^

1/31/2013 11:10:24 AM

You are contributing a lot to the debate, it's your second post in the thread without the word troll in it.

1/31/2013 11:13:00 AM

so stop trolling.

dumb objections to the gun control issue are why we can't get anywhere. your objection is dumb and you know it. you are trolling. you are a troll.

troll

1/31/2013 11:22:59 AM

I'm not deaf and I haven't always used hearing protection, even at a range.

Sure, permanent damage can be done. It can also be done at clubs, concerts, in your car, in your home, from your iPod, etc. Have you sued everyone around you that has caused a noise loud enough to possibly damage your hearing?

[Edited on January 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM. Reason : /]

1/31/2013 11:26:36 AM

Quote :

"dumb objections to the gun control issue are why we can't get anywhere."

There are a lot of reasons why gun control hasn't gotten anywhere, posts on a message board are not one of them. I posted several dangers of firing a gun in a small restuarant, hearing damage was only one of them.

Quote :

"I'm not deaf and I haven't always used hearing protection, even at a range."

Generally this kind of damage is done to children, but it can happen to adults as well. Although you may not have experienced it (you should most definately start wearing hearing protection anytime you use a weapon), it is well documented and recognized by professionals.

1/31/2013 12:53:20 PM

Your kids will hate you for not taking them to concerts

1/31/2013 1:01:49 PM

Concerts are known for causing hearing damage, restuarants are not.

1/31/2013 1:32:50 PM

so as long as you know your kids will have a very high chance of sustaining hearing damage, it's ok. But if you don't know about the ever so slight chance, then it's not ok.

1/31/2013 1:51:54 PM

It's about whether I make that choice or some guy who decides to bring a gun into a restuarant makes it.

Are you seriously arguing that it's ok to cause hearing damage to children whenever you want because their hearing could be damaged elsewhere? That's like hitting a kid with a car and saying "well they could have fallen off a cliff on their own". It's one of the silliest arguments I've heard in a while.

If you cause damage to someone else, you are responsible. It's not like we're arguing over Israel/Palestine.

[Edited on January 31, 2013 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2013 2:00:22 PM

So a criminal can bring a gun and possibly cause hearing damage, but you'll be damned if a law abiding citizen can do the same do defend themself?

The point was, was that you said you disagreed with restaurant carry because a child's hearing might be damaged. Might. Very small chance of a such a situation occurring. Yet, you have no problem when the choice is made to damage a person's hearing (concerts, loud radio, etc.), situations which occur much more often than a self defense shooting in a restaurant.

So as long as YOU make the choice to damage your child's hearing, it's ok?

[Edited on January 31, 2013 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2013 2:13:43 PM

If either causes hearing damage, they can be held financially responsible for damages in civil court.

1/31/2013 2:16:47 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously arguing that it's ok to cause hearing damage to children whenever you want because their hearing could be damaged elsewhere?"

If you could quote someone saying that, that would be great, because it seems to me that we're discussing someone using a firearm defensively, not "whenever [they] want".

1/31/2013 3:29:05 PM

"Bill would allow for arming school volunteers"
http://www.wral.com/bill-would-allow-for-arming-school-volunteers-/12048058/

Quote :

"Bingham said he envisioned teachers who were retired from the military as ideal candidates. He said the bill would also allow for volunteers who live near schools to be trained."

1/31/2013 5:48:24 PM

OMG GUNS IN SCHOOLS!

[forgets that many schools already have armed guards, police, or sheriff deputies]

1/31/2013 6:02:24 PM

We had an armed resource officer in my high school. It was an officer though, FWIW.

He was the archetypical fat, donut eating, sit in the office all day, type of cop. Pretty nice though.

1/31/2013 6:09:54 PM

We had a security person in my high school too, but she wasn't an unpaid gun-wielding volunteer. I always thought her name, Officer Raleigh, was cool with it sounding so official, and with Raleigh being the big city where I wanted to go to college and all back when I lived in Mayberry.

1/31/2013 6:15:18 PM

^^ same here... Jernigan.

Supposedly one day he had to chase someone down and was pretty quick (but had no endurance).

^^^ so what youre saying is that the NRA's recent call for armed guards at schools was redundant, reactionary, and idiotic?

[Edited on January 31, 2013 at 6:49 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2013 6:48:23 PM

Quote :

"because it seems to me that we're discussing someone using a firearm defensively"

It doesn't matter why you fire it, if you fire a gun and cause damage to an innocent person, you are responsible. How is this an argument?

1/31/2013 7:17:25 PM

I think the argument is that, yes, someone would be responsible, but you don't eliminate this possibility by banning the guns.

I think the no-guns-in-bars thing (which is an old tradition), is geared more towards the late night drunk asshole crowd (either using a gun whilst drunk, or shooting a drunk asshole, who may not necessarily deserve to die). The "buttt... poor lunch goers!" thing is really just an inconsequential side effect, that most normal societies deem an acceptable loss to prevent the aforementioned drunk-assholes-in-bars.

1/31/2013 7:23:35 PM

if you're worried about hearing damage due to the lawful use of a firearm in a restaurant, go to a restaurant with a gun free sticker on the door

LOL

[Edited on January 31, 2013 at 7:32 PM. Reason : adf]

1/31/2013 7:31:53 PM

Quote :

"I think the no-guns-in-bars thing (which is an old tradition), is geared more towards the late night drunk asshole crowd (either using a gun whilst drunk, or shooting a drunk asshole, who may not necessarily deserve to die). The "buttt... poor lunch goers!" thing is really just an inconsequential side effect, that most normal societies deem an acceptable loss to prevent the aforementioned drunk-assholes-in-bars."

Sure, but :

A) The law could be crafted in such a way as to specify bars and other places where the majority of their revenue comes from sales of alcoholic beverages.

B) The law is ineffectual at this, as is easily demonstrated by a search on google for incidents on shootings at or outside of bars.

1/31/2013 8:12:33 PM

Cigarettes in restaurants = unsafe

Guns in restaurants = a-ok

1/31/2013 9:36:53 PM

^ both should be determined by the property owner.

1/31/2013 9:38:55 PM

^^ A cigarette creates a cloud of poison that damages you and those around you. A gun is a heavy chunk of metal and plastic that sits on the belt of my pants and affects no one unless they're an imminent threat to someone's life.

1/31/2013 9:47:18 PM

^ or unless you miss and stray bullets start flying, which I also hear is bad for your health

1/31/2013 10:04:03 PM

Damn those evil smokers with their clouds of death, so much more deadly than a gun.

1/31/2013 10:14:08 PM

^^ One pf the primary rules of gun safety is identifying your target and what's beyond it. For a recent example, see the mall shooting in Oregon. That shooter was confronted by a man who drew his concealed weapon. The man with the concealed weapon didn't fire because there were people behind the shooter that he might hit should he miss or the bullet pass through the shooter. However, according to witnesses, the shooter, confronted with armed resistance, fled and soon after shot himself. In that case, the concealed weapon bearer didn't exactly what they were supposed to and what any person should do if they remember the most basic rules of weapon handling.

Just like there aren't shoot outs in the other kinds of stores thanks to people carrying concealed weapons, there won't be shoot outs in restaurants is this bill passes.

1/31/2013 10:22:36 PM

Are there shootouts in restaurants now?

And wasn't it never confirmed if the shooter even saw the guy Oregon? Seems like that's a i vaguely recall that being the narrative the NRA was pushing, not the official account.

1/31/2013 10:25:03 PM

^I just remember reading a news article that quoted that guy in question. I'm fairly sure it was from a mainstream news site. I just turned up this article from a Portland TV station with a google search. Take it for what it's worth.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

1/31/2013 10:40:03 PM

Quote :

"The law is ineffectual at this, as is easily demonstrated by a search on google for incidents on shootings at or outside of bars."

Solution: More guns, obviously!

Quote :

"One pf the primary rules of gun safety is identifying your target and what's beyond it."

Another primary rule is not to accidentally shoot yourself, but people fail to follow that one quite frequently.

Quote :

"I'm fairly sure it was from a mainstream news site."

infowars.com?

No mainstream news site has reported it. Mainly because the guy said "well I thought he saw me while I was hiding" and he had no actual interaction or influence on the events that occurred.

2/1/2013 12:10:38 AM

^^
That's just an interview with the guy saying he thinks his magical rock gun helped save him because he hid behind a column holding it.

2/1/2013 12:14:19 AM

Man if that girl wasn't nearby I would have been all PEW PEW PEW bitch PEW PEW PEW got him

2/1/2013 1:09:10 AM

H.B. 49 would make it unlawful for employers to tell employees they can't keep firearms locked and out of sight in their personal vehicles.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H49v0.pdf

i work for a company that is ok with long guns locked in your personal vehicle and out of sight, but they have a policy against handguns. they effectively disarm me anywhere i may stop on my way to or from work. it's none of their business what i keep locked in my personal vehicle.

2/2/2013 5:36:06 PM

Would this apply to state employees?

2/2/2013 5:56:27 PM

depends on if it's illegal to possess a firearm on that property

for example, NCSU employees still couldn't have a firearm in their personal vehicle if it's parked on campus.

[Edited on February 2, 2013 at 6:10 PM. Reason : adsf]

i think that's still illegal. lemme do some more research. didn't keep up with it after college.

[Edited on February 2, 2013 at 6:16 PM. Reason : fad]

2/2/2013 6:09:38 PM

i did some more reading and i'm pretty certain this wouldn't change anything about being allowed to bring a firearm campus, no matter if it's locked up or you're an employee or whatever.

2/2/2013 8:41:27 PM

from page 1 (ironically relevant now):

It's not smart to force people to leave firearms in cars in parking lots. Too many smash and grabs. Some of you lefties complain about ill-secured firearms being stolen and adding to crime; then you should be against a law that forces people to leave guns in cars. It's a bad idea all around. -wdprice3

2/3/2013 12:58:14 PM

if the employer doesn't want guns unattended in locked personal vehicles, they should let us carry at work

2/3/2013 1:04:11 PM

Or have a guard/surveillance in or around the parking lot.

2/3/2013 3:30:16 PM

Quote :

"if the employer doesn't want guns unattended in locked personal vehicles, they should let us carry at work "

Yeah no. Just like private property rights should allow property owners to allow weapons on their property, they also allow them to refuse weapons on their property. It may be in your car, but that car is still on their property.

2/3/2013 7:10:17 PM

Quote :

"they can be held financially responsible for damages in civil court"

Because money is the solution to everything.

I'd rather have my life than be disabled (or dead) and receive "financial compensation" because some evil person decides they want to roll up into Carraba's and shoot up a place or start wailing on people with an axe. I'm sorry if money is the epitome of your quality of life, I choose my health.


But something like that would never happen Hiro.

Yeah, Sandy Hook should have never happened either. The movie theater incident shouldn't have happened. Massacres should never happen, however, we live in a world with evil people who do evil things. First step to solving the problem is recognizing it exists. Next is taking action.

[Edited on February 3, 2013 at 7:34 PM. Reason : .]

2/3/2013 7:33:40 PM

Quote :

"Yeah no. Just like private property rights should allow property owners to allow weapons on their property, they also allow them to refuse weapons on their property. It may be in your car, but that car is still on their property."

inside my personal vehicle is my property imo

2/3/2013 9:38:38 PM

^ I agree with this.

2/3/2013 10:13:41 PM

Quote :

"inside my personal vehicle is my property imo"

So is inside your book bag, brief case and your suit coat, but a property owner should have the right to forbid you from carrying on his property. Basically, the inside of your car might be your property, but you a storing your property on your employers property, which means they get to tell you they don't want you bringing guns onto their property. If you don't want your employer to disarm you, your options are negotiate with your employer, park off your employer's property or find a better employer.

We don't get to have it both ways. If property owners (not politicians) should be the ones deciding to allow guns on their property, then. It equally follows that they must be allowed to disallow guns, and we should not (indeed, we must not) use the law to force them otherwise.

2/3/2013 11:02:41 PM

i definitely see your point.

what about in an apartment? should the owner of the complex be able to tell a resident that guns aren't allowed in the apartment?

2/3/2013 11:16:29 PM

Well the contradicting part is the Castle Doctrine allows one to defend themselves in their vehicle... No it does not mention that you can carry in your vehicle, but rather you may use deadly force if someone is forcibly trying to enter your vehicle.

So how would that unfold in the courts as it stands now? Guilty on the charge of prohibited possession but not guilty on the use for self defense?

Quote :

"what about in an apartment? should the owner of the complex be able to tell a resident that guns aren't allowed in the apartment? "

Part of me is inclined to say yes, they should. It's their property and they should be able to do as they please; if the tennant/prospect doesn't like the regulations, they can move on. At the same time, the owner of the property has no business in the privacy of the tenant and as such the tenant should be able to protect themselves as they see appropriate. An exception would be, of course, if the owner resided in the building (ie: roommate). I can see both ways to each argument, car and apartment.

[Edited on February 4, 2013 at 2:38 AM. Reason : .]

2/4/2013 2:35:18 AM

Quote :

"So how would that unfold in the courts as it stands now? Guilty on the charge of prohibited possession but not guilty on the use for self defense?"

you can be charged with a Class 2 Misdemeanor. not a bad price to pay for your life.

2/4/2013 6:43:03 AM

Quote :

"what about in an apartment? should the owner of the complex be able to tell a resident that guns aren't allowed in the apartment?"

While there is considerable precedent for overriding the property owners rights in regards to tenants in rental properties, I have to say that yes, an owner should be able to do that (in fact, I believe they already can, I seem to remember seeing such a clause in some of the student apartments off campus). You go into a rental agreement knowing what is and isn't allowed up front, so the same applies: don't like it, go somewhere else.

Quote :

"Well the contradicting part is the Castle Doctrine allows one to defend themselves in their vehicle... No it does not mention that you can carry in your vehicle, but rather you may use deadly force if someone is forcibly trying to enter your vehicle."

No contradiction that I can see. That you have a right to do something generally doesn't mean other people must provide you with the means or leeway to do so on their property. You have a right to free speech, doesn't mean McDonalds is required to allow you as an employee to park your "McDonalds Sucks and Eats Babies" car in their lot.

Quote :

"So how would that unfold in the courts as it stands now? Guilty on the charge of prohibited possession but not guilty on the use for self defense?"

I imagine it would work however it currently works if you defend yourself in a private business which has a no guns posted notice.

2/4/2013 8:16:56 AM

http://www.wral.com/hundreds-rally-for-gun-rights/12067909/

Quote :

"Bill LuMaye, a talk show host on WPTF-AM, compared President Barack Obama to a tyrannical king who is trying to take away the God-given rights of U.S. citizens, and he said the Republican-controlled General Assembly needs to step into the breach and protect North Carolina residents from the federal government. "The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness and all of that, I think, is absolutely dependent on the Second Amendment," LuMaye said. "Without that, I'm not sure the rest of the freedoms would be around very long." Rep. Larry Pittman, R-Cabarrus, said he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment to allow people to carry concealed weapons everywhere aside from schools, courthouses and any private buildings where the owners have posted gun restrictions."

2/5/2013 2:54:26 PM

meanwhile, the president releases info claiming the power to execute American citizens with no due process, and retards like the guy quoted in ^ grip on to their guns like a child holding on to their magic security blanket, keeping all the monsters out from underneath their beds.

2/5/2013 4:40:21 PM