Guns R Us says they do, and that a Texas law prohibiting persons under 21 from carrying loaded guns in public is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, at least with respect to 18 to 20 year olds.

          In this case, D’Cruz v. McCraw, the 18 year old plaintiff says he needs to carry a semi –automatic when he goes shopping in certain areas of town. I believe him.  [My translation – the kid is buying drugs but doesn’t want to go into the hood unarmed.]

      For those of you like Mein who slept through the recent McDonald decision, the Supreme Court in June ruled that the Second Amendment – which previously was believed to apply only to federal gun control laws - does apply to the states. Hence  state gun control statutes are going to be picked off one by one by the NRA, unless someone besides myself acquires some Second Amendment common sense.

     So the learned Board has previously expressed its opinion that open or concealed public carry is a good idea and that it is my problem to dodge the cross-fire at Starbucks. John even equates the low murder rate in New Hampshire to its liberal carry laws ( as opposed to my theory which is that there's no one worth killing in N.H.)

     You guys still okay with this if even teenagers can be armed? Why stop at 18? Sixteen year olds should have the same rights, shouldn’t they? How low can we go? Maybe puberty should be the cut-off point.



-- Modified on 12/1/2010 5:26:02 PM

...do you know how to shoot a firearm?

It's not a big deal if it's no. Hey, it used to be no for me too until a few years ago.

If you know how to use a firearm, the question changes significantly in your mind.

Should a 16 year old be legally able to use a knife? Why isn't that a question? You can misuse a knife just like you can misuse a gun. It's rather assumed that since every adult knows how to use a knife, it's not a threat for a 16 year old to use one. But you wouldn't let a 12 year old run around the house with one.

You can very easily injure or kill somebody with an automobile, and yet 16 year olds are permitted to have driver's licenses. And yet, they're still taught that you have to be responsible enough to drive in order to get that license.  

So why should firearms any different?

Actually I have owned firearms since elementary school. I was entrusted with my first handgun at eleven, and have kept a firearm for self protection ever since.

I think the proper use of firearms should be taught at as young an age as possible, a child that has been taught respect for firearms at a young age is much less likely to consider guns "toys" and treat without the respect that a potentally deadly weapon deserves.

Our Man Flint - More than just a James Bond type; He was a neurosurgeon, nuclear physicist, star of the Russian ballet (eat your heart out dncphil) fluent in dozens of languages (including dolphin), designed his own 81 function multi-tool weapon, could slow his heart rate to near zero, and on and on.

You and Derek Flint gotta be twins.

experience be relevant to this policy question?

     The knife analogy is easy to displace. The danger from public carry, whether by adults or teenagers, is the injury to innocent third parties from flying bullets. You do no have that risk from knife use.

     The automobile analogy is a little better but falters bc cars have a very high degree of social utility and are used for purposes other than to cause injury. Tenagers have a reasonable need to use cars; they have no need to carry semi automatics in public. Further, teenagers get in fights far more often than adults and the concern is they are more likely to respond by using guns than adults.

     So firearms are indeed quite different in terms of the danger posed to third parties and the lack f any social utility for open carry.

Statistically, most of the time when an altercation happens where one needs to defend their life, it happens in close quarters, and often in public areas where other people are present. Defending yourself with a knife in these situations might be better than using a firearm. But regardless, 3rd parties can, and do get injured.

But if you had experience with firearms, you would know that an essential part of firearms training is to know what you're shooting at, but to also know what lies beyond your target.

It's for this reason, that most people wouldn't suggest you defend your home with an AR-15 semi auto tactical rifle. The nature of the calliber is such that it could easily go through walls inside the home and injure people in other rooms.

The point being that the people who use firearms know what they are, and how to use them. If you didn't know how to drive a car yourself, you'd likely think that it's not a good idea to let a teen drive one.  

Teenagers, just like anyone, often do need to defend themselves. They get into fights often like you just said. That alone is evidence that they are in need of self defense.

It really doesn't matter if a firearm is single action, semi-auto, or fully auto. Quite frankly, full auto is a waste of ammo. But I'd much rather have a tool like a semi-auto that is very efficient in keeping me alive, then to fiddle around with a gun that requires a zillion hoops for me to jump just to shoot it when I'm in the fight or flight response and have lost all of my fine motor skills.

I don't think open carry is a good idea in a lot of situations, but it can be used with the social utility of discouraging violence.

-- Modified on 12/1/2010 8:10:03 PM

I can't find a single point on which to disagree with you on.

I will concede that there is a certain amount of maturity required where it comes to anything regarding deadly force, but I have personally owned at least one handgun for personal protection since the age of eleven without incident, and any ideas I might have entertained about treating ANY firearm as a toy would have been beaten out of me in short order by my father.

I doubt that anyone could disagree that a youngster who had never been exposed to firearms would be much, much more likely to consider a real gun a toy and not treat it with the respect that any tool capable of fatal injury deserves.

nationwide fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries ( 200,000 non-fatal gun shot injuries each year and fatal injuries between 650 and 1100). But these were the statistics  BEFORE the Second Amendment cases when we had very strict gun control laws.

    So remove these restrictions nationwide and permit open and concealed carry and it is only logical to expect these injuries to soar.

     Now admittedly these statistics do not break out who was injured or killed. Some of these numbers were bad guys; some the shooter himself. So i can't say how many were innocent third parties. But we do not have open carry in most if not all large urban centers and that is where the statistics would skyrocket as opposed to bucolic New Hampshire.

     But no one has made the case as to why teenagers need to be armed when they go shopping. And I can't believe any of you guys would be so foolish as to even try.

guns to defend themselves in fights?

"Teenagers, just like anyone, often do need to defend themselves. They get into fights often like you just said. That alone is evidence that they are in need of self defense."

     I got in plenty of fights in my day and sometimes got whupped. I still get in pushing fights when I play BB.  But if I or my opponent had ever once used a gun, it would have been a tragedy.

    And your notion the gun users are trained and this training would avoid the injuries/death I fear ignores reality. First, the training is minimal as even John admits. Second, we are all pretty well trained in driving cars yet we still have 17,000 alcohol related injuries per year and tens of thousand more from negligent driving.

      Yes in rare cases you can pull a gun on the subway and discourage those punks from robing you. But for more likely you will either shot an innocent passenger or relive the Bernard Getz trajedy.

I got into a few fights myself as a child, and even as a young adult. If you haven't noticed I have a bad habit of running my mouth, and often I'd have to back this up. I was lucky in that I was a fairly tall and fit (at least back then), and I could handle myself when needed to. But of course, the worse that could have happened was a few bruises and a missing tooth.

That's not the case with a large number of teens, especially those who live in shady neighborhoods. When a few people are ready to kick your skull in, you better be able to afford armed guards, or protect yourself.

Not all teens are responsible enough for this. I'd wager the majority aren't. But coddling a kid isn't going to teach him to be responsible.

Guns can be used all the time to prevent violence. When you're looking down a barrel you quickly lose the desire to fuck with someone. And that can be the difference between life and death.

This rarely happens with responsible gun owners though Mari. Another aspect of concealed carry training is to learn to spot trouble before it develops, and to avoid it if you possibly can.

I'll put it this way: If I was unarmed, I'd prefer responsible citizens around me being armed so they can protect me.  

Gun owners are not monolithic. Well, I suppose most of them are politically, but while the training required to get a concealed carry is minimal (thankfully) in many states, it doesn't mean that gun owners don't know what they're doing.

Some people just get a little training, buy a gun, stash it away, and forget about it. I consider that to be irresponsible, and I'm not aware of a single firearms training program that doesn't make that perfectly clear. If you don't practice with a firearm enough to develop "muscle memory" so that you can operate it without thinking about it, then you shouldn't own a firearm.

Guns can be used to discourage violence in ways you'd never expect. A friend of mine used to work as a delivery driver for a small business. A guy in a parking lot cut him off, and got out of his car to start some shit. He ran up to his van and started pounding on his window, and suddenly stopped and promptly walked away without saying a word. The guy had seen my friend's cigarette lighter, which looked very much like a real revolver. The only reason why he owned it was because he was a big Clint Eastwood fan.

The reality is that with a gun you have options that you wouldn't otherwise have. I think anyone should have a fighting chance. Like John said, the right to life means the right to defend your life.

Certainly people are injured from firearms all the time. I think Michael Moore made a very excellent point in Bowling for Columbine, that the media is very good at making people panic and fearful.

The number of people who carry concealed is tiny. I'd be surprised if it was 5%. If someone robs a burger joint, and shoots and kills somebody at the store, that likely would not have happened if the workers were armed. If more people carried, those numbers may very well go down.

People get robbed all the time while shopping. I just googled "robbery at Wal-Mart parking lot" and found plenty of hits. You're carrying goodies to the car, and fumbling with your keys, you might as well be a sitting duck to a would-be mugger or robber.

my father. It was a single shot, .22 caliber rifle, which he taught me to use, and to observe the greatest respect as to the potential of the weapon. I would carry it with me, on my bike, and shoot rabbits, and squirrels, which I took home for Mom to cook. Great learning experience for me. Second weapon was a .410 gauge shotgun. Same thing. Shooting rabbits and squirrels. Oh yeah, shot a Canada goose one year for Christmas dinner when we couldn't afford to buy a turkey. Still have both of them in my gun safe. This was in Texas, in the 1940's.

My father was a WWII vet, both he, and my grandfather, were immigrants from Switzerland. They knew much about the use of firearms. My grandfather's discharge papers from the Swiss Army, when he left there, had his rank as 'fuhrer', which means leader. Don't know how that corresponds to our rank structure. But I digress.

At age 18 I already had three college degrees, and then started my attendance at a service academy following my appointment.

During my first summer, I was given an M16 with which I qualified, a service pistol and a drill rifle.

When I was 19, along with other training, I was entrusted with guns with a range of 30 miles throwing 500lb projectiles. I also became qualified to run the engine room and dock a ship longer than a football field. I was shooting mounted 20mm machine guns.

Now, long before I was 18, I had witnessed considerable violence -- starting with a murder of my brother (via strangulation, btw) when I was 7, an attempted murder of myself, and three cases where my father had to do in hit men who had been sent to kill him and abduct me. (He didn't kill any of the three with a gun; though he carried one.) I was very well versed in martial arts and weaponry because these were necessary skills in my life.

I guarantee you that at 18 I was better trained, had better judgment and was more responsible than most people are at 40.

Look -- if they are old enough to be drafted and bleed, be tried as an adult for their crimes, be held accountable for their contracts, marry without their parent's consent, pay taxes, go to jail for cheating on their taxes, etc. they are old enough to carry a firearm for the defense of their life.

Obviously, I would exclude from this people convicted of violent felonies, etc.

As hard as it is to believe, some people at 18 have great judgment.

Now, if you are willing to exempt them from the draft, forgive them their debts, exempt all their earnings from taxes, try people who are 20 years old in juvenile court and stuff, that might be different. (*grin*)

I have bad news -- my capacity to master foreign languages is nil. I've also never taken ballet. But will ballroom dance lessons, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers serve? LOL

I think to some extent aspects of my biography prove a point. If a kid can witness traumatic violence, be drug all over creation with hardly any points of stability, be poorer than dirt and STILL achieve things -- then how much more can we expect of others who were impoverished?

The Swiss Model of gun ownership is very much what the founders (at least Jeffersona and Madison) had in mind.

The 2nd amendment isn't very well worded. It came from a lot of compromises. Madison envisioned a nation where every able bodied (in those days) male to be trained in arms. The idea was that if anyone tried to invade, the church bells would ring, and everyone would be at their front door with a loaded weapon, making invasion from a foreign power impossible.

But Madison and Jefferson did not want a standing army during times of peace, as they feared what Eisenhower warned us about: a military industrial complex.

State governments could have their own armies (or militias), but the feds shouldn't have one unless it needed to raise one during war time.

And thus the compromise of the 3rd Amendment.

However, Madison and Jefferson were both from Virginia, and their very clear and uncompromised view on the subject is codified into law in the Virginia state constitution.

It states:

Article 1, Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

-- Modified on 12/2/2010 3:35:04 AM

How many "innocent third parties" are killed every year due to:

1) LEGALLY licensed citizens carrying a pistol
2) Government Law Enforcement agents carrying a pistol

You may be concerned about a very hypothetical thing with minimal real-world effect.

When you nail it, you nail it -- and this time you nailed it.

Here's another thought. The right of self defense is inherent in the right to life.

There are already countless millions of weapons in this country, the guns owned by criminals are the ones I would be worried about, not those in the hands of law abiding citizens.

Draconian gun control laws have already proven to be ineffective, short of destroying every firearm ever made, you are never going to eliminate firearms. Consequently if firearms are going to be one of those realities of life, doesn't it make sense for law abiding citizens to have the same ability to protect themselves as the criminal have to commit crimes?

and I can attest after having had lived in Kennesaw for over a decade, it has a rather low crime rate. I am not claiming "cause and effect" just stating facts.

The city fathers there banned all home kept firearms many years ago. Gun controllers were orgasmic over that new law. Kennesaw passed their local ordnance in retaliation to that ban. I remember it well, and the uproar it caused among gun control advocates.

It wasn't until I received one of my many mailing I get from the NRA, (yes I am a member) that had a map highlighting Kennesaw that I was made aware of it. I originally thought that the marketing genius' at the NRA were doing that for everyone's home town, which I thought might have been a bit cost prohibitive, until I read the article inside.

I was glad to hear that I was already complying with the law. lol Kennesaw would have to rank right at the top of Atlanta's safest suburbs, but there is a certain peace of mind that comes with not having to rely on a quick police response (yeah, in your fucking dreams) if ever the need were to occur.

might be armed actually deters crime? And that the deterrent effect is so powerful that crime statistics "plummet" immediately?

     Mein, I can see you spent too long at the Priapus Pines Adult Campground (clothing optional for men) for you have returned without your reasoning ability as well as your clothes.

     Let's look at the flaws in your cause and effect reasoning. So crime statistics dropped immediately? Um, the hookers stopped soliciting; the addicts stopped buying; the white collar criminals stopped commenting securities fraud bc the citizenry was armed? Obviously, the only crimes likely to be deterred by arming the citizenry would burglary and assault type crimes. So you would have to break out that statistic -not the overall crime rate - to prove that the new ordinance really had any deterrent affect on crime.

        Second, the notion that arming citizens would deter even burglary and assault presumes that criminals would shy away from places where they could expect armed resistance. But by far most burglaries are committed when no one is at home. Most assaults are by persons who know each other and occur in the heat of the moment. If you are about to shoot your girlfriend bc ypu've discovered she cheated, you are unlikely to be deterred bc she has a gun somewhere in the house.

     Finally, most experts agree that even the death penalty does not deter crime in any meaningful fashion. So the notion that arming the senior citizens of a community might actually deter professional burglars is laughable.

    Back to the Priapus Pines Adult Campground (clothing optional for men) for you!

mein, I stand corrected. Got my Groves mixed up. Lol.

is heading to the playground to play baseball, you are going to tell him "don't forget to take your Walther PPK semi-automatic with you"?

    You are comfortable doing that bc your son can use that gun to discourage violence "in ways you never expect" and he has been well-trained and is responsible.

     Are you going to let him drive your brand new Porsche as well?
I didn't think so.

...maybe I'll let him play with something cheaper like a Kel Tec PF9.

I wouldn't know what I would say since I don't have kids. It depends on how responsible said kid was, and what kind of neighborhood the playground was in. I suppose if I thought he needed a firearm to safely play at a playground, then I'd probably just tell him he couldn't go.  

and no, I didn't carry it with me to the playground, but it was always loaded like every other handgun in the house, and it was placed conveniently near my nightstand for easy access at night.

Ever since then, I have always had a firearm handy for personal protection, fortunately the instances where I have needed a gun for protection have been few and far between, but certainly not nonexistent. I dare say, I almost certainly would not be here today if I hadn't exercised my constitutional right to bear arms. and that trumps every other argument anyone can possibly ever offer as to why I should allow the government to disarm me. Disarm all the criminals first and then we'll talk about it.

Took an NRA course then, and been hurting ever since. What is important is the adult participation in forming the young person's attitude and understanding regarding firearms.

The reservation I have today, about younger people having firearms is the lack of adult participation in almost everything having to do with kids, whether it be the Scouts, school, sports, or education about most anything important, like sex, birth control, firearms, driving, alcohol, drugs, etc. So, it's not the kids I have anything against, but more their parents who often leave them parked in front of the TV or a video game. The guys that did Columbine come to mind.

Even though you and I have the same opinion on the issue (twice in one day), I refuse to change my mind just because you and I happen to agree. Either you are going to have to change your mind or we will be forced to agree. lmao

Let me ask a question.

Let's stipulate for the moment, true or not, that you support the right of a 21 year old person to carry a concealed pistol in a manner consistent with law.

Explain why a person of similar character who is 20 years, 364 days and 23 hours old shouldn't have that same right.

Does that one hour make his life any less valuable than the other?

Your statistics on injuries and accidents are actually quite extraordinary considering that over EIGHTY MILLION American households have firearms.

As for suddenly we had all these strict gun control laws loosened -- BS. Only SOME places had super strict gun laws.

I have had a license to carry in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. And because of various reciprocal agreements those licenses allowed me to carry concealed in anywhere from 18 to 30 states coast to coast. It has ALWAYS been legal to carry concealed or unconcealed without a license in VT; and it has ALWAYS been legal to carry unconcealed in NH.

Where were those tough gun laws that kept me from carrying a gun?

In my home state, these decisions don't make an iota of difference in terms of practical carry.

You make it sound like all of a sudden there is going to be blood in the streets when all along millions of Americans have been toting guns around.

Are these decisions qoing to imbue the inanimate hardware I carry with a demon that makes it more dangerous?

Guns in a sense are like prostitution. That is, some people, even if it were legal and cheap would never partake of prostitution. It just isn't their thing. Just because gun laws become more consistent with the intent of our founding fathers and the 14th Amendment (just like the 1st and 4th amendments) doesn't mean that you are suddenly going to get the urge to build an arsenal.

Most guys who carry guns -- you never know. We specifically select clothing, belts, and even underwear that makes it so we don't "print." You'll never know we're armed. You have likely run into dozens and dozens of armed people -- getting your gas, stopping by McDonald's, and even meeting you in your office. And you've never known. And they've never shot you either.

I just think you are more concerned about this than is warranted.

"Had a gun since age 10."

I'm glad you are still here,whether it be luck or good training. All ten year old children are not ready for firearms.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/13575038/7-year-old-boy-killed-in-hunting-accident

And while gun toting doesn't seem that ubiquitous, every head of household IS required to have a gun.

Because of that, guns are not at all fetishized or imbued with mystical powers. They are a simple fact of life and nobody thinks about it as at all unusual.

should we conclude that not all Vice Presidents of the United States are not ready for firearms as well?

What a dumbass comment and stupider link

There was a time in this country where it was much more common than not for a ten year old to have firearms experience. Parents used to get involved with teaching their children things like firearms safety.

No, he was not addressing the squirrel when he said that.  

Mein, we really need to find some new role models for you.

   Now I don't like aggressive panhandlers on the subway any more than you do, but do honest white guy citizens have the right to open fire when approached by black unarmed punks?

    Let's see, as to the not guilty verdict in the criminal trial, let's
remember some interesting tidbits

    1. H'mm the law - NY law on self defense was changed after this case to require the use of deadly force in self defense only if the defendant had an honest and reasonable belief that he was in danger; Bernie was tried on law permitting deadly force if the defendant had an honest belief in self defense;

      2. Ah yes, the jury-let's go to   to Bob Dylan for help on that one -"and the all white jury agreed" - as I recall, the Goetz jury was all white except for one or two Uncle Toms;

     3. The civil case brought by the boy whose spinal cord was severed - just like the venerable OJ Simpson who was found not guilty in his criminal trial but found liable in the civil trial, a jury awarded the wheelchair bound "thug" $43 million in damages.

       So, yes, indeed the Bernie Goetz encounter with those aggressive panhandlers was a tragedy for all involved, including Bernie himself who is doomed to live in poverty till he pays that $43 million judgment which is never, and I'm afraid he can't make up for his conduct by being nice to squirrels.

     And now I believe it's time for your nightly shock treatment at the Priapus Pines Adult Campground (clothing optional for men).

your son , or anyone you had trained given the persona you have developed in your posts.

      But surely you realize your training is unique even among the other very pro gun rights posters we have on the Board. There must be a reason why the great majority of state and local lawmakers have concluded that minors should not be permitted public carry rights. They are addressing the average minor and the below average minor in terms of maturity and responsibility.

      So you have to look at the question from the standpoint of the lowest common denominator, not the highest. And then you have to balance the risk posed by this group with their need to have a right of public carry. I can't comprehend any reason why minors should need this right. Willy's self defense rationale just does not work bc any responsible parent would keep their kid out of the environment where he legitimately needed a gun to protect himself.

GOOD adult supervision. What was that guy thinking in bringing a seven year old hunting? When an adult takes a kid hunting, he should be in total control, and that means supervising just one kid at a time.

Damn, you're sure giving them the benefit of the doubt. Four 17-18 year olds armed with screwdrivers can kill just as easily as Goetz could with his gun if they get in close to you. Absolutely no one described them as panhandlers. They were out to 'get paid', and nothing else. If that involved someones death, they were prepared to do that. You don't ride the NYC subways late at night much, do you? Got a good friend that was a NYC transit cop. His partner was killed by 3 punks with ice picks, and john was severely wounded. The "aggressive panhandlers" didn't fight fair....no surprise there. They were just out for an evening of fun, and to 'get paid'.

The first time I ever had a human's head in the crosshairs ... I was 13. I was hidden in some brush in an elevated position with a clear field of fire using a 7mm-08 that had been given to me by a federal DEA agent. Thank goodness I didn't have to pull the trigger that day; but I would have if necessary to preserve innocent life.

I happen to be the parent of a teen. My teen owns several firearms and has grown up around them and used them since age 6. Not an issue. The teen has excellent judgment. This judgment has been honed since an early age with playing "ethical decision games" of increasing complexity combined with progressive responsibility.

I don't own a porsche; but to answer the gist of your question -- IF my teen had been driving since age 6 and had 10 years of experience driving by age 16; I would have no issue. But with only 6 months of experience? No.

But I also wouldn't turn loose a teen with my Glock 17 with only 6 months of experience. But with 10 years of experience? No problem.

I know it is inconceivable to you that teens could be trusted with dangerous things. And I'll grant that some cannot. But teens that are raised in a "gun friendly culture" learn certain types of responsibility early.

Of course, let's be honest. You are referring to 18-20 year olds as "teens" as though they were children.

If they are so damned untrustworthy, let's strip them of their right to vote. If they can't be trusted with a means of self-defense, they darned sure can't be trusted to vote.

... are we referring to people under 18, or 18-20?

I have no problem with restricting open or concealed public carry by sub-18 year olds so long as the laws DO permit use at ranges, hunting and transport to and from.

But once someone is 18, their parents no longer have legal authority to keep them out of trouble. So I think 18 year olds should be allowed to carry.

I DO support that a license should be required for concealed carry. That license should require a criminal and psychological background check.

In general, people who hold legally-issued CCW licenses are among the least likely demographics to commit a murder; so people who go to the trouble of getting licensed aren't an issue. Since that's the case for people 21+; I don't see why it wouldn't be the case for those 18-21.

I understand there are a lot of irresponsible people out there. But even in NH where getting a license is cheap and easy; relatively few people get them. Only responsible people are likely to bother. So the irresponsible would automatically be excluded.

If mental retards were to become lawyers, there would be chaos. Dingbats would be filing liens left and right against unlienable things, etc. Courts would be clogged unraveling the mess. But there is no need for a law excluding them because the LSAT is a hard enough test, not to mention the first year of law school, the expense, the time, and then a state bar exam. Add that all together, and you don't even need a law that says: "Anyone with an IQ under 65 is unqualified to be a lawyer." It's implicit.

By requiring licensing and a background check, you automatically exclude a whole host of people implicitly; even in a shall-issue state.

BTW, I'm glad you'd trust me. What you can't trust me with is your credit card in a whore house because I have no explicit fiduciary responsibility. (*grin*)

and don't see that this poses any particular danger, but if the four kids are from the hood and are carrying screwdrivers, it is okay to open fire?

      And by the way you are forgetting that Goetz did not know that 2 of the kids had screwdrivers. The screwdrivers were never displayed. He just opened fire when the first one demanded money.


Absolutely no one described them as panhandlers?

From William Kunstler's book:


"On a crowded subway train a few days before Christmas, 1984, four black kids aggressively panhandled Bernhard Goetz
for five dollars, and he pulled out a gun and shot them. He was immediately hailed as a hero, while the four kids, falsely
reported to be armed with sharpened screwdrivers, were labeled as evil wrongdoers. As it turned out, the kids had not been armed, and Goetz was nothing more than a murderous vigilante. What if the kids has been white? I'm certain that Goetz would have been condemned by the same people who so quickly rushed to praise him."

Mien, I hope you don't mind but I did tell the administrator at the  Priapus Pines Adult Campground (clothing optional for men) to increase the voltage for your nightly shock treatments.

       Goetz could have just displayed the gun and the unarmed kids would have got the hell out of there.  There was no need to fire and certainly when the first kid was writhing on the floor and he fired the second shot, there was no need for the second shot.

I have, and while it's never excalated to the level of Goetz, carrying a firearm in at least one case saved me from serious bodily injury, and perhaps death.

There is a huge differece between "have any spare change?" and "give me some money, mother fucker". Yes, if I were in Goetz's situation, and I have been, he had every reason to fear for his life.

In my cace, I have been able to escape with a simple show of force, and the belief on their part that I was willing and able to use it, but I can understand Goetz's actions, his big mouth is another story, but his actions were justified IMO.

Thugs typically prey on the weak, Samuel Colt had a few word on the subject. An armed populace would do wonders on cutting down on street crime. Or we can take a page out of Colombias book, there way of cutting down on crime was to put a soldier with a machine gun on every corner, also an effective way of eliminating street crime. The streets of most major Colombian cities are now safe to walk, but would you really prefer that method?

Unarmed "kids" would have ran at the sight of a gun. That's a joke.
The thugs would have laughed and set upon him even quicker. They got exactly what they deserved.

Goetz deserved a medal. Subway crime dropped dramatically after he reversed the rolls on the thugs.

young women" are friends of Priapus that he met on the TS Board
(not that there's anything wrong with it).

I do believe that Mari has slipped into "Irish wrong" on this one. He arguments are getter weaker and weaker, yet he persits in defending the indefesible. lol

Goetz was only guilty of not knowing when to STFU, a common ailment around here as well. Predators deserve whatever they get when their prey turns out to have teeth.

According to what I've read on the Board, you are still far ahead in first place.

You must have run out of even vaguely plausible arguments.

Is the learned counselor now quoting himself to support his argument? I've heard of weak, but to resort to quoting yourself from over a year ago proves you have no case. lol