Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More illegal guns shoot people in the tiny tiny tiny peice of land called DC than do legal guns in Virginia everyday. The reason why you've never been concerned about someone carrying in the past is bc they keep it where it's supposed to be. Don't fool yourself on one idiots actions.

You don't stop driving bc there might be a drunk on the highway do you?

Oh boy, can't believe that people who live in the same state as Richmond (known for very high murder rates in the past) are going on about how much safer Virginia is than DC. Dudes, Fairfax and Columbia Heights - apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

Anonymous wrote:More illegal guns shoot people in the tiny tiny tiny peice of land called DC than do legal guns in Virginia everyday. The reason why you've never been concerned about someone carrying in the past is bc they keep it where it's supposed to be. Don't fool yourself on one idiots actions.

You don't stop driving bc there might be a drunk on the highway do you?

Anonymous wrote:More illegal guns shoot people in the tiny tiny tiny peice of land called DC than do legal guns in Virginia everyday. The reason why you've never been concerned about someone carrying in the past is bc they keep it where it's supposed to be. Don't fool yourself on one idiots actions.

You don't stop driving bc there might be a drunk on the highway do you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at all. More "ordinary citizens" should be armed, instead of being so terrified of guns as you are. The problem is that a lot of good people are too scared to take classes and get themselves familiar with firearms, so the proportion of criminals/nutjobs who are armed to the good people who are armed is way out of whack.

Me? I have a concealed carry permit, and I don't usually carry a gun on me, because I have young children, but I like to know I'm allowed. Also, I am educated about how to use the firearm should I ever need to, and therefore not afraid. I like to think that evens the playing field a little bit.

Kinda sounds strange. But agree. Criminals would think twice before trying to victimize someone if they thought for a second there could be fatal retaliation. They count on others not being armed.

"Fatal retaliation" for what, exactly? You can't shoot somebody if they snatch your purse, or you catch them trying to swipe your wallet. It's such nonsense. If a mugger surprises you by pointing a gun at you, are you really going to pull out your gun and get into a gun fight with him/her? No, it's too risky. You'd probably get shot first, because the mugger has the advantage of surprise. Are you going to shoot the criminal in the back as he/she is running away? No, that would be stupid, because you'd be arrested and held accountable. There are very few perfect situations that would allow you to actually defend yourself with a gun. You have a false sense of security.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think it was Starbucks that wasn't so thrilled that the NRA organized meetups for concealed weapons carriers at their shops. They did not like being caught in the middle and did not want have to take a stand and risk alienating either side of the gun control debate.

I'm not sure I understand the point of this post? So did they do nothing and let them use their location or did they ban them?

I don't think they did anything because it is perfectly legal to carry concealed weapon with a proper permit. Yet they knew it also made some customers stay away or boycott the business because they didn't like the idea of gun carrying customers at the local Starbucks. They were caught in the middle because there are many pro-gun and anti-gun customers. Supporting one over the other would be bad for business.

Um, any private establishment can ban weapons concealed, permited, legal or illegal if they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope, not at all. More "ordinary citizens" should be armed, instead of being so terrified of guns as you are. The problem is that a lot of good people are too scared to take classes and get themselves familiar with firearms, so the proportion of criminals/nutjobs who are armed to the good people who are armed is way out of whack.

Me? I have a concealed carry permit, and I don't usually carry a gun on me, because I have young children, but I like to know I'm allowed. Also, I am educated about how to use the firearm should I ever need to, and therefore not afraid. I like to think that evens the playing field a little bit.

Kinda sounds strange. But agree. Criminals would think twice before trying to victimize someone if they thought for a second there could be fatal retaliation. They count on others not being armed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is worrisome considering that most people are pretty stupid. Who knows what whim some fool could have and start shooting.

Still, as my moronic, gun-toting boss says, all those guns out there will make the Chinese think twice before invading (he watches Fox News and listens to Rush Limbaugh in case you're wondering).

Why would they invade if they can nuke?

Anonymous wrote:It is worrisome considering that most people are pretty stupid. Who knows what whim some fool could have and start shooting.

Still, as my moronic, gun-toting boss says, all those guns out there will make the Chinese think twice before invading (he watches Fox News and listens to Rush Limbaugh in case you're wondering).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think it was Starbucks that wasn't so thrilled that the NRA organized meetups for concealed weapons carriers at their shops. They did not like being caught in the middle and did not want have to take a stand and risk alienating either side of the gun control debate.

I'm not sure I understand the point of this post? So did they do nothing and let them use their location or did they ban them?

I don't think they did anything because it is perfectly legal to carry concealed weapon with a proper permit. Yet they knew it also made some customers stay away or boycott the business because they didn't like the idea of gun carrying customers at the local Starbucks. They were caught in the middle because there are many pro-gun and anti-gun customers. Supporting one over the other would be bad for business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think it was Starbucks that wasn't so thrilled that the NRA organized meetups for concealed weapons carriers at their shops. They did not like being caught in the middle and did not want have to take a stand and risk alienating either side of the gun control debate.

I'm not sure I understand the point of this post? So did they do nothing and let them use their location or did they ban them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Think it was Starbucks that wasn't so thrilled that the NRA organized meetups for concealed weapons carriers at their shops. They did not like being caught in the middle and did not want have to take a stand and risk alienating either side of the gun control debate.

I'm not sure I understand the point of this post? So did they do nothing and let them use their location or did they ban them?

Anonymous wrote:Think it was Starbucks that wasn't so thrilled that the NRA organized meetups for concealed weapons carriers at their shops. They did not like being caught in the middle and did not want have to take a stand and risk alienating either side of the gun control debate.