Slashdot Mirror

I have no idea where they get ideas like that. Oh maybe situations like this? http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx or http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-08-28/story/customer-kills-gunman-during-jacksonville-robbery-attempt or http://archive.lewrockwell.com/spl4/heroic-armed-citizen.html or http://mountainview.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/armed-attempted-robbery-thwarted-by-brave-victim-wtih-bb-gun#photo-4081472

I was going through salt lake city and saw this on the news. A mentally ill man started attacking people in a Smith's grocery store with a knife. He stabbed two people before a man with a GUN stopped him. http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx'

this is a myth. if you have a gun, you can't defend yourself. because you aren't omniscient. giffords was surrounded by responsible people with guns in gun happy tucson. why wasn't she protected? because the idea a gun at your side will protect form a loony toons with a gun is a myth

First of all, this is very circumstantial. There are certainly many scenarios where a person with a gun can protect itself from criminals - there are plenty of cases documented historically, and these days a lot are recorded, so you can just go to YouTube and watch several dozen for yourself. For example, here is one real world case of a guy with a gun in the right place at the right time stopping a knife violence spree. So writing it off as a "myth" is clearly wrong.

More importantly, the other point of widespread gun ownership is also to deter crime, by making it that much more likely to be hurt or even killed by people defending themselves if you try to get violent, statistically speaking - similar to herd immunity. This won't stop "loonies", of course, but vast majority of crimes are not committed by them.

Have you looked? (this was literally 15 seconds on google.)

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Springville-home-intruder-shot-and-killed/heL89IRYMEmf5M2UlvaZTg.cspx

I can think of 2 more off the top of my head, but I cant find the specific newspaper article.

The cops aren't going to jump out guns blazing or taze the crap out of you just because the automatic plate reader flagged your car as possibly stolen.

Just like they would never pull someone over and end up tazing the crap out of them because their license plate frame was crooked.

Oh... well, er...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070483/TSA-screeners-confiscate-2-machetes-6-grenades-23-loaded-guns.html

http://www.wsmv.com/story/16155120/gun-confiscated-at-nashville-airport

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Loaded-gun-confiscated-by-TSA-at-SLC-airport/Ih20n3TQykG7eso8vF8q8w.cspx

I have been arrested. I have a right to remain silent, I'll exercise it fully. They will not get my name from me, therefore I can question how they got my name. When I was arrested the asked my name. I didn't tell them. I didn't say a word. Once the "you're under arrest" happened, I shut my mouth.

Nothing pisses off a cop than having to figure out who you are.

I was acquitted of the charges mainly because the cops had NOTHING but each others conflicting testimony. They had nothing because I gave them nothing.

As for the "Stop and Identify" statutes, you must be suspected of committing a crime before they can detain you. And if you are NOT suspected of committing a crime, asking "am I free to go, or are you placing me under arrest", is the last thing you should ever say to a cop who wants to detain you.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/UPDATE-John-Doe-inmate-identified-as-NM-man/XiAoEKLxyUuaEJ564Rndhg.cspx

It cost the county more to lock him up for four weeks than the fine is that he will have to pay. Hilarious!

Child exploitation may have a long disconnection between the event and a viewer, but the photos weren't made to put in a family album.

Yes, sir, in some cases, they were.

http://www.cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=358:woman-charged-with-possession-of-child-pornography-for-taking-photos-of-herself-breastfeeding&catid=3:news&Itemid=96

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/Innocent-family-pictures-or-child-porn-Parents/ARX1K8NqXk6yMGyVfAmueQ.cspx

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/09/22/family-vacay-pics-deemed-child-porn-by-wal-mart-at-center-of-lawsuit/

You would be wrong.

Would I? Did you try a google search? I did.

First result. From 6 days ago.

I'm sure you could argue that that doesn't prove anything. And you'd be right, technically. You can find almost anything with a google search. But perhaps you'd be willing to share with me what makes you so certain you're right. Do you know something I don't? Perhaps you could share.