rights for everyone. . The new Open Carry Law gees into effect in oklahoma today, De we ‘LIKE the new law? Tell US if we agree er disagree with Open Carry, Like rights for everyone The new Open Carry Law gees into effect in oklahoma today De we ‘LIKE the law? Tell US if agree er disagree with Like
Upload
Login or register

rights for everyone

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
The new Open Carry Law gees into effect in oklahoma today,
De we ‘LIKE the new law? Tell US if we agree er disagree with Open Carry,
Like ' Cemment ' Share .. 48 minutes age ' it
2 people like this,
l' retell'""' 1 think most states already allow old lesbians ta buy
read.
2 minutes age ' Unlike '
...
+1013
Views: 30132 Submitted: 05/28/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (251)
[ 251 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #7 - StaticX
Reply +60 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Guns are for bitches, I want to carry my broadsword everywhere for self defense!
#106 to #7 - fordun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Then do it. It is perfectly legal in plenty of places.
#112 to #7 - anon id: ef9c4fe6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Zweihander
#30 to #7 - thegamegestapo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
#36 to #7 - fantomen
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
This is you, right?
This is you, right?
#9 to #7 - BroadSword
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Lets go then.
Lets go then.
User avatar #21 to #9 - EvilWolf
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
i love ur gif.......i love ur name.......i love u
#23 to #21 - BroadSword
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#24 to #23 - EvilWolf
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
#25 to #24 - BroadSword
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Have another gif that Im sure you will like
Have another gif that Im sure you will like
#26 to #25 - EvilWolf
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
epic anime gif thread?
epic anime gif thread?
User avatar #18 - theroflcer
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I'm not anti-gun or anything, but someone who thinks guns are the solution is just nutty.
User avatar #44 to #18 - fantomen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
They are a solution to certain problems, but not all of them.
For example I think that liberal gun laws are generally a good thing, but for example arming teachers would cause more problem than they would solve.


However statistics clearly show that states with the lowest amount of violent crime are the most heavily armed states.
Now, I'm not saying that those states are safer BECAUSE they are armed, but there is a very strong correlation.
#16 - chaosnazo
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
#92 - PedoBearFTW
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I'm all for gun rights, just ******* hide the thing. Even if you're licensed and certified to carry a weapon, I don't want to see it, and neither do a large majority of people. It would make me extremely uncomfortable just walking around seeing all of these loaded guns that some maniac could steal and kill people with at any time.
#123 to #92 - anon id: 74553f0f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Ever heard of confronting your fears
#128 to #92 - anon id: 467a7309
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
That's your problem.
Stop making your problem my problem. I'll carry my gun any way I damn well please and there's a damn thing you can or will do about it.
Now grow up and grow a pair.
User avatar #231 to #128 - PedoBearFTW
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Except you can't carry it any way you "damn well please", as long as it's legal. I have no problem with guns at all, but it's called a concealed weapon for a reason.
#134 to #128 - theXsjados
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
That's one of the issues I have with open carry; all these people that do it use level one retention holsters.
Level one - Only one, passive and, automatically acting form of retention (in this case the holster is form fitting around the gun and it pinches the trigger guard making it so that the gun can't just slip out.
Level two - Level one plus one 'active' form of retention (a thumb break snap), worn at what's know as the 'FBI cant' level two holsters are harder to get the weapon.
Level three - level two plus one more additional form of active retention usually this is a button operated on the thumb side of the holster.

If I'm carrying a gun out in the open I'm going to have at least level two retention.
#140 to #134 - anon id: 467a7309
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I disagree.
While it's true that some carry level 1, the majority that I've seen over the years use level 2 holsters.

I wear a level 2 holster.
#143 to #140 - theXsjados
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
We'll open carry is not encouraged where I live so I don't actually see many guns out in the open, so a majority of what I see is via media; so that's probably some kind of spin I'm seeing
#168 to #143 - anon id: 467a7309
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I hear you. Open carry is legal in about 44 states and it's true that only a small but growing number of people exercise that right. The easiest way to lose a right is to not exercise it.

Please try not to let the media shape your views. They are clearly biased and well-funded.
User avatar #144 to #92 - failtolawl
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
not only that, if you force everybody to hide them, criminals wouldn't know who has them and would be too paranoid to just rob anybody they see.
#73 - CargeLock
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I'm all for the right to bear arms and everything, but can't we just stick with concealed carry or something? This seems a tad bit excessive. I mean, this woman is probably harmless and just carries for her own safety. But at the same time if I saw this **** in my local grocery store I think I might be a bit uncomfortable.
#74 to #73 - anon id: 467a7309
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
So, should she disarm or cover up to please your delicate sensibilities?
#107 to #74 - vedgetable
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
yes.
yes.
#172 to #107 - anon id: 467a7309
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
No.
She should continue to exercise her God-given right to self-defense as she best sees fit.
User avatar #188 to #172 - vedgetable
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
i dont see why you have to open carry a fullsize 1911 like she does.
you have a gun in your purse, no ******* problem
you have a gun UNDER your belt no problem
i dont see why you have to shove it down the troat of people who dont like it.
you have your freedom, but have the ******* manners not to bother others with it.
#229 to #188 - anon id: 2c7a907f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
If you don't like it, don't look. It's not in your face, or down your throat; it's on her hip. It won't stop being there if she hides it.

I would feel uncomfortable standing next to a guy in a Rainbow Dash suit, but I'm not going to write laws or advocate limitations just because I'm uncomfortable.

Freedom sometimes means other people are annoying. It's not hurting you, so deal with it.
#75 to #74 - badpeace
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
^ Found the republican american





just a joke, please take it easy on me
User avatar #80 to #73 - superunclesam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I personally prefer conceal carry because I understand people can get uncomfortable but I agree with open carry laws. I dont like people who open carry purely for attention like I see on youtube but it has its place.
#88 to #80 - anon id: 467a7309
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I don't open carry for attention. I'm much too old for that. I open carry for the same reasons cops do.

It allows for a faster and simpler draw and it's more comfortable for me to open carry than to conceal.
User avatar #89 to #88 - superunclesam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
THAT is the most acceptable reason for open carry next to inability to get a ccw permit. It's legal in my state and when I'm 21 I will probably open carry for a short time, until I can afford a smaller, more concealable gun and get my permit.
#90 to #89 - anon id: 467a7309
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I have a concealed carry permit and I've carried both concealed and open.
Honestly, once you start carrying openly, it just feels silly to conceal.

In all my years of open carry, I've never once encountered a negative comment or reaction.
I'm sure it helps that I dress nice, act friendly and smile easily.
#99 to #90 - fordun
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I ask why conceal? Criminals conceal, people up to no good conceal. I want people to know i have a gun. And that yes i will use it. No one ***** with the guy with a .45 on his hip. A criminal runs into a store to rob it. He sees someone open carrying. He doesn't rob that store. At least while your not there.

I can't wait to open carry. Partly because i will take a bit of joy in making the liberals around here angry.

I don't want to come off as a attention whore. I see those autistic **** heads on Youtube that open carry AR-15s slung over there shoulder. Then when police question them they get all pissed acting like someone walking around with a battle rifle is a normal thing. They repeat the same stupid lines over and over again "hurr durr am i being detained, am i free to go."

I live in a liberal state. Where someone breaks into my home and i shoot them. I can go to jail. It doesn't matter if i kill him or not. I have a friend who had a older father. When he was a kid someone broke into his house and his father beat this man with a baseball bat. He was sent to jail. A 65 year old man. Sent to live next to thugs, murders, rapists, thieves and drug dealers.

My state says you should only defend yourself enough to deactivate the threat. In theory this is understandable. But when your blood is pumping 1 round suddenly turns in 30.

Similar situation with open carry. No one is going to pull something if i am openly carrying a firearm. So why open carry a firearm? Because i don't want to ever use it.
#202 to #99 - purplelightning
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I think that is the biggest mistake you can make. To assume no one will **** with you just because you have a gun. That's really rude and honestly not very smart IF you're just carrying the gun to "show off" or scare people, not saying you are. But you're comment implies the former. If you just assume you're fine because you have a gun that already puts you in a defenseless state because your guards down.
#245 to #202 - fordun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Nope. Remington Golden Saber .45 ACP jacketed hollow point if in a 1911. Or Brown Bear FMJ in a Bulgarian Makarov. Or Golden Saber 9mm if in a Glock 17. Spare magazines for all of them. Carried with full intent to use it. Not all of them at once of course. That assumption is like what other uneducated liberals say about racking a shotgun to scare away an intruder. Don't have a gun if you don't intend to use it. But lets face it. Can racking a shotgun scare away an intruder? Yes. And can brandishing a hand gun scare away a criminal? Yes. Should that be your only line of defense against these people? No.
User avatar #94 to #73 - habasparkz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I agree. I'm all for guns, but this is a bit out of line.
User avatar #208 to #73 - tjcomics
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Concealed carry is for people who are trained, and aren't a threat to others.. Open carry is made so people and mostly police know who has a weapon, so its easier to focus upon who to watch, and concealed carriers must undergo a 10 hour class as well as a accuracy test, because if concealed carry was for non-trained people, deaths would be a lot more likely as people don't know if you have a S&W shield in your pocket.
#14 - anon id: db14be37
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
american logic:

We are suffering too many gun-related deaths.

....what we need is ....

MORE GUNS, and EVERYWHERE
#33 to #14 - anon id: 815f9650
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
With well defined examples of "gun-control" such as Russia under Stalin, Camboida with Pol Pot, and more, I'll take more guns, yes.
#34 to #33 - randomserb
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
#110 to #33 - anon id: ef9c4fe6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Germany under Hitler as well
#76 to #14 - anon id: 975cdab8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
The thing is, homicide has gone down in the US in recent years.
User avatar #102 to #14 - instalation
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
In actuality, those are more of two separate arguments, to be honest.
Some want more guns, some want less.
#232 to #14 - anon id: 1f840ce9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Lemme break it down for ya
Pro-gun people: We need guns to protect ourselves from criminals
Anti-gun people: If we let everyone have a gun the criminals will have guns too and there will be more death since it will be easier for them to kill others.
Problem: both are to an extent quite true

Now there are many arguments for both sides that I wont really get into but the thing I don't understand is the people who are so against any kind of regulation on who is allowed to have guns and who isn't amount the civilian population. I personally believe that that should be the issue, preventing those too irresponsible to handle a weapon from having them. I don't get why anyone listens to the whole "omg the govmint aint gon let us have our guuunz, bettur start gittin all pissed" from people who would misuse a weapon.

TLR
Guns are fine with responsible people, focus on keeping them out of irresponsible hands.
User avatar #146 to #14 - expectopwnem
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
If more people had guns maybe criminals would think twice about trying to shoot someone
User avatar #97 to #14 - roadhous
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
what we nead are smarter people, not less guns...
User avatar #228 to #97 - rieskimo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
So ******* much of this with an extra heaping portion of this.
User avatar #120 to #14 - xsnowshark
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Many states have had "open carry" laws for a while with no issue. Ohio where I live is a perfect example.
User avatar #15 to #14 - thathorse
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Think of it as a deterrent, you wont rob someone if you know they got a gun (or you still might I don't know you). It will most likely make that person less of a target, me personally I prefer to conceal carry.
User avatar #28 to #15 - Metallicock
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
**** who ever gave you red thumbs. I agree with you on that one
#40 to #28 - thathorse
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
You know how it is when you voice opinions.
You know how it is when you voice opinions.
#19 to #15 - morskoj
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I agree with you whole heartedly!
#48 to #15 - anon id: 2db6d9cd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
So you carry a gun and you don't show it, so that people will somehow know you have a conceal gun and won't try to rob you, because they will fear the gun that you are hiding ?
User avatar #58 to #48 - thathorse
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I carry it concealed because not all establishments see a gun as a good thing.
User avatar #69 to #58 - mrthezho
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
But doesn't that mean it won't work as a deterrent?
User avatar #125 to #14 - innocentillusions
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Criminals get guns illegally and legally, if they banned guns, the citizens who abide by the law would have no protection, whilst the criminals would simply get their guns illegally.
User avatar #27 to #14 - sorrowofdaedalus
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Well, you stop a wildfire by starting another fire to snuff it out.

I figure it's the same logic. In the same way a second fire removes the oxygen for the first one and they both snuff out, the fear of being shot goes both ways and neither party gets shot out of fear of being shot as a result.

The entire WORLD uses the same method to prevent Nuclear destruction. Essentially, it's the same logic on a smaller scale.

I don't get how that isn't something that is logical. I understand that in practice it might work very differently, but my problem isn't whether or not it works, it's the fact that you claim it isn't logical, which it is.
#50 to #27 - souleatingbunnies
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
You're assuming the person that would go into a crowded area and shoot innocent people are thinking rationally. I'd guess that someone who would commit such a heinous act wouldn't worry about repercussions. Although if more people had guns the crime could be stopped quicker, so really both sides could be right. I just wish we knew the answer, I'm tired of seeing school shootings on the news
You're assuming the person that would go into a crowded area and shoot innocent people are thinking rationally. I'd guess that someone who would commit such a heinous act wouldn't worry about repercussions. Although if more people had guns the crime could be stopped quicker, so really both sides could be right. I just wish we knew the answer, I'm tired of seeing school shootings on the news
User avatar #239 to #50 - sorrowofdaedalus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Yes, because despite what the media tells you, people with mental illnesses, sociopaths in particular, as a common trend are more intelligent than the average person.

They are probably able to logically deduce their fate better than you could in the same situation. What you mean to say is that I'm assuming a person that would go in to a crowded area and shoot innocent people is worried about his own life.

No, because the human mind prioritizes things in ridiculous order. What I believe is that a person that would go in to a crowded area and shoot innocent people wants to go in to a crowded area and shoot innocent people, not shoot one person and continue to get gunned down by a crowd of people around him. It won't be big enough for him, and the only one who he will be able to tell is scared is himself.

In other words, vast armament would psychologically deter the criminal from his shooting, because yes, believe it or not, Criminals have brains and we know how they work, at least in terms of basic Behaviorism.
User avatar #29 to #27 - thegamegestapo
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Because mutually assured destruction always calms things right down. Mexican stand-off at a national level. Couldn't possibly go wrong...
User avatar #31 to #29 - sorrowofdaedalus
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
It's worked so far.
User avatar #32 to #31 - thegamegestapo
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
How many times has the word nearly ended with highly trained professionals calling the shots? Read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis, a brief history of the Cold War and the Samson Option. Seriously, WMDs are a seriously bad idea.

If it was such a good plan why does everyone freak out whenever N.Korea makes a big display of testing its own bombs?
User avatar #236 to #32 - sorrowofdaedalus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Yes, I'm aware the Cuban Missile Crisis was a close call, but that had more to do with the fact that those missiles were going to be placed VERY close to America, and in the hands of a fascist leader no less.

It's what works, since the WMDs are in existence, and the reason we still use a plan of Mutually Assured Destruction is because they aren't going to just stop existing. Guns are the same way; There are too many, and getting them is too easy, to hope you could control them all. The worst of it is, even if you tried to get rid of them all, if there's even one left unchecked it could have CATASTROPHIC results.


The reason why is because people like being scared. It gives them something to rally together about, and even moreso, because of a glorification of war that continues even in to the modern day. While a portion of people may be largely anti-war, I think the fact of the matter is there's a latent desire in America, and perhaps other places, to see a third world war, not out of desire for war itself, but more out of anticipation. It's sort of like if a reputable source told you a Meteorite was coming to blow up the earth tomorrow, and meteorites start whizzing passed the earth, but none of them quite manage to hit.

You know they exist, you know this is a tangible, plausible cause for your destruction, and even though it didn't happen when they said it would, you constantly realize that it's going to eventually, because the chances of it not seem to be non-existent.


I don't think, even with the ridiculous regime that North Korea must follow, that there was ever truly a reason to fear Nuclear Crisis. I think even Kim Jung Un realizes that a Nuclear Blast will kill him just as well as it will anyone else, whether he WANTS to believe it or not.
#142 to #31 - thenewneone
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
At the cost of perhaps trillions of dollars?
User avatar #42 to #27 - PubLandlord
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
You can't compare nuclear weapons to guns, that is completely out of context, the problem is guns make it very easy and efficient to kill someone and very impersonally.


When comparing you need to compare on a like for like basis, I could argue that having brick houses and not having wooden houses prevents fires therefore having no guns will be more beneficial
User avatar #98 to #42 - lskovfoged
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
It's easy to compare those two things.
A gun is a weapon, and nuclear weapons are, without any ****, also weapons. I think that nuclear weapons makes it quite easy and efficient to kill someone as well, on a higher scale, which is probably also very impersonally.

But guns make it more personal though, since most of the time you see a face, maybe you know a name, or something like that, killing isn't easy. Now what is really easy is the old "Neck-shooting" facilities, they were impersonal.
#116 to #98 - anon id: 195f2a80
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
No it isnt. The actors are not equivalent.

State actors =/= individual actors. IR 101.
#126 - imonaboatman
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
OPINION TIME1

Although, there's plenty of them below, I'd just like to give my two cents. I'm a moderate liberal, but I'm all for gun rights. (Yes, believe it or not, we're not all "stupid hypocrite liberals" trying to take away your guns). I actually have plans to purchase a gun when I reach 21. However, it really isn't necessary to carry it around in the open like that. That's just going to scare people and make them uncomfortable, especially kids. Just conceal the damn thing, or keep it in your car.
User avatar #130 to #126 - Shramin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Also most people aren't constantly aware of their sides, anybody you come up from behind, knock into and take the pistol.
User avatar #153 to #130 - foelkera
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
yes, then get shredded by gunfire from everyone surrounding the guy you just took the gun from.
User avatar #154 to #153 - Shramin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Assuming everyone pays attention, and in any case that is still people getting shot?
User avatar #157 to #154 - foelkera
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
If you attempt to steal a gun from someone, you probably should be shot. If a person is just allowed to get away with it they may use it to harm an innocent person.
User avatar #159 to #157 - Shramin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
You are missing the point, if the oppertunity was not there in the first place, there would be no situation.
User avatar #162 to #159 - foelkera
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
The opportunity is almost nonexistent, though. Look at a modern gun holster, you'd need to undo a strap or unclip a fastener to be able to remove a gun. This isn't 1910 where you just have a gun-shaped sack on your hip, modern holsters have a semblance of security on them.
User avatar #133 to #126 - admiralshepard
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Couldn't agree more. I'm a supporter of concealed carry, but I acknowledge the fact the known presence of a firearm might have an inflammatory effect on a situation. I live in Illinois, which currently does not have concealed carry, and while I will apply for the license when it's finally legalized, I realize that to this day I've never been thrust into a situation where I wish I had one of my firearms on my hip. In fact, I'm quite sure that if I was openly carrying a firearm, the few heated disputes I've been in would have only gone down hill faster. It's a citizens right to carry a weapon for their own defense, but civil considerations must be taken into account.
User avatar #118 - nimba
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I have a question. So say you're rolling down the street with your gun on your hip, fully loaded and one in the chamber. A scruffy, toothless old man snatches your groceries out of your hand and runs off. Are you really going to shoot this guy down commit murder for this? If not where's the line? what if he takes it at knife point? Is that ok? but how do you know it's not just a bluff and he's not going to stab you just for your bag or the cash in your wallet.
tl:dr carrying a firearm for self defense is as overkill as using nuclear missiles for border control
User avatar #131 to #118 - jtwagner
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
At that point i wouldn't be shooting to kill, but they definitely wouldn't be walking afterwards.
User avatar #147 to #131 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
why would you shoot though
User avatar #148 to #147 - jtwagner
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Because I've already caught them, but I'm not going to hold them down myself till the cops get there.
User avatar #149 to #148 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
What if you crippled them forever
#165 to #149 - anon id: 467a7309
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Legally, if you purposely shoot to wound, then it can be argued that your life and/or the lives of those around you were not, in fact, in grave or immediate danger.
User avatar #151 to #149 - jtwagner
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
intent.
User avatar #156 to #151 - nimba
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
You are clearly a 12 year old that doesn't understand the difference between a human life and a bot in some game
#161 to #151 - anon id: 467a7309
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
The only time the law here in the US recognizes drawing and shooting in self-defense is when your life or the lives of those around your are in grave and immediate danger.

If your attacker turns and runs, the fight is now considered over and you cannot legally shoot.

Shooting someone for stealing your groceries doesn't meet that standard and doing so will rightfully land you in jail for a very long time.

Please read the book, "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob.
User avatar #174 to #118 - snickerstheif
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
If an old scruffy man is capable of taking your groceries you are retarded
User avatar #175 to #174 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
Pretty much anybody could take anything out of your hand if they surprised you.
User avatar #178 to #118 - snickerstheif
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
wait so i should defend myself when being mugged by a guy with a knife?
User avatar #191 to #178 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I dunno, I guess if you don't mind getting stabbed. Personally I would rather be somewhat poorer than be seriously hurt
User avatar #206 to #118 - I Am Monkey
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
The first scenario you should probably try to threaten him with it, but obviously not shoot him.
The second one, he threatened your life you can legally put him in the ground.
User avatar #219 to #118 - tjcomics
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
First scenario, its illegal to fire or even draw your weapon, as he is not taking part of a life threatening situation.
Second scenario: Pull your gun, and aim and take it off safe. Only when he lunges can you shoot. You're taught that you have to do what you must to defuse a life threatening situation. If it is a bluff, he'd run away when the weapon is aimed at him, but if not, you shoot, not especially to kill, but to cause him to stop the situation he's causing.
TL;DR you're only legally allowed to shoot to kill if it is a life threatening situation, where you or another person can die or be critically wounded.
User avatar #127 to #118 - theamazinganalidk
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
If you took the right classes on weapons then you would know that they teach you when it's okay to shoot and when it isn't. You shouldn't carry a gun if you aren't trained with it. Obviously if someone steals groceries it's not okay to kill him. And what if he takes it at knife point? You pull your gun on him, a hobo with a knife is gonna be scared of a gun. Carrying a gun isn't just about shooting people.
User avatar #6 - heartlessrobot
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
She was probably pretty hot when she was younger.
#8 - funnyhillman
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(05/29/2013) [-]
I immediately thought of this.