dave610 0 #176 January 27, 2003 Quote A LOT of the cops (like 99% of the DPS, local and sheriff) I've talked to, love the CHL program in Texas and have respect for CHL holders. They think that the program is doing a lot of good in Texas and that the good citizens are helping bring crime rates down That is because most Cops know what requirements exist to get a CHL. They know that most CHL carriers are honest law abiding people. I dont have my CHL, YET, but my roomate has gotten let go by almost every cop that pulls him over, because he shows his CHL to them as soon first thing, as you are required. They respect that. The biggest misconseption I have heard by people opposed to guns and CHL's is that everyone that carries a gun is trigger happy killer waiting for an oportunity, that we shoot first and think after. I cant speak for the masses, but in IMHO, most people I know that have CHL's are very, very under controll emotionally. They know the power of their actions. Before anyone straps a gun on their hip, they must understand the consiquencs of using it. You pull it, you better be willing to use it, you hesitate and your dead. As with skydiving, it only takes a split second to end a life and you can't change your mind once you do. DONT CARRY ONE IF YOU CANT HANDLE IT. But dont tell me I cant because you cant handle it. Hold people accountable for their actions and they will think before they act. My $.02 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #177 January 27, 2003 That's right Wendy, in no way shape or form should you ever, EVER compromise your posting abilities by actually trying to do work! Let this be a lesson for you.hehehe --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #178 January 27, 2003 QuoteDONT CARRY ONE IF YOU CANT HANDLE IT. But dont tell me I cant because you cant handle it. Hold people accountable for their actions and they will think before they act. My $.02 Nice summary!-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #179 January 27, 2003 Quote The ostridge head in the sand theory, then..."If I don't participate in this, then I'll be safe from it..." No. I don't think that is accurate at all. It can be more like, "I find your dependency on firearms and willingness to use them to be reprehensible, so I choose to forfeit your business to send you a message." CHL holders can send messages, as can the other side. I wouldn't harbor the illusion that banning the weapons would make me much safer (a little, yes, but not significantly), but I'd do it just to make the point. And you'd boycott my business anyway, so we'd both be happy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,461 #180 January 27, 2003 Choosing not to handle it is not the same as being unable to handle it. I'd like to see more people being held accountable for the kinds of storage mistakes that lead to the deaths of kids and family members from both legal and illegal guns. Right now it's largely the kids and family members who are being held accountable. Note: not against guns, not against ownership. But it's too easy for any idiot (and I use the term advisedly) to get a gun. We focus on the rights above the responsibilities. Plenty of legal guns are involved in very preventable accidents. I haven't done the research, but I'll bet a lot more legally-owned guns are involved in preventable, accidental fatalities than are involved in the kind of protect-the-owner scenarios envisioned. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #181 January 27, 2003 QuoteIt can be more like, "I find your dependency on firearms and willingness to use them to be reprehensible, so I choose to forfeit your business to send you a message." That doesn't hold true to what your original post stated, which was basically saying that they could care less what the actual law said and how to lawfully prevent a CHL from carrying in their business, they'd rather just post the fake sign and ignore it all together. Which point are you trying to make, since they're both conflicting.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #182 January 27, 2003 i think your right wendy..its another example (one of an unfortunate few) were ignorance is painful.. and of course the unfortunate consequence for that ignorance is often placed on the tool not on the user. hence the "guns are bad" mindset.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #183 January 27, 2003 QuoteI'd like to see more people being held accountable for the kinds of storage mistakes that lead to the deaths of kids and family members from both legal and illegal guns You know, I grew up my entire life with access to firearms and ammo. Did I ever go near it when my dad wasn't with me? Nope. If one was laying out, even in plain site, did I even touch it if Dad wasn't with me? Nope! This was even with watching the A-team and stuff like that on TV, where guns were uses constantly. Was I scared of the weapons? No, not really, I was more scared of what would happen if my Dad found out. Funny how if you're raised by responsible parents, things tend to work out correctly.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,461 #184 January 27, 2003 My son (not much younger than you) also had guns in the house. He wasn't even scared of what we'd say if he went near them, because he too was educated. He knew they were tools. He just didn't do it. But I don't want to rely on every parent having the good sense to a. be that proactive b. have only children who think before they do things. It's not just good parenting -- sometimes the kids are just plain harder to manage. And if you think it's all parenting, then you haven't seen enough kids. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #185 January 27, 2003 They aren't conflicting, Dave, since they could be the opinions of different people. I'm just showing why some people might ban guns in their establishments. Some people just post the incorrect (not fake) sign out of ignorance. Others may take the effort to learn enough to send a very specific message. In either case, they just don't want guns in their shop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #186 January 27, 2003 Then why would they be as outraged as they were when a concerned citizen, such as myself brings to their attention on how to properly display a lawful sign instead of the fake sign. I still see it as conflicting, since if they did care, then they as business owners would have been proactive. Its sort of like saying a resturant that had health violations was ok, since the owner didn't know and wouldn't listen to a concerned citizen, it was ok.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #187 January 27, 2003 and not wanting that is fine, but if they cant take the time to find out the proper legal way to enforce that desire then there is no reason why anyone has to listen to, or abide by their desire. Laws are obviously not perfect, but a more perfect following of the ones we do have should be the first goal set, not the creation of other laws that will be equally ignored by those who habitually break them.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #188 January 27, 2003 QuoteYou know, I grew up my entire life with access to firearms and ammo. That's fine. QuoteFunny how if you're raised by responsible parents, things tend to work out correctly. It works a lot, but nowhere near all of the time. Why should my life, or the life of my wife or daughter, be relying on the responsibility of a minor that isn't even old enough to enter the shop to buy a gun themselves? All the "legally buy a weapon... blah blah... second amendment... blah blah... only criminals do bad things..." are totally beside the issue when you are talking about making guns accessible to minors. If an elementary school kid brought a gun to school and shot my daughter, I wouldn't blame the kid. I'd want to watch the parent(s) fry. But even more than that, I'd love it if the kids couldn't get the guns in the first place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jessica 0 #189 January 27, 2003 To me, it just seems a courtesy not to bring concealed weapons into a place where the owner has clearly stated his aversion to them. Surely there are other places to shop if you must have your gun on you. I don't want guns in my home, and though they may be "legal," if someone won't respect my wishes in my house, he or she isn't welcome.Skydiving is for cool people only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #190 January 27, 2003 QuoteI don't want guns in my home, and though they may be "legal," if someone won't respect my wishes in my house, he or she isn't welcome. Actually, for homes, all it takes is a verbal directive. If someone says "I don't like weapons in my house" then that's all it takes, legally. I never carry into someone's home, that's just asinine, unless I'm staying for an amount of time, then I ask the person if it was ok, since I didn't want to leave it in my truck (which is relatively unsecure). When that happens, I NEVER have the weapon on me, I secure it someplace in the house, unloaded. Basically, homes and businesses are two very seperate things, especially when dealing with legality.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #191 January 27, 2003 Dave, They would be frustrated with you because they are ignorant and ineffective. I'm not saying they shouldn't have listened. Just that there are a variety of reasons people would want to ban guns in their shops, and a variety of ways in which people would express it. Both effectively (correctly) and ineffectively (wrong sign). As a side note, when you emphasize "fake" over incorrect, you are implying a deliberate intention to deceive, when it is probably just incorrect, due to their ignorance. Zenister, I'm not saying you'd have to obey the sign if they put up the wrong sign. That's their fault. Tough shit on them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #192 January 27, 2003 Jessica, I agree that it would be the courteous thing. But some people are more intent on flaunting their "rights" than the general respect of other people's wishes, however articulate they may or may not be. (And no, I'm not poking fun at anyone particular on the boards.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #193 January 27, 2003 I emphasize fake, since that's what they are! If they are unwilling to listen to reason and post lawful signs, then they are fake and they know that they are fake. If someone posts a sign that they know is not legally binding, but is trying to post it in a legally binding manner, then that sign is considered fake, since it is not a legally binding real sign.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #194 January 27, 2003 Quotebut a more perfect following of the ones we do have should be the first goal set, not the creation of other laws that will be equally ignored by those who habitually break them. I owe you beer....nicely put, very nicely.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #195 January 27, 2003 Dave, Don't make me skool you! Quote Main Entry: 3fake Function: adjective Etymology: origin unknown Date: 1775 : COUNTERFEIT, SHAM Main Entry: 1coun·ter·feit Pronunciation: 'kaunt-&r-"fit Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English countrefet, from Middle French contrefait, from past participle of contrefaire to imitate, from contre- + faire to make, from Latin facere -- more at DO Date: 14th century 1 : made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive : FORGED Quote If they are unwilling to listen to reason and post lawful signs, then they are fake and they know that they are fake. So, before you walked into the store and educated the owner, was the sign fake? Maybe his buddy in the store next door told him it was the right one. Therefore, he had no intention to deceive you. It was the incorrect sign. Once you told him, did the sign instantly become fake? It is the same sign, and has not changed. Where is the miraculous transformation? Quote If someone posts a sign that they know is not legally binding, but is trying to post it in a legally binding manner, When you walked in, did you know that he knew it was the wrong sign. If so, your psychic powers are amazing. You are attributing deception and malice to the storekeeper. You would probably be more accurate in calling him stubborn and foolish. But there is a difference. I'm not saying the wrong sign should be legally binding, just that calling it "fake" may be a stretch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #196 January 27, 2003 I agree. Most people who own convenience stores, because that is what comes to mind most easily, are very intelligent when it comes to business. Many times an incorrect sign is posted with the intent that a person will think it is legally binding and obey. If anything the store owner is the deceitful one. I have seen it. That being said, it is your right to protect yourself. They have a legal way to temporarily relieve you of your gun, it is very easy to do. If they care, they will do it. If they don't you are not require to obey. Period. I think that is what was said originally. If someone posted a homemade speedlimit sign in their front yard, would you obey it?-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #197 January 27, 2003 QuoteYou are attributing deception and malice to the storekeeper. You would probably be more accurate in calling him stubborn and foolish. But there is a difference. And I've seen both. Quotefake1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fk) adj. Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent. Quotefake \Fake\, n. A trick; a swindle Quotefake adj 1: fraudulent; having a misleading appearance [syn: bogus, phony, phoney, bastard] 2: not genuine or real Since you wanted to "skool" me, I thought I would respond in kind. Since those three different definitions also uphold what I was saying. The point is, you can turn anything out of context for your arguement, even if it isn't true. Quote Maybe his buddy in the store next door told him it was the right one Who's fault is that? When dealing with something pertaining to law, especially when pertaining to something that the owner obviously feels is important, then why would he/she just take the conduring of person as truth. Before you say that that is exactly what I was trying to do by telling them the real law, I was pointing them towards the law, asking them to look it up as well as listen to me. Even telling them the website to go to (DPS's site).--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #198 January 27, 2003 Quote And I've seen both. So have I, but can you, in this particular incident, PROVE it was intentional? Quote Maybe his buddy in the store next door told him it was the right one -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who's fault is that? Clearly, it is the store owner's fault for listening, and not checking to make sure the advice was correct. I'm not saying it was in any way your fault. From the sounds of it, you were trying to do the guy a service. I'm just nitpicking on how you knew he was doing it on purpose. You have yet to answer that one. How did we get so off topic, other than the fact that we both seem to enjoy arguing with each other? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingferret 0 #199 January 27, 2003 I am beginning to think that perhaps the biggest difference between conservatives of varying degrees and other people is the belief that you are supremely responsible for your actions.-- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #200 January 27, 2003 Are you actually saying you believe the conversatives are responsible for their actions? And out of curiosity, how did that observation come from our current discussion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
