Drunken Pedestrian with Loaded Pistol Charged By Police

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-vermilion-drunken-armed-pedestrian-charged,0,3096841.story

Authorities tell Fox 8 News that a male pedestrian spotted Tuesday night walking in the middle of a Vermilion road was drunk and carrying a loaded 9 mm semi-automatic pistol. The man in question was arrested and charged, Fox 8 News reports.

Robert D. Opal, 41, of Vermilion, was initially spotted just after 11 p.m. by a Vermilion Police Department officer on patrol in the area of Douglas and South streets.

The officer approached Opal, who was wearing dark clothing and had a large flashlight in his back pocket. He observed that Opal appeared to be very intoxicated. Opal was slurring his speech, he was unsteady on his feet and smelled strongly of alcohol.

The officer also noticed that it appeared Opal was hiding something in the front waistline of his pants. A pat-down confirmed that there was indeed a concealed semi-automatic pistol. The weapon was loaded.

<more>

and the GOP/NRA wants to let people bring guns to bars?

Carrying while drunk is illegal and NO ONE is advocating changing that.

He was drunk and was arrested. It didn't say whether he had a Concealed Carry permit so we don't have that little tidbit of data. If he did have one that night it's safe to assume he doesn't have it now. The law worked exactly as it should.

I've taken guns and knives off of drunks for years. Drunks do dumb things.

All drunks carrying firearms are arrested by police. The instant their blood alcohol level hits "drunk", a cop shows up.

No problem at all that people have easy access to semi-automatic handguns and take them out for a few beers. No harm can possibly come from this.

They banned booze and it was a big boost to the Canadian economy.

:wtf:

It worked so well in the Twenties....



It has proven so effective with drugs...




But, we are assured it will work a whole lot better with guns. Maybe your level of metabolites proves them right?

I post:


All drunks carrying firearms are arrested by police. The instant their blood alcohol level hits "drunk", a cop shows up.

No problem at all that people have easy access to semi-automatic handguns and take them out for a few beers. No harm can possibly come from this.


And you reply by saying they tried prohibition in the whenever it was. (Not in Canada, you see.)

Why, someone looking at this would almost think I proposed prohibition.

Maybe a little prohibition applied to posting in this place would have a salutary effect. 'Cause I'm hard pressed to see how a sober person could have thought this made sense.

" I don't think he should have had that firearm in his home. I don't think anyone should have a handgun in their home...There is no reason for anyone to keep a firearm in their home if they only place they may use it is a gun club.

That's just the last I can think of, but haven't you basically stated, that were you Queen of Canada, no one would be permitted to keep a handgun in the home? I may recall that even the police were to surrender their gun at the end of their shift?

Or have I mixed you up with someone else who would prohibit the private ownership of handguns?

I'd be whistling in the wind. And violating a number of constitutional conventions by opening my mouth in the first place.

As it is, there are quite a few elected types in Canada who have proposed that no handguns be permitted to be kept in homes.

There are two classes of permit holders who may possess handguns (which are classified as restricted weapons):

sports shooters who are members of approved facilities and may use the handguns only at those facilities, and who require transport permits for taking them to and from those facilities;

collectors, who have to demonstrate some itty bitty knowledge of firearms, and who are then permitted to have as many restricted weapons as takes their fancy, and may store them wherever they want, subject to storage rules.

There is no reason for either one of those to have handguns in their homes.


I may recall that even the police were to surrender their gun at the end of their shift?

"Their guns"? If a member of a police service owns a firearm, they certainly don't have it with them on duty. The thing that they hand in when they go off duty belongs to the police service.

Not a matter of "were to". Do.


Or have I mixed you up with someone else who would prohibit the private ownership of handguns?

Not ownership.

Possession off the premises of the facility where they are used for sports shooting, in the first case, or the secure facility where they are stored, in the second. "I would", in this case. We're not yet there, here.

You would not prohibit ownership, merely possession. Out side of the narrow construct of a policeman, and only while on duty, or a target shooter at a designated range no handguns except stored in approved secure facilities.

You don't think that qualifies as prohibition, in practice, if not in name?

You don't think that qualifies as prohibition, in practice, if not in name?

?

you are asserting that your reference to Prohibition, with a capital P, and to the boon to the Canadian economy that it was, was somehow relevant to my position on firearms control?

No wonder I was so bloody confused. It makes no sense.

If you'd like me to find you some links to where this idiotic alcohol = guns meme has had the shit beat out of it repeatedly in the last decade here ... well, if I get a minute, I will. There's always google. The excellent thing is that my name is unique in the world, so if you google it with anything you're looking for, you'll find me talking about it!

iverglas alcohol firearms

should start you off ... then work on filtering out tobacco and whatever else looks useful.

Just remember: if you really want to portray yourself as addicted to guns, that's your choice, not my doing.

What more do you want?

Handgun don't give off cosmic kryptonite death rays all by themselves they need require human intervention to do anything (but rust). Shouldn't we focus on correcting the behavior of those who misuse guns and leave those of us who don't alone?

In this case the individual was taken into custody for being drunk and subsequently found to be armed. He wasn't staggering around like Kid Shelleen.

Your attempt at ginning up moral outrage isn't working. Better luck next time.

Your attempt at ginning up moral outrage isn't working. Better luck next time.

And your demagoguery is no more or less than what was expected.

That's rich. I'm done. You don't care about the issue as much as you just crave the attention. It's a shame, because on some levels you have a lot to bring to the discussion but just not enough to make it worth all the drama.

You respond to my statement by characterizing it inappropriately, you respond to my accurate characterization of what you just did by launching a personal attack.

Yer funny!

The instant they mug someone a cop shows up. You mean that doesn't happen now?

They run free and easy with little or no interference from the police. Freedom, some criminals got it.

...I'd say he didn't have a CCW permit at the time.

in compliance with Ohio law at the time. If you are not following the terms of the license, you can catch the charge.

But if a person is not drinking then they should be able to carry wherever they go.

Some are, leaving them at home when going in public. Others, just can't separate themselves from their guns. That's why we need tougher carry laws. There are many public places that should be gun free.

Now that you've raised the question ...

Canada's worst mass shootings have occurred in schools. The phenomenon has also been observed in the UK and elsewhere.

Gun militants claim that would-be mass murderers target schools because of the bans on firearms in schools (in the US).

It is illegal to carry firearms in public anywhere in Canada, so there's no particular reason to pick a school if you want to carry out a mass shooting.

In fact, the Dawson College shooter was thwarted because there happened to be a couple of cops in the building at the time, something perhaps not unusual at a college.

So, how do we explain would-be mass murderers disproportionately targeting schools in places where the rules governing firearms make no distinction between schools and anywhere else?? And why would the explanation not apply also in the US?

A common thread to all but a very few of those places is that they were so called gun-free zones.

Everywhere but the US, would-be mass murderers target schools disproportionately.

A common thread to everywhere in those places is that no carrying of firearms in any public place is permitted.

Why do mass murderers in those places target schools disproportionately?

Why does the explanation, whatever it is, not apply in the US?

Looking forward ...

Because they have all their victims in one place?

A common thread to everywhere in those places is that no carrying of firearms in any public place is permitted.

Another common thread in those places is that the prohibition on carrying guns affected the criminal not at all.

In most of the mass shootings in the US there was a connection between the shooter and where he /she went. They didn't just pick a name out of a hat. Also the 2 largest mass killings in the US were committed w/ bombs not guns. So no gun law on the planet would have had any effect any way.

You stop crime by going after criminals not their tools

because they have a connection with the school, and a grievance against it or the people associated with it. I believe you answered your own question on that one.


Another common thread in those places is that the prohibition on carrying guns affected the criminal not at all.

Duh.

And can you tell us how many people the restrictions on ACCESS to firearms, either in existence at the time or implemented afterward, in places other than the US of course, deterred from doing something similar?

Didn't think so. I'd lend you my time machine, but it's in for repairs.

But you sure as hell can't say that such restrictions did NOT prevent similar incidents.

In Canada, since Lépine, we have had Gill, who was in lawful possession of restricted weapons because the licensing process failed to identify him as a weirdo.

However, in other cases, it seems that the firearms are acquired because of irresponsible storage practices by family members. This was the case for an incident in the US on a reserve not too long ago, and I suspect it was the case here, but haven't tracked it down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Myers_High_School_shooting

No single measure will block all paths to the criminal use of firearms. No set of measures ever can.


Also the 2 largest mass killings in the US were committed w/ bombs not guns. So no gun law on the planet would have had any effect any way.

I thought there were planes involved in one of them ...

Why would you feel the urge to say that no gun law would affect someone who uses a bomb?

Weird.

Has any speed limit ever affected the incidence of people turning left on a red?


You stop crime by going after criminals not their tools

Much as I know the great glee that some people get when they think of going after criminals and punishing them really really a lot ... read your sentence.

Once they are criminals, the crime has been committed. Too late.

And do join us in the real world.

You don't stop crime. Period. Those Puritans of yours didn't manage it, but their descendants are still trying. Most of us in this millennium have abandoned this simplistic, futile view of the world, and work on real ways to address problems and reduce harm, rather than fantasizing about what should be done to all the bad guys.

a smaller risk of being stopped. The person who shoots up a school takes the gun from the home to the school and passes many places where they can also shoot. He could take a gun to a walmart or any other public place. Given that most places are not "no gun zones" and it seems most mass shootings occur in "no gun zones" it seems logical we need to remove "no gun zones" from our society.

American mass-shootings in schools have made international news many times, sadly.

I wouldn't be surprised to discover it factored into a non-American's victim selection process, particularly if 'where can I wreak the most havoc in the shortest period of time' is the goal.


Are there any examples of international shootings at schools that pre-date notable American school shootings?


Edit: You did the homework on the arson question, so I will address this question, but it'll have to be later today.

Dunblane was in 1996.

The Montréal Polytechnique was in 1989.

If anything, it looks the other way around.

The University of Texas was 1966, but it would be a bit of a stretch to call shootings 20+ years later copycats.

University of Texas was the only 'mass' school shooting in the US prior to École Polytechnique. We had lots of school shootings prior, but no 'mass' shootings. (1-2 victims)

I would then have to assume they choose schools for the most vulnerable/shocking victims. (and numerous/confined) Injuries to Children are viscerally horrifying to most people.
The FBI did some profiling around this after Columbine, but most of the public details seem to have gone down the memory hole.

Lépine (the Polytechnique) had idiosyncratic "reasons" (blaming "feminists" for his failure to get into engineering school).

Some school shootings are by outsiders (Dunblane), some are by insiders (Columbine). I think it would be very hard to generalize.

I just don't think that the "gun-free zone" notion played any real role in, say, Columbine or Virginia, or Montreal x 2. I don't think it plays any role at all. And I think an examination of individual cases pretty much shows that.

that illustrate the usefulness of having school administrators that may choose to arm themselves. There are even instances of school admins and students retrieving firearms from their cars, and halting an attack inside the school, before police arrived.

That said, as a policy matter, I would suggest exploring (for the United States) allowing parental carry on school premises at the pickup/drop off location, just as we do at the airport (in most states). I would further advocate allowing teachers and school administration carry, if they are legally licensed to carry in that state, and possibly require some additional safety training, as we did for airline pilots that carry.

There are some individual cases
that illustrate the usefulness of having school administrators that may choose to arm themselves. There are even instances of school admins and students retrieving firearms from their cars, and halting an attack inside the school, before police arrived.

want to rely on the possibility of this happening? The possibility of there being people with guns in the vicinity, the possibility that they will be able to take effective action, the possibility that they will want to take any action ...

I won't play the game played at me and pretend that this is the ONLY measure you propose. But I'll point out that you are not mentioning the definite downsides that there are to the presence of firearms on people and in vehicles at schools.

That said, as a policy matter, I would suggest exploring (for the United States) allowing parental carry on school premises at the pickup/drop off location, just as we do at the airport (in most states). I would further advocate allowing teachers and school administration carry, if they are legally licensed to carry in that state, and possibly require some additional safety training, as we did for airline pilots that carry.

And this all assumes that its the good guys who are going to make that choice. (Obviously it also assumes that anyone is permitted to tote firearms anywhere, an assumption I reject.)

Why shouldn't aprents be allowed to carry on school grounds when they are picking up their kids? In Colorado they are and we haven't had a problem because of it yet.

why would you or anyone want to rely on the possibility of this happening? The possibility of there being people with guns in the vicinity, the possibility that they will be able to take effective action, the possibility that they will want to take any action

I don't know I'd rather have the option of carrying my own gun and relying on myself

Lepine looks like he had more in common with Richard Speck.

Psychopaths who blamed women for their shortcomings.

I characterized him as an "unsuccessful narcissist", and it turns out my assessment has support in learned quarters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=244827&mesg_id=245313

Disorders short of actual psychopathy can have bad outcomes too.

There are a lot of them around, and giving them ready access to firearms just doesn't strike me as wise.

are often favored by those acting out of a vengeful rage. Speck had a gun, but didn't use it. It's not even certain he ever showed it.



One jealous boyfriend, enraged because his erstwhile girlfriend was dancing with someone else returned to the establishment with dollar's worth of Amoco regular, in a plastic container which he found on the ground and had filled at a gas station. He spread the fuel on the only staircase into the club. Two matches were then used to ignite the gasoline. Eighty-seven persons died, some overcome so quickly their charred corpses were found still seated at their tables with drinks in their hands.

It is doubtful that restricting firearms would cause a drastic reduction in homicides by "the unsuccessful narcissist." After the restrictions Canada passed in 1970s, the number of suicides with firearm went down, while the overall number of suicides remained constant. The rate of suicide remained unchanged. Women tended to favor overdosing on drugs or carbon monoxide; men tended to jump off high places or run into bridge abutments or big trees at high speed.

If depressed people faced with a lack of firearms can be imaginative in the methodology they use to depart this vale of tears is there any reason to expect psychopaths to be less imaginative in exacting retribution on those they despise?

Would a psycho be less dangerous if he knew how to use hair bleach, battery acid, lacquer thinner and ice to make an explosive in his bath tub? Especially if the explosive were, pound for pound, 80% as potent as TNT, yet completely undetectable by your standard airport bomb-sniffing gadgets?

The Nazis settled on Zyklon-B and gas chambers because shooting Jews was inefficient.



Would a lack of handguns result in crazy people adapting more efficient means of mayhem?

...the Dawson College shooter was thwarted because there happened to be a couple of cops in the building...

They went after the shooter, they did not wait for the SWAT team. Contrast that to Columbine. Contrast that to Virginia Tech. Listen to the tapes, look at the video

There is cell phone footage where you can hear Cho shooting in the background. You see the campus police "securing the perimeter" shooing students away while waiting for the city's SWAT team to show up.

The shooting is slow, methodical, punctuated by pauses where he reloaded. Cho had almost a half hour to wander the building expending 174 rounds before "real police" entered the building. He reloaded 17 times using "ban legal" 10 round magazines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkrDYR-pd7I

This is roughly the last three minutes of the rampage recorded by a student with his cell phone. Note the stalwart campus cops milling about with no apparent sense of direction or urgency waiting for the "real" police while occasionally yelling at students to "Get away." Remember, this is after Cho came back on campus after mailing his manifesto to NBC news. Dressed in "de rigueur" black trenchcoat and backpack, like he came from central casting, Cho walks past the campus constabulary unnoticed.

Listen to the shots. There are a couple spots where wind noise overpowers the audio, but close to the end you hear a blast where SWAT finally breaches the barricaded door. They rush in and almost immediately, in the face of an armed response, Cho kills himself.

if they choose to carry, and mitigated with special training, if the general public approves.

These active shooters, for the most part, self-destruct the moment they encounter armed opposition.

with would-be mass murderers selecting schools because they are "gun-free zones"?

Cho selected that school because he was a student there. Lépine selected his school because he had been denied admission to it.

The same criticisms were leveled against Montreal police in the Polytechnique case. Half the coroner's report (which I read when it came out) was devoted to an examination of the response of emergency services. The response was kind of crappy (keep in mind that this really was the first global occurrence of such an event and they had absolutely no idea what was going on), but in that case it turned out that Lépine had killed himself before any response units arrived on the scene, so their hanging around outside for two hours made no difference.

There are some situations in which there are no perfect responses, but certainly some responses are less perfect than others.

...he might have been deterred.

If pigs could fly ...

Read up on Lépine. He planned to die. Most if not all people who do these things plan to die.

Here in the U.S. there have been several school shootings that were stopped by either an armed teacher or armed students.

What you SAID was:

Perhaps if there had been some armed teachers...
...he might have been deterred.

Apparently you have retracted that assertion.

Fine by me!

He might have been deterred. But if he wasn't, then shoot him. But that is hard to do if you don't have a gun.

helpless. And, that's what they usually are despite all the paper target shooting, drawing in front of mirrors, and daydreams. When it comes down to it, it's over before toters can do a dang thing except make excuses. Probably just as well because most aren't going to shoot as accurately as they think.

There fixed it for you.

Try being honest in your mouth-droolings, it'll make your life much more pleasent.

By the way, have you defined "cache" in relation to firearms yet?

Let's be fair though he picked a demographic that was pretty unlikely to be armed. I notice no one's tried this shit at a Tbag rally.

Loughner would have peed his pants and ran, screaming, like a little girl in those circumstances, not unlike a few other folks.

I notice no one's tried this shit at a Tbag rally.

That would be, like, fratricide, wouldn't it?


:rofl:

There were gunners there. It was all over before the one could even realize what was happening. The rest slinked off in shame to run out and shoot some paper targets. Leave your guns at home.

Why was her demographic likely to be unarmed? And why are you sticking up for Tbaggers because no one has "tried this shit"? No one has tried it because the most of opposition feel sorry for them and are not the type to be armed?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There was no one carrying any guns at the event, except for the criminal. The one guy carrying arrived after it was over.

store. He couldn't do a dang thing. And there were toters in the crowd.

And you know this how?

You seem to claim that you can predict where violent crime will and won't happen as whey as when it will and won't. I can't do that so I carry everywhere, all the time.

You seem to claim that you can predict where violent crime will and won't happen as whey as when it will and won't. I can't do that so I carry everywhere, all the time.

Just like everybody else can predict who will decide to get drunk while carrying a firearm, and what will happen next!

By your logic (I love that), since we can't predict that, we need to prohibit the carrying of firearms by everyone, all the time.

Surely we are all entitled to protect ourselves by whatever means we choose. I choose that one.

oh man, I missed you.

That prohibition would only disarm the victims.

Here is a video for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

I have proposed that this be the one and only control exercised over the possession and use of firearms.

Siiiiigh. Don't you get tired?

My speakers aren't connected. No point in giving me youtube links!

I am not going the search the huge volume of your post from eight years here to find what other solutions you may have put forward.

Do you need help connecting your speakers?

"Surely we are all entitled to protect ourselves by whatever means we choose. I choose that one."

You are entitled to protect yourself. You're NOT entitled to deny ME my choice of how to protect myself. And I'm not sure how you think taking away guns from responsible, law-abiding citizens like me is going to result in your protection. Criminals will still have guns...and knives...and bricks...and clubs, etc.

Maybe "If you tried really hard, maybe you could come up with something that didn't sound just so blamed stupid."

You are entitled to protect yourself. You're NOT entitled to deny ME my choice of how to protect myself.

I said, with emphasis to assist you:

Surely WE are all entitled to protect ourselves by whatever means WE choose. I choose that one.

I, as a member of a collective, choose that one.

A collective choice to deny you permission to wander around in public with a firearm.

Nobody wandering around in public with a firearm is actually protecting themself. They're just wandering around in public with a firearm.

And I'm not sure how you think taking away guns from responsible, law-abiding citizens like me is going to result in your protection. Criminals will still have guns...and knives...and bricks...and clubs, etc.

They will have guns because guns drop magically from the sky like lawn darts. Those guns, the guns that criminals have, are a separate class of things altogether from real guns, which of course all start life being possessed by some law-abiding something or someone. Two separate classes, no overlap: your (collectively) guns, and criminals' guns.

Knives, bricks, clubs -- yup, and no gun will magically protect you against any of them.

about your "collective" prohibition, but you have done nothing to protect yourself, individually or collectively.

The rest of your lawn dart post is so nonsensical it merits no response.

I went to the grocery store last week, in a strange town at that.

I didn't notice anything I needed to protect myself from. So I wasn't "doing nothing to protect myself". Any more than I was doing nothing to ward off an alien invasion of Earth. Bzzt.


The rest of your lawn dart post is so nonsensical it merits no response.

Riddle me this: where to the guns that criminals have come from?

From the Iron River® that fuels perpetual violence amongst the most vulnerable . I always pictured it going somethin like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIbSPcUjhJk

"we are all entitled to protect ourselves"

You say you want to protect yourself. Then you say you want to take away my gun to protect yourself. Then YOU ask ME what you need to protect yourself from...?

:wtf:

Just try making sense some day. Just for an hour or two.

Knives, bricks, clubs -- yup, and no gun will magically protect you against any of them

It isn't magic. Just use situational awareness and some applied chemistry and applied physics. See the criminal as he is preparing to attack and shoot him. Nothing magic about it.

Not magic ... but definitely fantasyland!

http://www.data.gov/details/1526


(Lawful defensive gun uses per year)
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008 . ICPSR26382-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research . doi:10.3886/ICPSR26382

60-80,000 deaths prevented?

Kleck would say so! It was Kleck, wasn't it?

I know that you know how meaningless that figure is, even if it's accurate.

It includes situations where people could have averted whatever they were trying to avert by saying "shoo! scat!"

It includes situations where the worst possible outcome, absent firearm, was that someone would have lost an empty wallet.

What it doesn't include is situations in which people did not have firearms and nothing particularly bad happened to them. I mean, if that many people averted that many bad things because they had a gun handy, what about the multiple, multiple times more people who didn't have guns handy? Shouldn't we really see a lot more bad things having happened to them because they weren't able to defend themselves?


Unfortunately, your link doesn't take me to anything except a general description of the victimization survey, so even if questions like that are answered, I can't see the answers.


In the US in 2009:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

violent offences 1,318,398
property offences 9,320,971

There would have been 70,000 more violent offences absent those firearms? That's a pretty whopping increase. Like, close to 5%.

Some of those firearms were used to avert property offences? Tough shit. Firearms are not for preventing shoplifting.


I'm afraid I find these figures less than reliable anyhow. The incentive to over-report is pretty strong. People who tote guns around, or keep them in their homes for "self-defence", are pretty wed to the idea of what a great idea that is, don't you think? And maybe just a wee bit eager to confirm their belief to anybody who asks? I mean, I think Kleck's crap proves that pretty conclusively.

That's why I use the US DOJ's numbers instead, I do not believe Kleck. I do not see the Department of Justice as biased one way or the other on this issue.

I agree, firearms are not for the prevention of shoplifting. But they are for the prevention of personal harm (I prefer: preservation of human life), which they are employed for when someone demands XYZ of you, on threat of physical harm.

If someone threatens you with serious bodily harm, you are, in that moment, justified in using an array of force in response. It does not de-justify it in retrospect if the person only makes off with your wallet, should you not resist.

And I still think that people with firearms within reach accounting for a 5% lower number of violent offences than what it would have been otherwise is a little far-fetched.

I think Kleck's numbers were over a 5-year period or something. The one I particularly laughed at was the number of people who claimed to believe they had averted a death. Were their claims true, I'd wonder, first, why only people with guns at hand had these problems (since surely a lot of the others would be dead), and second, who would be paying all your pensions before long if these murderous attempts were to spread to the gunless. ;)

... Ah, no, you're right, Kleck's figure was that large:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230941&mesg_id=231367

I still go with my question from back then, though:

Are people who tote firearms around, or keep them in the front hallway at home, just really really unlucky? They get targeted by criminals at rates that are multiples of what ordinary people experience?

There's probably a bell curve involved somewhere...

People with pistols in their pants get criminals hitting on them a whole lot more than normal people.

Just what I was saying!

That was a DOJ study. The caller identified themselves as working for the federal government. I would think that most people would tend to shut up about having used a gun, even in self-defense, when talking to the feds.

Wasn't it done when the NRA was in control of the White House?

You live in your collective and appear to be happy with it with regard to guns. I live in mine and am happy with it with respect to guns.

I'll leave my gun at home

they just sit there and take up law abiding space

I believe that

yup

I don't drink. But I do have perchance to visit bars with people who do, for food/etc. I carry.

I do NOT like leaving my gun in my car, where it might be easily stolen.

Never drank a drop of alcohol.

yup

yeppers

yessirree, bob

So yeah, I guess you could say I "just sit there and take up law abiding space".

"He was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, using/possession of a weapon while intoxicated and being an intoxicated pedestrian in a roadway."

All these things were already illegal, and of course did not stop Mr. Opal from doing them. I suppose we could make all these things super-duper illegal.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

'you people' you are referring to?

I think it had to do with how this:

I suppose we could make all these things super-duper illegal.

was one of the most moronic comments I'd heard lately.

But I can't tell now ... so if somebody wants to tell me what I said, I'll be glad to reply.

Isn't that what is supposed to happen?

I don't drink, haveent in almost 30 years. Do you think my gun will suddenly exert Jedi Mind control powers and make me start slamming shots if I carry into a bar? It hasn't yet