This is topic NY Giants' Plaxico Burress is an Idiot in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005636
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-30-2008, 01:02 AM:
Anyone following NFL football or even sports in general has probably heard of the story of Plaxico Burress shooting himself in the right thigh at a New York City night club.
Various sports writers are trying to determine whether Burress' conceal carry permit obtained in Florida was still valid.
Unfortunately, just about any state granting conceal carry permits explicitly PROHIBITS anyone carrying a firearm into a bar, nightclub or any other business whose main income is through selling alcohol based drinks unless that person owns and operates that establishment and has not been drinking. Burress doesn't own the place where he fucking stupidly shot himself.
Let's complicate the situation further by noting that New York and New Jersey do NOT currently have reciprocal agreements to recognize carry permits from Florida or a number of other states.
What pisses me off really badly about this is Burress may end up walking with a slap on the wrist because he is an NFL star. The fucker should get charged and convicted of a FELONY. That's what would happen to any of us under the same circumstances.
Here's the verbiage from Oklahoma's Self Defense Act law book on this matter:
quote: Oklahoma Self Defense Act 2007
PENALTY FOR FIREARM IN LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT
Any person who intentionally or knowingly carries on his or her person any
weapon in violation of Section 1272.1 of this title, shall, upon conviction, be
guilty of a felony. The fine for a violation of this section shall not exceed One
Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00).
Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section after having
been issued a concealed handgun license pursuant to the provisions of the
Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1 through 25 of this act, shall have the
license revoked by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation after a hearing
and determination that the person is in violation of Section 1272.1 of this title.
Honestly. What kind of stupid, fucking idiot has a handgun kept in such a condition where he's going to shoot himself in the thigh -and manage to do that stupid shit in a night club whose main business is selling alcohol-based drinks? What the mother fuck!?
This sort of shit is going to make things harder for law-abiding citizens who have a legitimate need for obtaining a conceal carry permit. I'm waiting on my permit approval right now. Scored perfect on the written exam -lots of common sense stuff. Did perfect on the live fire range stuff. Again, it's just following basic gun safety procedures and listening to range commands. Unfortunately, some prima-donna idiot like Burress could ruin things for a lot of other far more thoughtful people.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-30-2008, 09:52 AM:
The fact he is a human being with a name like Plaxico should tell you everything you need to know. He was probably (and understandably) teased from a very early age. Consequently, he grew up stupid by defending his name instead of paying attention in class.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-30-2008, 11:21 AM:
I don't know. There's lots of people in this world with very strange names made up by their parents. Even regular names will get kids teased. My brother's first name is Toby, but he goes by his middle name, Warren, due to a lot of crap he got in grade school. Overall, it doesn't matter. Having a rough childhood doesn't entitle anyone to act like an idiot with a handgun.
Having a $35 million NFL contract shouldn't entitle anyone to act like he is above the law either. But that is what Plaxico Burress has done repeatedly. This handgun incident is just the latest event. The asshole needs to be punished pretty severely for the stupid chance he took. He could have shot someone else in that night club very easily. A fired bullet is going to travel until it hits something or someone. The latter is highly possible in a crowded night club.
This event makes me angry over the possibility that responsible gun owners will be punished for Burress' stupidity. Already this morning I'm hearing NFL commentators saying crap like "people shouldn't own handguns; they're just too dangerous."
I'd like to know specifically what kind of gun Burress was carrying. Obviously he had a round chambered and safety off -if the gun had an external safety. Burress certainly didn't care to use his primary safety: his trigger finger. Cardinal rule #3 in gun safety: you keep your booger hook off the bang button until you are absolutely ready to fire.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 11-30-2008, 05:33 PM:
Personally, I like the name Plaxico. It sounds like a Transformer's name. Maybe he had the gun because he was worried about Decepticons or something.
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 11-30-2008, 06:15 PM:
Well he did play for Michigan State ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
This is so dumb its hard to believe that its even real.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-30-2008, 06:34 PM:
quote: Mike Schindler
Personally, I like the name Plaxico. It sounds like a Transformer's name. Maybe he had the gun because he was worried about Decepticons or something.
![[rofl]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
HAHAHAA! That's funny! LOL!
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 11-30-2008, 07:35 PM:
Ha I was going to make the Michigan State crack but Kurt beat me to it. No one I knew in High School who applied to MSU got rejected. They let ANYBODY in.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-30-2008, 08:38 PM:
quote: Mike Schindler
Personally, I like the name Plaxico. It sounds like a Transformer's name.
Or a behemoth oil company, or maybe a plastics firm.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 11-30-2008, 09:39 PM:
Whatever the case may be, I sincerely think that it's a cool name. And from now on, it'll always be associated with a guy who shot himself in the leg. Too bad.
Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-01-2008, 10:37 AM:
Yeah, like getting "Moe Green'd" or "Marvin Gaye'd"..."He Plaxico'd himself!"
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-01-2008, 12:47 PM:
Burress will hardly be receiving a slap on the wrist. He likely will be put on the "non-football injury" list by the Giants which will make him inactive for the remainder of the season, which means the Giants don't have to pay him. Money after the signing bonus isn't guaranteed in the NFL. The Giants could also go after a portion of any signing bonus since it was via an illegal activity he was injured. He has already had a history of trouble being fined on several occasions and this could very well be the last straw for him, effectively ending his career or at the very least dramatically reducing his value. That is all aside from the legal aspect now that he has turned himself in.
I agree he was being very, very stupid. The gun had fallen down into his pant leg when his friend and teammate noticed it and told him. He reached down and in an effort to get it, shot himself. He deserves to be injured, although apparenly his unjuries are minor.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-01-2008, 03:00 PM:
Maybe the Eagles will win this week.
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-02-2008, 04:36 PM:
New York City has experienced a lot of night club shootings lately, in which robbery, jealousy, gang hatred, drug deal or desire for revenge ends with bullets wounding innocent patrons. Liquor, a crowded dance floor where changing partners can proove deadly,and minor bumps can result in drunken idiots shooting wildly, leads to needless mahem.
The authorities are not amused. Mayor Bloomberg, although a keen sports fan, has publically called for the district attorney to apply the law to the fullest extent, which calls for a 3 1/2 year prison sentence for anyone convicted of carrying a loaded handgun in a public gathering.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-02-2008, 07:15 PM:
Mayor Bloomberg is grandstanding.
Bloomberg is gung ho on having people prosecuted for violating NYC gun laws. Nothing wrong with that. However, he's not so keen on enforcing certain other laws. I won't get into specifics. The blunt point is this: he looks hypocritical as hell weighing in on this criminal case. He and any other politician would do best to keep his mouth shut so as not to give Burress a better leg to stand on for a motion to change the venue of his possible trial to another city or even another state.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-02-2008, 07:31 PM:
I saw a headline on a paper in here in Philly that said that "Plaxicon" (his new Transformer name, in tribute to Mike Schindler) is pleading "Not Guilty" to the gun charge. Isn't the charge that he was carrying a gun in a place where he shouldn't have been? How does he make the case that he's not guilty of that when he walks into the court room with a limp?
Am I missing something?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-02-2008, 08:03 PM:
Rumor has it Plaxico Burress' lawyer may try to use the 2nd amendment as a means to say Burress had the legal right to carry the gun into the night club. Good luck on that one.
It's one thing to for someone to exercise his right to legally own a gun. Conceal carry is another thing entirely: a limited, granted by approval privilege, not a right. Conceal carry into a night club or bar is explicitly is forbidden to any civilian with a carry permit. That is typically a felony level offense.
Law enforcement officers and security people are only supposed to conceal carry into establishments like bars and night clubs when they are in some sort of on-duty capacity. They don't need to be drinking. Here in Oklahoma, a cop working under cover is the only kind of law enforcement officer who can legally be in a bar drinking while wearing a gun.
I don't think the 2nd amendment is going to bail out Burress at all. And then there's the matter of discharging a gun in a crowded public place. That's another very serious charge. Burress has a conspicuous wound on his leg pointing to his involvement on that.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-02-2008, 08:10 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Here in Oklahoma, a cop working under cover is the only kind of law enforcement officer who can legally be in a bar drinking while wearing a gun.
I don't care if they're under cover... having it legal for them to DRINK and CARRY is crazy to me.
And I concur. The player is screwed. One might argue that he should be able to carry it without restrictions, but discharging it can't be argued so much.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-02-2008, 08:43 PM:
quote: Chris Slycord
I don't care if they're under cover... having it legal for them to DRINK and CARRY is crazy to me.
Unfortunately, it's not that easy a situation for a cop working under cover -especially if he is working to bust people like drug dealers and such. He's probably not going to want to drink or do anything else that will alter the functions of his brain and impair his judgment if he has any chance to do so. But he'll stand out like a turd in a punch bowl if he's hanging around in a bar with some bad guys and not even drinking a beer.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-03-2008, 01:32 PM:
quote: Mark J. Marshall
I saw a headline on a paper in here in Philly that said that "Plaxicon" (his new Transformer name, in tribute to Mike Schindler) is pleading "Not Guilty" to the gun charge. Isn't the charge that he was carrying a gun in a place where he shouldn't have been
An initial plea of not guilty is common for almost every kind of charge. They plea not guilty to buy time, then eventually work out a plea bargain with the prosecution, then change their plea to guilty. Uless of course it actually goes to trial, which is rare.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Unfortunately, just about any state granting conceal carry permits explicitly PROHIBITS anyone carrying a firearm into a bar, nightclub or any other business whose main income is through selling alcohol based drinks unless that person owns and operates that establishment and has not been drinking.
Not true. Most states, like Iowa, only prohibit carrying on federal property like Post offices or within a certain distance of schools. The rest comes on a county to county basis. My sheriff "strongly encourages" us to never carry in a bar or in church, but there is nothing on paper restricting it. Consuming alcohol, of course, immediately voids your permit and makes carrying illegal.
quote: Bobby Henderson
What pisses me off really badly about this is Burress may end up walking with a slap on the wrist because he is an NFL star.
He more likely will be getting his wrist cut off. The drawback of being a celebrity is occasionally you are made an example of. I find it hard to believe any normal Joe would have received the same punishment for dog fighting Michael Vick did - he got that because of his fame. The same will happen to Burress. He will become an example. As predicted, he has already lost his job and pay for the season. He also is likely to lose a large portion, if not all, of his signing bonus. He also may have taken another teammate down with him. He was thought of as a cancer before, now his value will be very, very low and it is looking like jail time will also come into play. Again, I doubt a normal Joe would be treated as harshley.
He deserves whatever punishment he gets and I hope he does become an example to other of what not to do. Thinking your expired Florida permit is valid in New York - please. What a waste of tremendous physical talent.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-03-2008, 02:49 PM:
quote: Chad Souter
Not true. Most states, like Iowa, only prohibit carrying on federal property like Post offices or within a certain distance of schools. The rest comes on a county to county basis. My sheriff "strongly encourages" us to never carry in a bar or in church, but there is nothing on paper restricting it.
Unless you have the laws in writing you're fooling yourself and taking a very serious gamble if you conceal carry a gun into a bar in Iowa. If Iowa actually allows someone to carry a gun into a bar, even under the context of not drinking, then that's one really stupid part of Iowa's gun laws. I am not believing that claim "most states" also allow it unless that claim is backed up with some actual proof.
Oklahoma is a more gun friendly state than Iowa. It is a "shall issue" state regarding conceal carry permits. Iowa is not. Yet Oklahoma not only specifically has it in writing that you cannot conceal carry into a bar even with a permit, but you'll also be convicted of a felony if you are caught doing so. And that rule isn't buried in the list of other places where you can't carry. The rule has its own section in the OK SDA law book.
Every state that grants conceal carry permits has specific lists of places that are off limits for conceal carried weapons. It's more than just government buildings and schools. And it's the duty of any conceal carry permit holder to know those rules. Not knowing any better won't stand up as a defense in court.
quote: Chad Souder
He more likely will be getting his wrist cut off. The drawback of being a celebrity is occasionally you are made an example of.
Occasionally. Not usually.
More often, the celebrity athlete gets a slap on the wrist. I could go on about various members of the Dallas Cowboys having serious run-ins with the law and little to nothing coming from it. A "nobody" gets caught in a hotel room with a good amount of cocaine and hookers is going to have a much harder time avoiding prison.
Todd Bertuzzi assaults Steve Moore during an NHL game, breaking Moore's neck by pile driving his head into the ice. The only example I saw there is Bertuzzi took a one year vacation and didn't get so much as arrested.
Dog fighting rings do get busted. It's very rare that a celebrity like Michael Vick is involved. Very serious charges do get handed handed out over that. Unfortunately the sadistic animal cruelty ends up being the least of those dog fighting ring masters worries. Racketeering charges get handed out. Often illegal drugs and illegal guns are found at the scene.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-04-2008, 03:45 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Unless you have the laws in writing you're fooling yourself and taking a very serious gamble if you conceal carry a gun into a bar in Iowa. If Iowa actually allows someone to carry a gun into a bar, even under the context of not drinking, then that's one really stupid part of Iowa's gun laws. I am not believing that claim "most states" also allow it unless that claim is backed up with some actual proof.
Bobby, how am I supposed to provide proof of a law that doesn’t exist? See, the way it works is, laws provide restrictions, not freedoms. You start with a right or freedom or privilege until a law takes it away, not the other way around. I guess my actual proof would be citing blank spots of paper where there are no laws. Therefore, it is not a stupid part of Iowa’s gun laws. It would be a stupid absence from their laws if anything, but that’s another debate. I won't get into what I think of Oklahoma's law stating you can't carry into a bar, but the Applebee's across the street that has dollar draws on Wednesdays is fine. I don't want to cross the politics line. I will say the only place Iowa restricts carrying concealed is schools and public parks. I forgot about parks before because so many of them around me are exempt do to their shooting ranges or hunting areas. The federal building must be a federal restriction - that makes more sense anyway.
Maybe most states don't have such limited restrictions. I'm only really concerned about the law of the state I live in or ones I travel to. Perhaps I should have said some instead of most. I'm not an expert on carry laws in all 50 states, I just figured common sense would prevail in most states. Then again, with gun laws common sense often goes out the window.
One stupid thing in Iowa is that although a permit issued in any county is good state wide, some counties rarely issue non-professional permits. So I could carry in any county even though residents of that county can’t carry themselves. Real dumb.
Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 12-04-2008, 04:38 PM:
I have two words for this: Complete Dumbass
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-04-2008, 06:22 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
Bobby, how am I supposed to provide proof of a law that doesn’t exist?
Provide a web site link where I can look through Iowa's statutes on gun laws and conceal carry permitting. You claim to know what it says in stating that it's legal to conceal carry a gun into a bar so long as you don't drink. I want to see the list of excluded places for legal conceal carry in writing and see that bars are not shown in that list.
quote: Chad Souder
I guess my actual proof would be citing blank spots of paper where there are no laws. Therefore, it is not a stupid part of Iowa’s gun laws.
The stupidity I'm talking about is the possiblity Iowa could allow civilians to conceal carry handguns into a bar. It doesn't matter to me if the person wearing the gun is sober. A bar is a risky place to be wearing a gun.
Regarding Applebees or any other restaurant that serves beer and other alcohol drinks, in Oklahoma you can conceal carry a weapon into that kind of business as long as you don't drink. The dividing line on restaurants is they don't get the majority of their business from serving alcohol.
Restaurants have a different environment than a bar. Restaurants are not typically "meet markets." They don't normally have their "last call" at 2:00am. Restaurants often have children and adults of all ages eating food there. If I'm eating one of the new fire grill items at Red Lobster I don't have to worry about some drunk asshole wanting to drag me out to the parking lot to fight because he thinks I looked at his girlfriend's tits. I'm a little more on guard for that kind of thing at a night club.
quote: Chad Souder
Maybe most states don't have such limited restrictions. I'm only really concerned about the law of the state I live in or ones I travel to. Perhaps I should have said some instead of most. I'm not an expert on carry laws in all 50 states, I just figured common sense would prevail in most states. Then again, with gun laws common sense often goes out the window.
There's nothing wrong with Oklahoma's list of off limits places for conceal carry. It would also be absurd for anyone to imply Oklahoma is a restrictive state against the rights of gun ownership. Oklahoma is very clear on what disqualifies someone from being able to get a conceal carry permit or even own a gun.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-04-2008, 07:39 PM:
*sigh* Although I should just say look it up yourself...
"724.4A Weapons free zones—enhanced penalties.
1. As used in this section, "weapons free zone" means the area in or on, or within one thousand feet of, the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or in or on the real property comprising a public park. A weapons free zone shall not include that portion of a public park designated as a hunting area under section 461A.42."
There ya go. My point on bars vs. restaurants that serve alcohol is a simple one. I saw a man as drunk as anyone I've ever seen 3 weeks ago during Monday night football at a sports bar that mostly serves food. If consuming alcohol voids the permit anyway and the whole idea is to have your weapon concealed, then what does it matter the percentage of business done via alcohol? If others noticing your weapon are the concern, than you're not doing a very good job concealing. If you're drinking, your permit is invalid anyway and you need to leave it at home. If higher-risk individuals being around you will make you draw unnecessarily, you don't deserve the permit. Real simple stuff.
Now, I'm finished with this. It's getting boring and I fear I have already violated the no politics rule, so I'm going to leave it alone. Since Oklahoma honors my permit, should I ever visit, I'll ask the manager of any sports bar I enter to see his books before I go in to ensure no more than 49% of their gross is from alcohol.
Back to the original topic, Burress had a Glock .40. I have never liked Glock's lack of a traditional safety, which it appears was one factor in him shooting himself. It takes absolutely no extra time during your draw for a practiced shooter to turn off a thumb safety. It becomes second nature. Glock only uses the trigger safety, which I have never liked. It allows someone who picks up the gun, should it fall loose during a struggle or some other way, to just point and shoot. Having a traditional safety of some type could confuse them and buy you those extra couple seconds that make all the difference. I think the 1911 is best - a triple safety. Let me be clear I am in no way blaming Burress's shooting on his gun - that was his own dumb fault - I just wasn't surprised when I heard it was a Glock.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-04-2008, 09:08 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
*sigh* Although I should just say look it up yourself...
I tried to do so. Couldn't find anything at the state of Iowa website on it. That's why I asked for a link.
One snippet of statutes doesn't prove anything. That's also why I asked for a link to the full statutes so I could see if there was anything you missed. Considering other things not mentioned in that "list" of weapons free zones (like local, state or federal government operated buildings or meetings of local, state or federal government officials held elsewhere) that list for Iowa seems strangely incomplete.
If you're hell bent on doing it, go ahead and conceal carry into the County Clerk's office, a city council meeting or the local "watering hole." At least here in Oklahoma the laws are very clear about what is off limits.
quote: Chad Souder
Back to the original topic, Burress had a Glock .40. I have never liked Glock's lack of a traditional safety, which it appears was one factor in him shooting himself.
I have the opinion that thumb safeties on semi-auto handguns are about as useful as a butt hole on an elbow. The trigger finger is the primary safety. Cardinal rule #3: never place your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire. Rule #3 was even more important since Burress was silly enough to have a round in the chamber.
I'm not a fan of Glock pistols either. I don't like the grip angle on them. The plastic magazines aren't as durable as the metal magazines used by nearly all other gun manufacturers.
The only "tupperware" gun I have at the moment is a Springfield XD-40 subcompact. It looks kind of like a Glock, yet has a few features not found on Glock handguns -like a grip safety and more durable magazines. The XD line has a loaded chamber indicator. They have a more logical method for field stripping -not too much different from my Sig Sauer P226, except the take down lever flips up instead of down. Unfortunately, the XD also requires the user to pull the trigger to release the slide (just like what a Glock requires). You don't have to do any of that trigger pulling nonsense when field stripping a Sig.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-04-2008, 09:25 PM:
Bobby,
The list of "weapons-free zones" put together by a state official might not list Federal buildings as those would fall under Federal laws.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-04-2008, 09:31 PM:
That could be true; however, it's still stranger than hell that local and state government operated buildings aren't mentioned in that list of weapons free zones. I realize that should be a "no brainer" for anyone with a permit. Nevertheless, we do have quite a legal industry built upon taking advantage of things not mentioned in a law or not worded correctly in a law.
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 12-05-2008, 02:38 AM:
Here's a link to the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which lists each state and the areas the law doesn't allow you to carry.
Link
It lists Iowa as having no restricted places. Other states that don't list bars (or businesses selling alcohol) on the list include Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The list also states that Vermont allows residents and non-residents to carry open or concealed without a permit.
That's 27 states that don't prohibit carrying in a bar, according to the site.
Oddly, city/state/local government buildings are not listed for many states.
Of course, this doesn't mean that many cities and/or counties don't have stricter local guidelines. It also is completely possible that the site is wrong (or out of date), but it seems likely that they have done the homework.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-05-2008, 04:25 AM:
You guys seem to know allot about gun laws so I ask -- it seems that any mention of gun permits is always coupled with reference to carrying a concealed weapon. Does this mean that one doesn't need a permit to carry a gun that is in plane sight....like cops carry or like they did in the West, in holsters out in the open and not concealed? Or does it mean that there is no such thing as a permit to carry a weapon openly, that the only way you can carry is concealed?
BTW, Bloomberg's rant about how we New Yorkers won't tolerate this kind of behavior that puts the public in danger, and calling on the DA to prosecute to the maximum extent of the law and blah blah blah -- he did this to boost his sagging approval numbers after his very unpopular push to eliminate the mayorial term limit so he could serve a third term "because we need him in these uncertain economic times," same thing Gulliani did after 9/11....saying he was so important that we needed to change the law for him. The public statement itself was totally irresponsible in terms of disrespecting the judicial process and tainting the jury pool; he should known better. Other cases in the passed have been damaged by other mayors (Gulliani did the same thing) making these public statements, undermining the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-05-2008, 10:40 AM:
quote: Anslem Rayburn
It also is completely possible that the site is wrong (or out of date), but it seems likely that they have done the homework.
Thanks for posting the link to that site anyway.
It does appear some of the information is incorrect/out of date regarding Oklahoma. OK has reciprocal agreements with over 20 states. Conceal carry permits in OK cost $100 for a 5 year term, not 4 years. Also, OK residents now have the option to pay $200 for a 10 year permit. That cost doesn't include the $60 you pay for the safety class, $25 finger printing fee with the county sheriff and OSBI and the few bucks for a couple of passport style photos for your ID.
The site is also incorrect regarding New Mexico. NM currently does allow conceal carry; Oklahoma even has a reciprocal agreement with NM on honoring out of state permits.
Some of the criteria used by that site for grading states is odd. The site's author(s) assume anyone wanting to get a conceal carry permit is already confident in handling handguns -which is just plain wrong. So they'll deduct points for states who require a safety class -like Oklahoma. 18 people were in the safety class I attended and a few were newbies to handling guns; most of the newbies had to rent guns from the instructor.
That same page also lowers the grade for states who list various places off limits for conceal carry. They base that on the restriction being a personal judgment against the permit holder rather than it being a judgment on the settings of the place being deemed off limits.
quote: Frank Angel
You guys seem to know allot about gun laws so I ask -- it seems that any mention of gun permits is always coupled with reference to carrying a concealed weapon. Does this mean that one doesn't need a permit to carry a gun that is in plane sight....like cops carry or like they did in the West, in holsters out in the open and not concealed?
It's a little more complicated than that.
Having a conceal carry permit gives you additional freedoms in other areas like transporting loaded firearms in your vehicle. You can openly transport rifles and shot guns in vehicles without a permit, but those guns have to be unloaded. Oklahoma allows people to transport handguns in vehicles without a permit, but the handgun must be unloaded with ammo stored separately. The handgun must be in plain view or stored in a gun case that is in plain view (like on the passenger seat of the vehicle -not hidden under it). A carry permit avoids all that trouble. But you must, by law, inform any law enforcement officer that pulls you over that you have a gun and a permit. If you don't have your weapon in the car at that time you don't have to say anything.
Open carry of handguns by civilians is not allowed in Oklahoma -unless you're hunting game in a hunting area or target shooting in a sports shooting area. You can't just walk through Wal-mart with a gun on your hip.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-05-2008, 11:09 AM:
Thanks for finding that site, Anslem! I also look at http://www.carryconcealed.net/ as it has links directly to state statutes. Since 27 is over half the states, I will change my wording back to "most". I appreciate your help.
Frank - to answer your question, no, in most places you cannot carry in plain sight for intimidation reasons. It varies state-by-state. In Iowa, a professional permit grants you this ability so long as you are working - like what Cops and security guards have. You may also carry exposed here while hunting. I was in South Dakota at a gun store a few years ago and all their employees were carrying exposed. I'm guessing that was limited to inside the store. I'm sure some parts of some states do allow you to carry exposed, but I would hesitate to guess where. Tell you what - try it in Brooklyn and let us know what happens. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 12-06-2008, 04:52 PM:
quote: Tim Reed
The fact he is a human being with a name like Plaxico should tell you everything you need to know. He was probably (and understandably) teased from a very early age.
Years ago a former assistant manager told me that is why these guys were so great at training for professional sports and building their bodies to play the games. He figured by the time kids with names like that were in their late-teens, nobody would want to mess with them. There may be some truth to that when you think about it.
quote: Michael Gonzalez
No one I knew in High School who applied to MSU got rejected. They let ANYBODY in.
I think state schools are required to let ANYBODY in who lists their address from the same state. Most kids who would not make it given a SAT score or high school grades usually flunk out after the first semester. So, indeed, the school looks like a "believer" in you while, at the same time, giving you the rope to hang yourself with. At least this is what my guidance counselor told me after she finished laughing at me when I asked about attending college.
On a more positive note . . . I think we need Bill Cowher back in the league. We didn't see crap like this when he handled these guys in Pittsburgh.
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 12-06-2008, 05:22 PM:
quote: Aaron Mehocic
On a more positive note . . . I think we need Bill Cowher back in the league. We didn't see crap like this when he handled these guys in Pittsburgh.
Bam Morris played for Cowher and plead guilty to felony drug possession while a member of his squad.
No coach can keep guys with personal issues out of trouble forever. Tom Coughlin, Burress' coach in New York, is known to be a strict disciplinarian and it didn't stop this event from taking place.
These grown men need to take responsibility for themselves.
Posted by Benny Walters (Member # 4894) on 12-06-2008, 07:42 PM:
Its bad for the Giants, sounds great to me. Glad I didn't waste a pick on him for a WR spot.
I think he could have dropped some cash on a holster for his piece and it wouldn't have been falling out of his sweatpants and discharging in a crowded nightclub.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-07-2008, 12:39 AM:
Well, that's just the thing. Even if Plaxico had let the gun fall out of his pants leg onto the floor it would not have discharged.
You could take a Glock with a round loaded in the chamber and throw it at a brick wall as hard as you can. The gun is not going to fire. Just don't dump one of those cheap plastic magazines out of the funnel onto the dirt. Those can break.
Plaxico simply made the silly mistake of getting his finger on the trigger when he absolutely should not have done so. It's a judgment call on whether to have a round in the chamber on a semi-auto handgun. In the case of a Glock, it's a bad idea. In any case, you end up wasting good ammunition. There's only so many times you can load a round into the chamber of a gun before "push back" becomes a serious liability. Some gun handlers believe that any time you load a round into the chamber that round should be thrown in the trash if it isn't fired. If it is ejected, get rid of it. You run the risk of a "ka-Boom" -the round simply explodes in the gun without firing the slug. It can be a very serious thing. Some people have been badly injured from such events.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-08-2008, 11:27 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Some gun handlers believe that any time you load a round into the chamber that round should be thrown in the trash if it isn't fired.
What is their logic behind this?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-08-2008, 01:28 PM:
From my previous post:
quote: Bobby Henderson
There's only so many times you can load a round into the chamber of a gun before "push back" becomes a serious liability.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-10-2008, 02:25 PM:
The use of cannelured ammo eliminates this risk. Cannelured means there is a fine groove on either the bullet or the casing which prevents set back. That's why I was asking if there was more to it, since it is sort of an outdated fear.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-11-2008, 10:37 PM:
Bobby,
What is "push back" and what is the technical reason that causes it? I'm just curious.
I don't own any weapons right now but as soon as I have time to get the training and take a safety course I want to get something for home protection and maybe eventual get a conceal carry permit.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-12-2008, 12:27 AM:
"Push back" can occur when a round is chambered repeatedly. The slug can be pushed down into the bullet casing in small increments each time the round is reloaded. Flat nose bullets and jacketed hollow point bullets are more prone to push back. With enough push back the risk is raised for the bullet to simply explode in the chamber, a "kB!"
Cannelured bullets can help prevent push back. However, not all handgun or rifle ammo is cannelured. Bullet packaging rarely mentions that feature (none of the Speer, Remington or Winchester ammunition boxes I have mention it at all).
I'd rather be safe than sorry, so I'm not chambering the same rounds repeatedly. For things like dry-firing practice or loading/clearing exercises it is far better to use a few "snap caps" for those purposes. Snap caps are harmless fake bullets. Good gun stores will sometimes have those things in stock. Web sites like Top Gun Supply have them as well.
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 12-12-2008, 05:28 AM:
What type of firearm is recommended for home protection? Something easy enough for a senior to handle (that is well-versed in firearm safety, but weakened a bit with age) but with enough stopping power to protect one's home and family?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-12-2008, 09:07 AM:
If someone has limited hand strength a revolver may be the best choice. Some people have trouble racking the slide on a semi-automatic handgun. Smith & Wesson, Colt and Ruger all make excellent revolvers. I like the S&W 686p, a 7 shot revolver capable of firing .38 Special +P and .357 Magnum ammunition.
If hand strength isn't an issue, then a semi-auto handgun may be the preferred choice for the higher ammo capacity. OTOH, nothing beats the reliability of a revolver.
No one single brand or model of handgun is right for everyone. It's not as simple as, "just buy a Glock." The best thing to do is visit a shooting range that rents out guns. Try out brands/models of interest and see if the gun's grip size and angle feels right. Is the gun comfortable to operate and field strip? Different gun manufacturers have different philosophies on how guns should be designed and what features should be included on them.
I won't go so far as to recommend a brand. But I will recommend not going on the cheap. If you're buying a handgun for home defense, buy as good a gun as your budget will allow. Your life is worth a lot more than just $200 or $300 for some "pawn shop special."
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 12-12-2008, 11:31 AM:
That's about what I figured. Thanks Bobby.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-12-2008, 02:14 PM:
quote: Anslem Rayburn
What type of firearm is recommended for home protection?
Shotgun. That's the only choice. Remington makes an 870 in a home defense style and Mossberg makes some with short barrels and pistol grips as well. They're cheap, reliable and far more effective in close quarters than any handgun could ever be.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-12-2008, 02:55 PM:
Having a shotgun is great in certain scenarios. They're not perfect for every home defense situation.
If someone is trying to get inside my house, I can rack the pump on my Ithaca shotgun and likely put the fear of God into the would-be intruder on the other side of the door. If he still wants to barge through the door then he's suicidal.
Unfortunately, many life threatening confrontations happen at close distances. Any legal shotgun has a long barrel that is easy to grab. Most people need to hold a shotgun with both hands. That can be a bad tactical combination if a bad guy is already in the house hiding around a corner.
It's easier to hold a pistol single handed close to your side with your free arm able to provide some blocking defense against any surprise attack -similar to a martial arts defensive stance. With the gun close to your side (instead of extended out stupidly like they do in the movies) the intruder can't grab it easily at all. It won't matter if he grabs you in a bear hug locking your arms. You can still pivot the gun's muzzle at his abdomen and fire.
I'll also kill an attacker just as dead and just as instantly with one .357 Sig JHP round to the torso as I would with a 12 gauge cartridge. A .357 Magnum or .45 FMJ round at close range will do horrible damage to a bad guy as well.
Shotguns also have the disadvantage of holding only so much ammo. Most shotguns require each round to be manually cycled. It takes less effort to fire a revolver or semi-auto handgun. A relatively minor point: you'll do more damage to the interior of your home with a shotgun than you will with a handgun.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-13-2008, 11:30 AM:
It is all about the margin of error. A shotgun holds way more ammo a covers a greater area than any pistol and here's why:
00 buckshot in a 2 3/4" shell (very common for home defense) has 12 .33" pellets with all the velocity and weight to kill a deer, much less an intruder. An shotgun with an extended magazine holds at least 7 shells. That's like 84 bullets, 12 each time you pull the trigger. 15 if you use 3" shells. Handguns don't hold nearly that much since you're only getting one projectile each time you pull the trigger and you certainly don't want to have to pull the trigger over and over and over before hoping to hit something vital with that little .357 Sig bullet you're talking about. Yeah, you might get lucky the first shot, but I don't want to count on luck. After the first couple rapid shots, the barrel naturally starts to rise anyway making accurracy more difficult. It is like me taking 12 shots with my 00 Buck before you can get 2 off with your semi-auto and I'll have a better range of coverage at any distance than your handgun. At the end of the day that is what increases your chances to live, not the unlikely chance that someone would be close enough to grab an 18" barrel being held at your hip, yet too far away to grab your arm holding your pistol. Please... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You want the highest chance of dealing the greatest amount of damage in the first shot or maybe the first two shots. That comes with a shotgun - its not even close.
That being said, I will say it is much harder to practice with 00 buck in a 18" barrel with a 26" overall length (shortest allowed by the ATF). After the first couple shots you really don't want to shoot anymore. It hurts. Going to a #1 or #4 buckshot helps with the kick, gives you even more pellets per shell, still has plenty of energy for penetration, but won't go through walls as easily risking whatever is on the other side.
I think the dialogue in Pulp Fiction when they're about ready to enter the apartment sums it up for me:
Jules: We should have shotguns for this kind of deal.
Vincent: How many up there?
Jules: Three or four.
Vincent: That's countin' our guy?
Jules: Not sure.
Vincent: So that means there could be up to five guys up there?
Jules: It's possible.
Vincent: We should have f**n' shotguns.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-13-2008, 07:44 PM:
Hollywood movies like Pulp Fiction hardly serve as any sort of valid testament on what weapons and tactics are best to use in a life threatening situation.
quote: Chad Souder
It is all about the margin of error. A shotgun holds way more ammo a covers a greater area than any pistol and here's why
Your "shotguns are always better than handguns" argument has some holes in it.
First of all, handgun magazines can be changed quickly if you even need to do that at all. I'm not going to need more than a couple or so bullets to resolve a situation like an attempted home invasion. At any rate, I can shoot a LOT of bullets out of a handgun pretty quickly.
Shotguns are larger and more unwieldy than handguns. It takes more effort to grab one of those things out of the closet than it does to retrieve a handgun out of a night stand. You may lose critical seconds to react.
Handguns can be hidden in a wider variety of places in a home than a shotgun. I can keep a handgun in the living room with me and no visitor would be aware of it. A shotgun is a little more conspicuous. You can take the handgun with you and conceal it in your vehicle or on yourself if you have the proper permits. Not many people are going to put a trigger lock on a shotgun or place it in a gun safe everyday before they go to work. Good opportunity for a burglar.
I'll repeat this point: Unless you have a really good auto-loading shotgun you have to manually cycle each round. And that opens an area of vulnerability. Some newbie who just bought a shotgun for home defense isn't going to have the technique down to do that smoothly, quickly and confidently. It takes a good amount of practice to handle a shotgun well. Lots of trips to the skeet range or lots of bird hunting should be in order for anyone using a shotgun for home defense -especially if it's their only firearm for home defense.
You can certainly miss a target with a shotgun too. And one cartridge is just one shot regardless of how many pellets are contained inside.
It is foolish for anyone to think they can merely point a shotgun in the general direction of the attacker and expect to hit the target. At close distances the spread of buckshot is limited. The spread expands about 1" for every yard of shooting distance. You might see a spread of 6" to 8" at a 20' target distance from a standard .12 gauge open choke shotgun.
If you miss once with a shotgun and don't have your cartridge reloading technique down very well that attacker may rush you and gain control of the weapon. He may already be rushing you if you miss. A shotgun has a lot of hardware available to grab. Chances are that intruder will be younger and stronger than you. So if it turns into a wrestling match for control of the weapon your odds are automatically bad.
Lots of people don't like shooting 00 buckshot because of the harder kick. A newbie will fire once and be stunned by the hard kick -especially if he just jumped out of bed in the middle of the night. So that may potentially put him into even more trouble if his first shot missed the target. Double ought buckshot is extremely effective, but it needs to be used by an experienced shooter. A .12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot is easier to control. A .20 gauge shotgun loaded with #3 buckshot is even easier to shoot and is still very lethal. You can do "street sweeper" action and be surgical about it with that setup.
quote: Chad Souder
Handguns don't hold nearly that much since you're only getting one projectile each time you pull the trigger and you certainly don't want to have to pull the trigger over and over and over before hoping to hit something vital with that little .357 Sig bullet you're talking about. Yeah, you might get lucky the first shot, but I don't want to count on luck.
You must suck at shooting handguns the way you spin the chances of striking a target as being so slim.
If an intruder is inside of my home it would be easy for me to stop him with a handgun if I had to do so. It isn't very difficult to control the recoil and flip of a handgun to gain rapid return to target. All it takes is some practice. Double taps and rapid fire skills aren't difficult to develop.
If you think that little .357 Sig round is insignificant then you really don't know much about that round at all. A good quality 125 grain JHP .357 Sig load will have a muzzle velocity of 1350-1450 feet per second and 500-550 foot pounds of muzzle energy. That's nearly as much power as .357 Magnum. The .357 Sig round is a very effective man stopper. Texas Rangers, Texas DPS officers, Dept. of Homeland Security and a growing number of police agencies carry Sig Sauer pistols chambered in .357 Sig. They wouldn't be using that caliber if it wasn't dependable on delivering a "one shot stop."
At least in the case of the Sig P-series, you can swap barrels and shoot .40 S&W. You use the same magazines and recoil spring. The barrel is the only thing you change. Shooting .40 S&W is almost as cheap as shooting 9mm. And I can load a wide variety of JHP defensive rounds in .40 S&W if need be. But I'm going with .357 Sig for that purpose since it packs an even greater punch.
[ 12-14-2008, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-15-2008, 09:02 AM:
You are not going to have time to get to changing magazines. That's my point. Get rid of the idea that you can carry multiple magazines and shoot 50 times. You're lucky if you have the luxury of shooting twice. That's how fast things happen. And yes, I do suck at shooting handguns in a high-stress situation where someone is trying to kill me back. Fortunately, I've never been in that situation before, so I'm a little unpracticed. I will say that it is not "easy" for you to stop an intruder with a handgun inside your home. That's ridiculous. One shot stops are almost unheard of. Unless you hit the central nervous system, they keep coming. That's how the human body works. It takes time for blood loss to affect you. If you can regularly deliver spinal cord severing shots the first time every time in stress situations, then you are indeed the greatest shooter ever and deserve a trophy.
Read this book Tools Of Violence. Its a decent read. It will give you some insight on what you're really holding. Page 50 and 51 talk about blood loss and what someone can still do after being hit. Page 55 discusses an experiment in which under 21' away, most FBI agents were able to get off only one shot before the assailant stabbed them with a knife. You're one shot stop idea is strictly Hollywood. You've been watching too many movies. Page 16 talks about why the shotgun excels in close quarters.
I never said the .357 Sig round is insignificant - quit putting words in my mouth. I said it was little. Do the math on the surface area of that round vs. the 12 pellets I was talking about and you'll see I am right. By comparison, it is tiny. Can it still do the job? Yes. Do you have a much better chance shooting 12 or 15 or more at once? Obviously.
Look, if you want to keep a handgun in your home, its OK by me. Its not my home. My concern is that others reading may take to your crazy notion that "it would be easy for me to stop him with a handgun if I had to do so" and not be as prepared as they could. I would like everyone here, including you, Bobby, to be as safe as possible in their homes. And every gun and type of ammo need to be used by an experienced shooter, not just 00 Buck, so whatever you choose, practice, practice, practice.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-15-2008, 07:52 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
You are not going to have time to get to changing magazines. That's my point. Get rid of the idea that you can carry multiple magazines and shoot 50 times. You're lucky if you have the luxury of shooting twice.
I can shoot a full, 12 round magazine of handgun ammo a lot faster than I can shoot a full tube of shotgun cartridges. I can get to one of my handguns a lot faster than I can get my shotgun.
quote: Chad Souder
I will say that it is not "easy" for you to stop an intruder with a handgun inside your home. That's ridiculous. One shot stops are almost unheard of. Unless you hit the central nervous system, they keep coming. That's how the human body works. It takes time for blood loss to affect you. If you can regularly deliver spinal cord severing shots the first time every time in stress situations, then you are indeed the greatest shooter ever and deserve a trophy.
Do you think blood loss is the only thing an assailant suffers when getting shot?
A home owner can make a poor choice by heading to Wal-Mart and buying some Winchester White Box FMJ ammo because it's cheap. It's crazy for that guy to expect ball ammunition to work for self defense. Premium JHP ammunition designed for personal defense won't be so prone to the problems of FMJ ammo.
A person can indeed die very quickly or at least be incapacitated from just one JHP handgun round to the chest. Keep in mind, if someone invades my home and I have the chance to defend myself with a handgun, I'm not going to just fire once. I'm going to keep firing at center mass until the intruder is stopped. Nothing is certain in a life and death home defense situation. But the chances are at least pretty good that an intruder will not keep coming after you with a chest full of JHP slugs.
quote: Chad Souder
I never said the .357 Sig round is insignificant - quit putting words in my mouth. I said it was little.
Even referring to the bullet for being "little" still sounds dismissive. The truth is a lot of lighter grain slugs are more effective than bigger slower slugs. Most people shooting .40 S&W will load 180 grain JHP bullets because they just think bigger is better. There is a number of 135 grain JHP loads in .40 S&W that have much more impressive ballistics. They strike the target faster and have more energy to make that hollow point slug spread out into the target.
quote: Chad Souder
Look, if you want to keep a handgun in your home, its OK by me. Its not my home. My concern is that others reading may take to your crazy notion that "it would be easy for me to stop him with a handgun if I had to do so" and not be as prepared as they could.
Considering I'm pretty good with shooting a handgun my own personal choice is not crazy.
You're insisting that anyone interested in defending their home can make due perfectly with a shotgun and they don't need to consider anything else. I don't agree with that.
Anyone choosing to use a gun to defend their home must choose the kind of gun that fits them best. Shotguns are not automatically easy for just anyone new to guns to just immediately depend on to defend themselves -especially if they're going to load that thing with double ought buckshot.
Handguns, shotguns and rifles all have their various strengths and weaknesses. There is a lot more to the situation than just the power of the round being fired. One person's tactical choice isn't going to be automatically right for everyone else or even every life/death confrontation.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-15-2008, 09:44 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
One shot stops are almost unheard of. Unless you hit the central nervous system, they keep coming. That's how the human body works. It takes time for blood loss to affect you. If you can regularly deliver spinal cord severing shots the first time every time in stress situations, then you are indeed the greatest shooter ever and deserve a trophy.
Except that's not how the body works. That's like saying that if I shot the tires out of your car you can still drive fine because you've still got gas and a spark plug. If I shot you in the foot, you probably will loose blood somewhat slowly but you'll still think twice about attacking because you're in pain. And even if you don't think twice, nothing's stopping me from shooting again and your foot is broken, making you a bit less formidable.
In short: trauma is much more than blood and the spinal cord.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-15-2008, 11:24 PM:
You can swing a baseball bat across the back of someone without drawing any blood yet it will still hurt that person pretty badly.
I have to question the credibility of certain parts of that Tools of Violence book Chad mentioned. The book makes the claim that very little bullet energy is transferred to a person when shot -no more than the recoil felt by the shooter. Pretty strange claim. The book says a fellow named Martin Fackler shot 7.62mm NATO rifle rounds at close range into a bullet proof vest worn by a person. The person wearing the vest "comfortably handled" those shots. He wasn't knocked off balance even when standing on one foot. Now that just sounds very hard to believe. You really need something more akin to body armor to stop rifle rounds.
I know one highway patrolman here in Lawton who suffered a cracked rib when he took a round into his vest during a deadly gunfight with a motorist during a road side stop in 1999. The motorist died in the shootout. The OHP officer was hit twice. Once in the wrist and once in the torso. This trooper said it hurt pretty bad even with his adrenaline flowing.
More police officers are wearing "trauma plates" underneath standard vests to guard against injuries that can and do occur when getting shot into a vest (cracked ribs, impact trauma to muscles and internal organs).
Handguns in conjunction with the proper grip of the shooter are designed to absorb/distribute recoil. That blow back energy is more broadly distributed compared to the very tight focus of energy behind that bullet. I suppose if I grab hold of the slide while firing a semi-auto handgun I might feel a little more of the real energy of that recoil -and injure the living hell out of my hand while doing it.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-15-2008, 11:44 PM:
The claim that the recoil you feel when shooting is equal to the amount of force exerted upon it stopping is patently false.
Yes, the recoil force is equal to the force exerted onto the bullet upon firing. But the amount of force exerted on you, when the bullet stops, simply depends on how much it decelerates inside your body.
[sarcasm]And yeah if the only way to stop someone was to cause significant bleeding or sever the spinal cord, it seems amazing how a boxer can get stopped simply by getting punched a bunch of times. I've even heard of people getting knocked out.[/sarcasm]
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-16-2008, 12:21 AM:
Now the Giants have lost two in a row without him - is he carrying the team that bad?
They shouldn't have lost to Dallas with a rotten score like that..
Amazing how one player can carry the team on on any sport at times.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-16-2008, 10:02 AM:
quote: Chris Slycord
Except that's not how the body works. That's like saying that if I shot the tires out of your car you can still drive fine because you've still got gas and a spark plug.
Except that is exactly how the body works. You may not be able to drive 100%, but you could keep going with lethal force. Keep in mind, the idea here is not to kill an intruder - it is to keep yourself from being hurt or killed. You may deliver a lethal shot on your first attempt but in the time it takes for someone to bleed out, they could keep coming and deliver an effective attack on you. When you have high adrenaline, your capillaries naturally tighten around wounds, slowing blood loss. There are countless stories of people that get shot more than a couple times that keep coming. If you enter drugs into the equation, the pain or shock they feel would be diminished.
quote: Bobby Henderson
A person can indeed die very quickly or at least be incapacitated from just one JHP handgun round to the chest.
No they can't. Like I said before, not unless you damage the central nervous system. A bullet in your heart doesn't even kill you right away. Do some research. Go hunting. See how far an animal can go after you hit it in the heart or go through both lungs. We're built pretty similarly.
Read page 55 of that book where it cites Military Review magazine, it says "The harsh reality in such circumstances is unless the shot happens to hit the attacker in the central nervous system, the attack will succeed". That is exactly how the human body works. Following that citation is one such story of a man being repeatedly shot by police, only to wound 3 officers before dying. There are countless stories like it - especially when the assailant is under the influence of drugs.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The book makes the claim that very little bullet energy is transferred to a person when shot -no more than the recoil felt by the shooter. Pretty strange claim.
That is correct. Some energy is used to cycle the action on a semi-auto, but it goes back to Newton's third law. The action of the bullet being fired from the chamber creates the equal and opposite reaction going the other direction. If you think a bullet has the power to push someone backwards, then again, you've been watching too many movies. Myth Busters did an episode where they shot their dummy with a .50 BMG. The dummy absorbed 100% of the energy, yet it did not move away in the slightest. Think about it - a 180 grain bullet moving is going to move a 180 pound man? Its simple physics. Can't happen.
quote: Chris Slycord
[sarcasm]And yeah if the only way to stop someone was to cause significant bleeding or sever the spinal cord, it seems amazing how a boxer can get stopped simply by getting punched a bunch of times. I've even heard of people getting knocked out.[/sarcasm]
Yes, those are called closed head wounds. Concussions, if you will. The brain hits the inside of the skull so hard that you lose consciousness. Today's anatomy lesson is: The brain is part of the central nervous system.
quote: Bobby Henderson
You're insisting that anyone interested in defending their home can make due perfectly with a shotgun and they don't need to consider anything else.
No I'm not. Nothing is perfect. I never used that word. All you can do is increase your chances. A shotgun increases your chances the most in close range combat.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-16-2008, 11:44 AM:
quote: Chad Souder
No they can't. Like I said before, not unless you damage the central nervous system.
Chad, unless you are a Medical Doctor or Masaad Ayoob you just need to stop. I've seen plenty of news footage of police incidents and combat where people drop dead or immediately collapse from getting shot just once. And it isn't automatically through the heart or the spine either.
The way you keep concentrating on the notion that unless the spine is hit the person has to bleed out to be incapacitated gives me the impression you don't know the differences between how FMJ ball ammo and JHP hollow point ammo behaves when striking a target.
quote: Chad Souder
That is correct. Some energy is used to cycle the action on a semi-auto, but it goes back to Newton's third law. The action of the bullet being fired from the chamber creates the equal and opposite reaction going the other direction. If you think a bullet has the power to push someone backwards, then again, you've been watching too many movies.
Where did I say a bullet has the power to push someone backwards? You complain about me putting words in your mouth. Try practicing what you preach.
When I fire a handgun I don't break any bones in my hand. I know people who have suffered cracked ribs from catching a handgun bullet into a standard bullet proof vest. The energy behind a bullet is tightly focused. That is a big difference.
quote: Chad Souder
Myth Busters did an episode where they shot their dummy with a .50 BMG. The dummy absorbed 100% of the energy, yet it did not move away in the slightest. Think about it - a 180 grain bullet moving is going to move a 180 pound man? Its simple physics. Can't happen.
Try thinking about what happens to the insides of a target when it is hit with a JHP round. It isn't going to just make a little tiny hole and over penetrate through the back of the target. It is going to make a hard splash inside the target. It won't lift a bad guy off the ground like you see in the movies, but it is still going to pack a wallop and cause immediate, critical trauma to internal organs.
Since you seem to be so vested in that Tools of Violence book, did it ever occur to you that book may be one of those pieces with the agenda of discouraging gun ownership? Certain gun experts and some law enforcement officers fall into that camp.
That book brings up that FBI shootout in the 1980s where a couple of agents were killed and uses it to illustrate handguns being ineffective in a fire fight. The book fails to mention the differences in using effective handgun calibers and proper defense ammunition. The FBI, many law enforcement agencies and the firearms industry did a lot of research and development after that incident. Many law enforcement agencies switched to .40 S&W, .357 Sig and .45 in the following years. They use JHP loads when they can. When lawyers interfere they go to .45 if they have to settle for FMJ ball ammo.
quote: Chad Souder
No I'm not. Nothing is perfect. I never used that word. All you can do is increase your chances. A shotgun increases your chances the most in close range combat.
Chad, maybe you need to be reminded of what you said earlier: "Shotgun. That's the only choice."
Whether you said "perfect" or not really makes no difference. It's essentially the same statement. You certain said no other options should be considered. That's pretty crazy. You refuse to consider many factors that come into play regarding shotguns.
I can get to one of my handguns a lot faster than I can retrieve my shotgun. Let's say an intruder is already in my house wielding a knife might and able to stab or slash at me a couple of times before I brought him down with my handgun. If he's that fast, I wouldn't have nearly enough time to get to my shotgun at all. A good weapon you can get to quickly is a hell of a lot better than a perfect weapon too far out of reach.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-16-2008, 03:06 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Where did I say a bullet has the power to push someone backwards?
quote: Bobby Henderson
He wasn't knocked off balance even when standing on one foot. Now that just sounds very hard to believe.
That's where you said it. A bullet doesn't even have the power to knock someone off balance - even when standing on one foot. It may sting, but it won't move you.
quote: Bobby Henderson
When I fire a handgun I don't break any bones in my hand. I know people who have suffered cracked ribs from catching a handgun bullet into a standard bullet proof vest.
That's how vests are designed to work. They distribute the energy over a wider area so your skin doesn't get punctured. Bruising will usually occur. Ribs are kind of fragile. People have been known to crack one while sneezing. Your hand flies up when you shoot a handgun. It doesn't absorb all the energy directly. It may very well break a bone in your hand if it did.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That book brings up that FBI shootout in the 1980s where a couple of agents were killed and uses it to illustrate handguns being ineffective in a fire fight.
Handguns are ineffective in a fire fight. That is why they are, by definition, a backup weapon - not a primary. They are called side arms for a reason. They are desirable only for their concealability and portability. They are inferior in every other measurement, because they simply do not have the accuracy, power or ammo capacity to compete with rifles or shotguns. That's why law enforcement carry rifles or shotguns in their vehicles. A handgun allows them to keep their hands free and looks less intimidating to the public, but they have more power close by if needed. Are they fun to shoot? Sure. Are they great for concealed carry? Absolutely. Are they ever preferable when concealment or portability is not desirable? No.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I've seen plenty of news footage of police incidents and combat where people drop dead or immediately collapse from getting shot just once.
Please reference some links to this footage. If this is true, these police officers are horribly trained. They are trained to shoot repeatedly until the threat is eliminated. If there are more than one, they all shoot. I would like to see this footage to see what you are referring to. If there is "plenty" it should be no trouble for you to find.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-16-2008, 05:09 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
Yes, those are called closed head wounds. Concussions, if you will. The brain hits the inside of the skull so hard that you lose consciousness. Today's anatomy lesson is: The brain is part of the central nervous system.
1) When did I say the brain isn't part of the CNS?
2) Many boxing matches are ended early, not due to the person getting a concussion, but due to the person simply being injured. Many times they get their abs hurt to the point that they can't go on. And bullets can cause similar or worse injuries that simply hurt so much that they stop or they get worried that you'll shoot again.
Like I said before, there's more to a trauma than just the CNS and blood. Police throughout the world use rubber bullets to stop attackers by breaking their limbs. And it does stop people before they bleed to death.
edit:
And I think you're misunderstanding that a gun doesn't have to completely, 100% incapacitate someone to be effective. If a gun will make the guy stop for a second, giving me time to escape to get help then great. If the gun's presence makes the guy reconsider, then great. Etc.
You're also assuming that every assailant is the type that will attack no matter what, at all costs. This type of person is the exception, rather than the rule, imo.
[ 12-16-2008, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Chris Slycord ]
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-16-2008, 07:55 PM:
Some scary examples:
first one Count how many times they shoot. Notice they are using rifles. Watch him shoot back several seconds later.
Second I count 7 shots from one cop before he falls, probably another 5-7 from the other, although its hard to see. That's scary. Fortunately he was walking away from them.
third video Again, count how many times they shoot before he drops.
There are countless more videos like this. The one shot stop idea is purely a Hollywood fantasy.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-16-2008, 09:55 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
That's where you said it. A bullet doesn't even have the power to knock someone off balance - even when standing on one foot. It may sting, but it won't move you.
That example is the strange claim from that book you mentioned of someone taking a fired 7.62mm NATO rifle round into the chest while supposedly wearing an ordinary bullet proof vest. All while balancing on one leg and taking the hit "comfortably." That story might be believable if the guy was wearing heavy external body armor designed for SWAT and military use.
Police officers have suffered bruised or cracked ribs from getting hit handgun bullets fired into their vests. Are you going to claim all of those police officers are lying and the medical evidence of their injuries is all fabricated? Are you going to claim there is no need for trauma plates to augment the function of bullet proof vests? I'd like to meet someone who can still balance on one foot while getting one of his ribs bruised or cracked. The way you're describing the weakness of handgun bullets I guess we should be thankful they can even pierce the skin.
I guarantee that if you just put on a bullet proof vest and allowed someone to fire a NATO rifle round into it at near point blank range you would not be able to just balance on one foot while getting shot.
quote: Chad Souder
Handguns are ineffective in a fire fight.
As usual, another broad brushed, overly generalized statement. It depends on the kind of firefight involved. In close quarters, handguns can be very effective. In a fire fight of significant distance rifles win.
quote: Chad Souder
That is why they are, by definition, a backup weapon - not a primary. They are called side arms for a reason. They are desirable only for their concealability and portability. They are inferior in every other measurement, because they simply do not have the accuracy, power or ammo capacity to compete with rifles or shotguns.
Handguns can kill people. If they were truly as worthless and ineffective as you seem to believe no one would be manufacturing handguns at all.
quote: Chad Souder
Please reference some links to this footage.
Not everything ever recorded to video or film is on YouTube. I know you've seen news reel war footage from WWII, Vietnam, etc. of soldiers running forward and collapsing immediately when hit. You see it in footage from D-Day. That isn't Hollywood.
I'll admit I don't actively record explicit scenes of death I see in news/documentary footage on TV or collect links to such footage on the Internet. That would be pretty creepy.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-16-2008, 10:09 PM:
..but an aluminum hunting arrow with a narrow point blade at the end shot from an 80lb bow from 20 yrds can go straight through a bulletproof vest....now, that can be a bit scary.
..like that one bank robbery in California (can't remember where though) in 1994, the robbers were completely clothed in kelvar and the 9mm bullets from the police guns couldn't stop them. Now, if one just had a tranquilizer gun, those darts could have easily pierce that kelvar and put them down in a quick.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-16-2008, 10:38 PM:
Since there is "plenty" of news footage of police incidents and combat where people drop immediately from one shot, a little searching should be able to turn some up for you. I couldn't find any. I think its because such footage doesn't exist. I found "plenty" of footage proving my claim correct that men can take multiple hits before no longer being dangerous. You're turn.
Chris - I didn't mean anything by my boxing response. I apologize for the tone. I had initially said the central nervous system must be hit to stop someone instantly and severing the spinal cord is only one method of traumatizing the CNS. I was just pointing out that in your boxing analogy, the CNS is being traumatized, causing the boxer to stop.
Bobby - Why are you so intent on discrediting that book? Are you afraid to admit you're wrong, so you attack something I referenced? What you need to realize is that book references other sources, so you in effect are attempting to discredit those sources as well. Dr. Fackler is widely considered an expert on terminal ballistics. Good luck discrediting him.
Anyway, this has carried on long enough. Until someone shows me evidence of this mythical "one stop shot" Bobby can deliver with a handgun consistently, I've made my point. Until then (not holding my breath here) I'll increase my chances of defending my home with a shotgun.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-17-2008, 02:58 AM:
quote: Chad Souder
I'll increase my chances of defending my home with a shotgun.
....just don't shoot your foot...and blow your house apart with that scattergun
Dang! you must live in a tough neighborhood then...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2008, 12:46 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
Since there is "plenty" of news footage of police incidents and combat where people drop immediately from one shot, a little searching should be able to turn some up for you. I couldn't find any. I think its because such footage doesn't exist.
I gave you a couple of clues where to look. I've already wasted way too much time going round and round with you in this thread and don't feel like doing it anymore. This isn't even the topic of the thread anyway (Plaxico Burress). If you want to disregard what I've said, fine. I don't care. It's not like I'm talking to an esteemed authority on firearms and tactics. You're just another guy.
quote: Chad Souder
Why are you so intent on discrediting that book? Are you afraid to admit you're wrong, so you attack something I referenced?
The book you referenced has flaws. It omits critical information and I suspect it is doing to so to make its accounts sound more incredible -like the idea of someone wearing a bullet proof vest being able to balance on one foot while getting shot at close range with a 7.62mm rifle bullet. The guy takes the shot comfortably and remains balanced on one foot. Exactly what kind of vest was he using? I strongly doubt it's the under the shirt variety. Because that would mean every cop who has suffered bruised or cracked ribs from handgun shots to their vests is lying. It means every hospital who treated those cops fabricated their medical evidence too.
It gets back to the point that JHP handgun bullets are going to have a noticeable impact on an intruder. The guy is going to feel it when he gets hit (unlike what sometimes can occur with FMJ bullets). Whether he stops from well placed shots to vital organs or stops due to the psychological reaction to the sudden, intense pain (or loud noise, bright muzzle flash, etc.) makes little difference. Getting shot with a handgun loaded with effective ammunition is not going to be a pleasant, comfy experience. You think any intruder is just going to keep coming forward like he's the Terminator or some other kind of robot.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-18-2008, 11:11 AM:
Monte - You're absolutely right about arrows with broad heads. I have heard of a few law enforcement organizations keeping some officers trained in archery specifically for their ability to cut right through vests. And no, I don't live in a bad neighborhood, but I'm not too far away from some pretty bad neighborhoods. Waterloo has it's issues. Times are weird right now. We had a guy rob 4 local banks during the month of November. As stress levels increase people are more willing to do crazy things.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I gave you a couple of clues where to look. I've already wasted way too much time going round and round with you in this thread and don't feel like doing it anymore.
Translation: Those videos don't exist and I was just making stuff up.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Because that would mean every cop who has suffered bruised or cracked ribs from handgun shots to their vests is lying. It means every hospital who treated those cops fabricated their medical evidence too.
You're assuming that bruising or cracking a rib will force you to lose your balance. Have you received a shot from a .308 while wearing a vest? I haven't, so I'll just believe the findings of the terminal ballistics expert.
While looking for one shot stop videos by law enforcement or in combat that don't exist, I did find some other humorous ones. Enjoy:
Girl shoots desert eagle
.50 Cal ricochet The sound on this one cracks me up. You can see it bounce off the ground a few feet in front of him on its way back
girl shooting a shotgun Horrible form on this one
Recoil can hurt
crazy ricochet These remind you what to use and what not to use for targets
There's a bunch more like these. I could keep chuckling all day.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-18-2008, 11:28 AM:
quote: Chad Souder
You're assuming that bruising or cracking a rib will force you to lose your balance.
No he's not. Your source claims the shot was taken COMFORTABLY. In other words: The source claims that a vest makes gunshots feel comfortable even at point blank range.
That's what he is taking issue with. Plus, this makes the source seem dishonest which brings into doubt everything else they claim.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-18-2008, 01:52 PM:
You think when you're facing an iron target that you get yourself off-center from the target some so that the bullet doesn't come back and bite you where it hurts..
When I did target shooting like that, I never stood square to the target...
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2008, 05:50 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
Translation: Those videos don't exist and I was just making stuff up.
Here it is in black and white: you and this conversation isn't worth the time of digging around on the Internet and elsewhere to find some one shot stop videos. I seen such videos -a lot of it being war footage. If you want to contend that no such thing exists, fine. I don't give a damn. Better yet, why don't you go shout it out to the world since you're already carrying yourself as the ultimate expert on this subject.
quote: Chad Souder
You're assuming that bruising or cracking a rib will force you to lose your balance.
Obviously you've never had any broken or cracked ribs. I have.
Why don't you try having someone jam a hard object into your rib cage hard enough to crack or break a rib -all while you're standing on one foot. There's no way you'll stay balanced. More accurately, you'll be staggering around cursing a blue streak and struggling to catch your breath.
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-19-2008, 04:19 AM:
You are both starting to get out of hand...Bobby your acting just as much as a the ultimate expert as Chad. YOu both need to just chill out and relax and get back to talking about what a fucking tard Plaxico Burress is.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-19-2008, 10:08 AM:
Chris and One-Shot Bobby - If the problem is the wording, please read page 51 again. Nowhere does it say close range shots by a 7.62 are comfortable. There are two separate statements. It says in most cases bullets can be handled comfortably and then it says in Dr. Fackler's study his assistant was never in danger of being knocked over. It doesn't say what type of vest the guy was wearing, it was only making the point that the energy wasn't enough to move you. I agree that using a term like "most cases" is poor, as it is a vague, comparative statement. Here is another decent read that also covers energy transfer.
I also would like to state openly that I am a far cry from an expert. I do have a background in criminology and police science and this stuff was all covered in classes I took, but that was just these basics.
Monte - Yeah, I too thought it was common sense not to square up directly with something that can "return serve" so to speak. It's hard to say whether or not the bullet would have enough left on it to do any real damage, but I wouldn't want to take that chance.
I'll happily return to Plaxico now. He is a tard that stands to lose out on approximately $6 mil and that's not including future earning potential. The Giants haven't won since he left, probably because there is one fewer studs to bail out Eli now. Guys like me that never had that kind of ability will never understand guys like him that waste it.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-19-2008, 10:12 AM:
quote: Chad Souder
One-Shot Bobby
Grow up.
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 12-19-2008, 01:24 PM:
I am no gun expert, I have never owned one and never fired a handgun. I think that I would like to at some point, but in Michigan you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun, and I am not.
That being said, in high school I dated a girl whose father was a police detective in the city of Wayne. They had moved out of Wayne to Plymouth, about 8 miles away, in the mid-'90s due to the large volume of death threats he received from the violent felons he put away. He was, and I believe still is, the only full detective in Wayne, and he investigates most felonies and all violent ones, so he had quite a few death threats, from people more violent and depraved than anyone you and I deal with. He kept one single handgun in the house, without a clip in it, for home protection. Considering that no violent felons actively want me, or most of you, dead, I feel as though a handgun should be adequate for the purposes of protecting my home, at least where I live. Actually, where I live, a cell phone is adequate for home protection, since there is no real crime and there are about tons of police.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-19-2008, 10:11 PM:
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
I have never owned one and never fired a handgun. I think that I would like to at some point, but in Michigan you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun, and I am not.
They're fun to shoot - I was 12 when my uncle taught me how to shoot with a .22 rifle on target practice ranges with anything and everything that can be found to shoot at.
It didn't take me long to handle such a weapon to where I could hit anything that I point the barrel of the weapon at - from tin cans to jackrabbits and noisy magpies.
Now, pistols is another animal all together: I learned quickly that you don't aim to hit something as with a rifle, but just point to hit something.
But, you'd better be fully mature to own one, for knowing that you got something that has power and you can show power with..and if you one inch from maturity, that power will want to eventually take you over.
Fun watching these fellas on YouTube with all the weaponry that they have and sometimes you can tell that they do this sport mainly to get their aggression out on something.
Biggest weapon that I ever shot was a .58 cal Springfield percussion cap muzzle loader shooting a 750gr ball with triple load powder and the ball fully wadded down. You've seen these folks shooting that .50cal Desert Eagle pistoll and the recoil those pistols have, this rifle kicked harder being the ball was wadded down and rammed in super tight.
..but I managed to hit my target 50yds away - paper plate hanging on the tree. Sent the ball through the plate and through the tree...blowing out 6 inches of back end of the tree.
But, "dang, that was FUN."
-Monte
[ 12-20-2008, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 12-20-2008, 02:12 PM:
Muzzleloaders are the only weapon I shoot anymore. They are way more fun than the regular firearms on the market.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 12-21-2008, 10:59 AM:
quote: Monte L Fullmer
I was 12 when my uncle taught me how to shoot with a .22 rifle on target practice ranges with anything and everything that can be found to shoot at.
Sounds about right. Boy Scout camp was my first .22 experience. Bolt action. What fun. Do Boy Scouts even allow shooting anymore? I remember how excited I was when I turned 16 and could buy .22 cartridges at K-Mart. Now, thanks to Michael Moore, K-Mart doesn't even sell ammo. My friend had a Ruger 10-22 and for a few bucks we could have fun all day. Anything can become a target.
Aaron - I know next to nothing about muzzle loaders, but have some interest. It would round out my hunting possibilities. What do you shoot?
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 12-23-2008, 09:27 PM:
Yes, Boy Scouts still shoot. Most of my experience shooting was .22s at Boy Scout camp when I was a kid. Hell, most of the camps I went to still had dedicated shotgun ranges, and this was only four or so years ago.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 04-02-2009, 09:40 PM:
Add Donte Stallworth to the list of idiodic premium athletes that, despite their vast resources, carelessly throw their marketability away. Seriously, when cab fare for him would be like buying a gumball to most of us, why would you ever choose to drive drunk? Go figure, he kills a pedestrian and, like Burress, gets to take an extended vacation from his high-paying job. If he does ever return to the NFL, his value will be severly diminished. I just don't get these guys. Oh, and Michael Phelps is a huge idiot too, but that one is kind of outdated.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-02-2009, 11:50 PM:
Are you actually equating smoking pot with killing someone?
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-03-2009, 12:13 AM:
Michael Phelps had a previous DUI incident.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 04-03-2009, 12:33 AM:
Touché
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 04-03-2009, 01:29 PM:
I was equating throwing away millions of dollars in potential income for something that could have so easily been avoided.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-20-2009, 05:02 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
What pisses me off really badly about this is Burress may end up walking with a slap on the wrist because he is an NFL star. The fucker should get charged and convicted of a FELONY. That's what would happen to any of us under the same circumstances.
Well you got your wish. Burress made a plea deal today earning himself 2 years in prison. Now, I think he's very stupid and all for putting himself in that position, but 2 years? Really? I think he deserves the millions he has and will lose in NFL checks, and a little jail time would further send a message that NY is serious about their gun laws, but 2 years in prison for what amounts to carrying without a permit, not having his gun licensed and shooting somewhere where you're not supposed to... That seems a bit extreme to me, considering Donte Stallworth got 24 days for killing that pedestrian while drunk. It just doesn't match up in my mind. I have a feeling if any of us had done the same, we would have gotten off, by comparison, with a slap on the wrist.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-20-2009, 06:05 PM:
Just because one person got an extremely lenient sentence doesn't mean his was excessive.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-20-2009, 09:41 PM:
I completely agree with you, Chris, in some cases. I just think that in the true goals of the justice system - rehabilitation, incapacitation (for protection of society), retribution or deterrence - this is clearly a sentence of deterrence. They are making an example of someone famous for the purposes of deterring others of doing the same. His crime was not one that you would rehabilitate from being that, regardless of whether it was paranoia or legitimate risk, in his mind he broke the law in an effort to protect himself. Likewise, he has shown no risk to the rest of society as the target was his leg and most likely accidental. Certainly no risk that a house arrest couldn't remove. And as far as retribution, he could do more repaying society on this issue by being ordered to teach children about proper firearm safety or that sort of thing, much like Vick is working with the Humane Society.
I think the same effect of deterrence could have been achieved with a much shorter prison sentence, saving the state the money of housing a high-profile prisoner. Any warden will tell you they hate celebrity prisoners due to all the extra attention they must pay them to keep them safe. A brief prison term with a more lengthy probation including house arrest would be much cheaper and deliver the same effect. An average person in NY who wants to carry a gun illegally will continue to do so regardless of how long Burress stays in custody of the state. I personally don't care about what the city, county or state of New York spend on their prisoners because I don't live there. It just bothers me seeing resources wasted when the effect will be minimal.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-21-2009, 01:52 AM:
Who ever said that sports filters for intelligence?
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-21-2009, 02:30 AM:
quote: Chad Souder
I completely agree with you, Chris, in some cases.
My point, though, is that the other lenient case doesn't at all have any bearing on whether this one is harsh or not.
But WRT the drunk-driving case, the law in Florida requires that they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alcohol led to the death and the other circumstances involved (like the victim jaywalking in the dark across the street walking in traffic) lead to possible doubt on the alcohol causing the death. So now what was originally a charge that could give him 15 years in prison was reduced to a regular 1st-time drunk driving charge.
And saying that Burress was given an excessive sentence seems strange considering that the sentence he got is less than what is specified as the minimum for the charges he had (he got 2 years instead of 3.5 years each for the 2 charges). And focusing on saying "He got arrested for shooting himself" obscures the reason why he'd be arrested to begin with (since he endangered not just himself).
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2