriously, just about anyone in Florida, with a few exceptions, can get a CWP in and since that's been the case, their crime rate has been dropping like a stone.

Here in California you've got less than "a snowball's chance in hell" of getting a CWP in a metropolitan area.
.

Not as easy as you may think to get a CWP in Florida.
Requires a firearms safety class,
Properly executed CWP paperwork,
Properly executed FBI Finger Print Card,
Shoot for demonstration purposes in the presence of a LEO that signs off on you,
$129.00 fee to the Sec of State,
Minimum 90 days for National Agency Check.
Send it all to the Sec of State and wait!

Not that it's hard to get, it's just a PITA!

Macker

Oct 5th, 2005, 2:19 pm

I can respect some peoples dislike for "guns" and they certainly shouldn't be fined for not wanting one in thier home. Unfotunately, too many anti-gun people can't respect the choice of law abbiding citizens to own one.
I, myself never had much desire or intent to ever own a firearm until a very specific circumstance in my life. It really is too bad that circumstances such as mine have to occur but the reality of the situation is the truth and the fantasy, or ideal situation that we would all like to live just isn't possible. Criminals, dictators, genocidal maniacs and plain old bad people will always exist. As long as there is man, there will be a capacity for men to devise ways of destruction and murder. A dislike of guns for thier primary function is natural and should be respected but a certain amount of respect could be given to those good people accepting the responsibility of keeping the balance, Which is realy what it's all about.
Uh Oh...It's gone "there" again hasn't it? :)

BillyOmaha

Oct 5th, 2005, 2:25 pm

Not as easy as you may think to get a CWP in Florida.
Requires a firearms safety class,
Properly executed CWP paperwork,
Properly executed FBI Finger Print Card,
Shoot for demonstration purposes in the presence of a LEO that signs off on you,
$129.00 fee to the Sec of State,
Minimum 90 days for National Agency Check.
Send it all to the Sec of State and wait!

Not that it's hard to get, it's just a PITA!

Correct me if I'm wrong on this Dave. In Florida you cannot be denied a CWP unless you are a convicted Felon, or have some mental defect, right?

Here in California, wanting a CPW would be considered a mental defect, hence no CPW ;)

.

.

DaveDragon

Oct 5th, 2005, 2:33 pm

It's a little tighter than that here.
Here are a few of the reasons a present CWP holder can be revoked:

(10) A license issued under this section shall be suspended or revoked
pursuant to chapter 120 if the licensee:
(a) Becomes ineligible under the criteria set forth in subsection (2);
(b) Develops or sustains a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling
of a weapon or firearm;
(c) Is convicted of a felony which would make the licensee ineligible to
possess a firearm pursuant to s. 790.23;
(d) Is found guilty of a crime under the provisions of chapter 893, or similar
laws of any other state, relating to controlled substances;
(e) Is committed as a substance abuser under chapter 397, or is deemed a
habitual offender under s. 856.011(3);
(f) Is convicted of a second violation of s. 316.193, or a similar law of
another state, within 3 years of a previous conviction of such section, or
similar law of another state, even though the first violation may have occurred
prior to the date on which the application was submitted;
(g) Is adjudicated an incapacitated person under s. 744.331; or
(h) Is committed to a mental institution under chapter 394

The initial National Agency Check and FBI Finger Print Check should turn up any of the above listed items and can therefore be grounds to be refused a CWP.

Reference: http://www.mtssa.org/flcwplaw.htm

SilverBuffalo

Oct 5th, 2005, 3:00 pm

Gun threads always get hijacked into a pro or con argument.
I never owned a gun or wanted one until I saw the LA riots on television with the cops running the other way. The facts of life are the police cannot always protect you. Motorcycle riders in general are more vulnerable than automobiles, (we cannot lock our doors etc.)
My preference to travel the backroads with a beautiful woman (my wife) makes me cautious, no I don't want to shoot anyone ...... ever or face the consequences for such action, but there are worse things.
Like not being able to protect my wife.
There is a lot of responsibilty that goes with gun ownership.
I have never had to fire mine but there have been occasions that I had it in my hand and was very happy to have it there.

If you don't like guns don't own one, personally I refuse to be a victim.

jpalamaro

Oct 5th, 2005, 3:15 pm

I like your style of debating.

meese

Oct 5th, 2005, 3:18 pm

Do you carry a piece when on a trip?
What are the laws when going from state to state?
Do you openly declare it when stopped by or assisted in and emergency by law authorities?
How about travelling when you cross the borders to other countries (i.e. US to Canada)?

Nope.
Doesn't matter to me.
Doesn't apply to me.
Doesn't apply to me, but I hear it's bad to even try.

I know that some have said they were glad to have their guns on them in particular circumstances, but unless you actually pulled it and scared them away, or actually pulled the trigger, then the gun really didn't figure into the situation, except maybe as some piece of mind.

As for having a locked, unloaded gun in the vehicle, would you really be able to get to it and get it loaded in time to do any good? If not, then it might as well be at home, and if so, then I have to think you're not following the letter of the law.

I agree that some of the anti-gun people can go a bit over the top, but then again so can the pro-gun folks. There are fanatics everywhere, but not all of them are armed.

BillyOmaha

Oct 5th, 2005, 3:36 pm

but unless you actually pulled it and scared them away, or actually pulled the trigger, then the gun really didn't figure into the situation, except maybe as some piece of mind.

Ken, I know you're the "Voice of Reason" and all ;) , but I think your logic is a bit flawed on the above.

If substantiating a choice, any choice, is based on the results achieved in that instant, then a lot of people would be making terrible decisions.

I'll paraphrase you to make my point; unless you actually have been in a motorcycle accident, then your helmet didn't really figure into the situation, except maybe as some peace of mind. I know you're not advocating going without a helmet.

.

hoodoodrum

Oct 5th, 2005, 4:31 pm

All excellent answers and good information to have. I'm not really "naive" to the CCW laws as I live with a law enforcement officer. She has schooled me on the local laws, but I was not aware of the intra/interstate laws on transporting guns. Hey, if we all lived in Mr. Roger's neighborhood, I wouldn't even consider owning a handgun or feeling a need to have some protection away from the compound. Unfortunately, we live in the 21st Century version of the Wild West where you need to "expect the unexpected".

So........ when you do make the wrong turn 200 miles out in Bun Junk Egypt and the Loco's have decided you look like fair game, what do you do to protect thy self? We don't exactly look like "Hell's Angels" on beemers!!!

jpalamaro

Oct 5th, 2005, 5:31 pm

While not meant to be a treatise on gun ownership, the thought of a potentially armed citizen has a certain deterrent factor. CCW/CCP states have actually seen a decline in crime as compared to a non-armed citizenry. A good example would be the arcane Sullivan laws in NYC. The only way a criminal could be in trouble (by a legally owned handgun, since they are very few indeed), would be that the criminal was so unlucky as to try to rob a LEO's home!

The motorcycle is a special case, and IMO the BMW may personify the bling bling cyclist especially since most of us look like Power Rangers (stolen from someone) as opposed to the quasi-macho image of our HD brethren.

I can only recount a story where I was very glad I was armed. Riding my cycle (2-wheel) on a somewhat deserted stretch of road where I was followed by a pickup truck filled with a bunch of uhhhh, young stallions. They trailed me at my pokey 15-20 mph for about 3 miles, about 100 yds behind me. I was scared. But, had my Colt 1911, M70 stowed in my fanny pack. Nothing happened, but was glad I was 'packing'. Once again, a matter of choice!

Thank goodness we have the likes of the NRA, GOA, etc. fighting the hard fight lest we go the route of Great Britain, where there are no choices, according to what I read.

meese

Oct 5th, 2005, 5:36 pm

Well put, Bill. I may reply that the helmet does affect my ride in terms of increased comfort and reduced noise whether or not it happens to hit the ground on that particular ride, but that's a minor point.

However helmets and accidents are a more personal decision, unless someone actually aims at you specifically because you're not wearing one. It's my head, and my consequences.

Pulling a gun affects the entire situation, as it is designed to intimidate someone, or at least change the balance of the situation. Unless you happen to be pulling it out when there's no one else around, which is an entirely different situation.

So in the circumstances that we're talking about, that is reacting to a threatening situation involving unknown others, the gun will either play a major role in how the situation unfolds, or if it remains hidden then it might as well not be there.

In the situation you described, the gun didn't affect their decision to move on and let you alone simply because they didn't know it existed. Had the situation escalated, then I imagine you would have been very happy to have it available, though it sounds like even then you would've used no more force than you thought necessary to protect your family.

Again, there may have been some uncertainty from the others as to whether you might be carrying or not, which may have affected their decision somewhat, but that's also a minor point in the overall situation.

Either way, it's still a personal choice to carry (assuming you follow the relevant laws). I've never seen the need to, though obviously others have.

KBandit

Oct 5th, 2005, 5:36 pm

So........ when you do make the wrong turn 200 miles out in Bun Junk Egypt and the Loco's have decided you look like fair game, what do you do to protect thy self?

i'd prolly run like hell.

i guess if i were more of a macho man i'd pull out my hawg leg and wave it at 'em. my problem is i'm more rational than macho and one pesky fact keeps popping up in my pea brain: i'm about a million times more likely to shoot myself, get myself shot, or shoot someone who doesn't really deserve it than i am to effectively defend myself against some bad guy. ask any veteran cop and i think you'll find their experience bears this out.

ask that veteran cop how many killings they've seen out of stupidity or passion. then ask them how many they've seen out of self defense. go ahead ... i'll wait.

i guess i've lived a sheltered life, but i've never, ever found myself wishing for a gun so that i can shoot someone.

maybe you are different from me. maybe you are cool as a cuccumber, and could calmly draw a weapon and shoot a bad guy who wants your wheel. if so ... good for you, brother.

truth be told i'd much rather give a guy my wheel than i would to kill him or her. but maybe that's just me.

the constitution is on your side. but i personally think an ammendment is long overdue.

oh, and by the way ... i don't think it's "bun junk."

jpalamaro

Oct 5th, 2005, 5:41 pm

Florida laws as I best interpret them do not permit one to 'leverage' a situation with the appearance of a gun. Brandishing a weapon is not only illegal but carries a mandatory jail sentence. And while I hope to never encounter this situation, it better be life-threatening and the decision to use it is made well before showing the weapon.

Macker

Oct 5th, 2005, 6:39 pm

Just so Happens, we recently hired a retired Sheriff's deputy (Capt.)
I just returned from his office and I asked him the question you posed. He said that he actually saw very many justifiable shootings in self defense. Granted the amount of murder/homicides comitted with firearms outnumber the justifieable shootings, which kinda proves your point....but he also said that the number of deaths by accidental or "cime of passion" shootings was far less than those of self defense.
So, there are quite a few instances of law abiding citizens who have protected the lives of either themselves or a family member through legal, responsible action with a firearm. You just don't hear of those situations as often. I guess, considering this, one could argue that if more law abiding citizens owned firearms, the gap between justifiable shootings and murders might be a little more narrow.

jpalamaro

Oct 5th, 2005, 6:44 pm

[i guess i've lived a sheltered life, but i've never, ever found myself wishing for a gun so that i can shoot someone.]

Nowhere in this thread have I seen anyone state what you have stated. Not meaning to be hard on you but I suspect that those of us that elect to have the choice don't go wishing for a gun to shoot someone. Where is the world do you read that? In fact I desperately hope that I never have the occasion to even think about using it to shoot someone! And what makes you think criminals and crazy will abide by any constitutional amendment and/or the prolific laws we already have in place.

early1

Oct 5th, 2005, 9:04 pm

"The argument goes round and round, yet no one denies that taking a handgun on the open road may be a good friend "IF" the time comes."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Far better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts (after reviewing the thread):
1.) Carrying a firearm:
All things in life are judgement calls.
Translation: You and only you can determine if having a weapon at intimate disposal is "worth" the risk of running afoul of laws, customs,opinions etc.
It is YOUR job to know the law of the jurisdiction in which you find yourself.
Do not expect consideration nor forgiveness.
No individual (nor government of truly free men) has the right to demand that I relenquish my ability to protect myself, my family or another person in danger.
(12/6)

2.)Use of weapon as a threat suppression device:
When I was trained (late 70's) we were NEVER to "produce" (brandish if you prefer for intimidation .) Use of the weapon was strictly for reaction to "direct threat" or in support of other personnel.
(This has changed in many departments that now instruct the use of "authoritative display of force" as a tool to be used in many situations.)
Man has over the course of history used both bravado and stealthy surprise with great results on different occasions, just choose as wisely as possible in your situation.

3.) Production and use:
I hope you are mentally prepared for the outcome.(either way)
Equally important--I hope you have actually trained for this occurence. ( I promise you milling it over in your mind is not enough.)
I don't only mean by this your willingness to use the tool , I also mean your willingness to deal with yourself and the ramifications of the action.
(See the 12/6 rule.)

4.)Aftermath:
Some of us are still here as a direct result of having made "the hardest decision".
That having been said, I am truly joyful for the vast majority for whom this statement is not true.
I believe most hope to see that majority continue and live peacefully and as worry free as possible.

Thank you to those who continue to serve.

meese

Oct 5th, 2005, 11:10 pm

Fairly well put, Ed, may I even say reasonable?

As for the other comment, I never expected anyone to brandish a gun and just hope the threat goes away. My firearms training made it absolutely clear that if you pull it, you had better be prepared to follow through. If the others see the gun and decide to back off, then that's their choice, not yours.

I'm also glad that most of us have never had to face that decision directly, or live with the inevitable consequences either way.

k12steve

Oct 6th, 2005, 7:48 am

Most veteran cops I know (including my next door neighbor), that are not in "leadership" positions, support CHL laws. Disprove THAT! Go ahead, I'll wait.

In Texas, CHL holders are FAR less involved statistically in crime OF ANY SORT than non-chl holders. I'll wager that is true in EVERY state with "carry laws". Check it out...go ahead, I'll wait.

The fact that you equate being a licensed CHL holder with being "macho" and "waiving hoglegs" around makes me glad that you don't "like" guns and therefore don't carry one.

Licensed carry STARTS and ENDS with responsibility. The CHL training class has almost nothing to do with the hardware, but rather spends the bulk of the time discussing the LAW, how its interpreted, how its applied, why you NEVER "brandish", why you need to be in a DIRE situation before pulling/using a handgun and how miserable the "anti's" will make your life if you've had to make that most grave of decisions.

I've PROVEN that I'm a law abiding citizen with NO felony convictions (also no certain classes of misdemeaner convictions), NO overdue taxes, NO pending trials, NO overdue child support and that I'm not on probation for any similar circumstances from other states. I've undergone an extensive background check and FBI fingerprint check.

How much do you "think" you know about those around you who don't "carry"?

DaveDragon

Oct 6th, 2005, 8:53 am

Very well put Steve.

nearmisses

Oct 6th, 2005, 9:33 am

Exceptions are Mass. and NY

SilverBuffalo

Oct 6th, 2005, 11:28 am

As I said earlier any gun related threads are always hijacked into a pro or con debate.
I hear a forum member who doesn't like guns say: I'd prolly run like hell,
I'm with you there, I would also avoid confrontation if I had the chance although it would hurt my pride, I can live with that.
Then I hear: I'd gladly give them my wheel,
I'm with you there also, take my wallet, Farkles, etc.
What about your wife or maybe teenage daughter?
I know where my line in the sand is drawn,
And please ..... this is not personal, but
where is yours?

KayGee

Oct 6th, 2005, 11:31 am

September 13, 2005 Headline from Atlanta Journal Constitution:

"An apparent carjacking victim was killed Monday morning in north Cobb County when her sport utility vehicle was broadsided by a cement truck. The suspected carjacker was then fatally shot by a bystander when he tried to run from the wreck scene.

That man, Shawn T. Roberts, has emerged as a hero for trying to help 30-year-old Kimberly Boyd and for saving other lives that police say might have been taken had the carjacker escaped.

"Scores of people were coming up to him and thanking him for what he did," said Scott Cannon, a friend of the Boyds who attended Kimberly's funeral Friday
"

KBandit

Oct 6th, 2005, 3:05 pm

And please ..... this is not personal, but
where is yours?

i think my line is pretty much the same as yours. when it comes to my family i will fight to the death. material possessions are just that ... material. take 'em.

the difference is i'm willing to take the risk of not carrying a gun. in fact i am adament about it.

by the way, here are some other items i don't routinely carry:

- anti-venom against the bite of a gabon viper
- a bazooka
- a bayonnet
- a fire extinguisher
- 1 pint of normal saline, with infusion kit
- a non-u.s. passport

each of these things could conceivably save my life or the life of a loved one. i choose not to carry them because i don't believe i will need them. i have lived 47 years without them, and their absence scares me a hell of a lot less than becoming a hood ornament for a lincoln.

ditto a handgun.

plus the handgun brings with it the added burden that it could actually do serious harm, either to an innocent or in a court of law.

that's my story and i'm stickin' to it.

KBandit

Oct 6th, 2005, 3:09 pm

BillyOmaha

Oct 6th, 2005, 3:27 pm

From today's San Francisco Chronicle ...

A 22-year-old Hayward man didn't mean to kill a close female friend near UC Berkeley, but instead tried to fire warning shots above the heads of several Cal football players who had been "trash talking" with the victim, the accused shooter's attorney said Wednesday.

"In his own mind he thought he was shooting over (the players') heads to scare them and to get them to stop doing what they were doing," attorney John Burris said of his client, Christopher Hollis. "It is not murder."

First: If the facts, including state of mind, are true, then, regardless, our Mr. Hollis is going to prison and for quite awhile. No, it's not murder, it would be Manslaughter in the First Degree on the basis of Reckless Disregard for Human Life resulting in death.

I don't "carry" very often because the responsibility and consequences are so severe. In that regard, severity of consequences, I think we are in agreement.

But I don't think that this anectodotal example for the argument makes the case for outlawing all handguns. I would assert that in Florida, where the likelyhood of an "equalizer" being the possession of one or more of the participants actually raises the level of civility among the public when compared to Berkley, CA..... but I admit that's merely conjecture.

.

KBandit

Oct 6th, 2005, 3:42 pm

But I don't think that this anectodotal example for the argument makes the case for outlawing all handguns.

i was responding to another poster's "anecdotal example." it is silly to argue one case should be the root of handgun reform (or its absence).

but it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that examples of stupidity, carelessness, and passion with guns FAR outweigh those of self-defense. hell, even i know that.

BillyOmaha

Oct 6th, 2005, 3:51 pm

i was responding to another poster's "anecdotal example." it is silly to argue one case should be the root of handgun reform (or its absence).

but it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that examples of stupidity, carelessness, and passion with guns FAR outweigh those of self-defense. hell, even i know that.

On a more important and relevant note, are you, and others that are following threads, as frustrated as I am about the lack of the "in reply to" tag that would accompany the post. I like reading the posts in "linear" mode, but in order to know to whom someone is responding to I have to go to "threaded" mode and check it.

Now, back to our argument. I agree that in a utopian world it would be great if all handguns could magically eliminated. Then we would have to kill each other with clubs and such :rolleyes:

.