Man at Walmart attacked for carrying gun with permit

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Not really, he was replacing it in his holster after driving. Not really any massive failure on his part.

ok, just a minor fail
the entire story is unfortunate.

True, probobly should have been a little more careful in transferinf the weapon I suppose.

[New Nationale Einheit]

I am sick of people who have no idea what they are doing or talking about. People need to realize that there are many out there with Concealed Carry permits that are then legally able to carry a firearm as along as they follow state and local laws. The man who attacked this guy for absolutely no reason should be charged with aggravated assault. I have a 9mm and a permit and I carry my firearm with me everywhere I ago, including inside Walmart and other establishments that allow it. If I am ever attacked like this for absolutely no reason I would press charges, and people need to stop thinking everyone with a gun has evil intentions. I am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment.

[Halnatorum]

The criminal who tackled the law abiding citizen is a moron. Hope he gets raped repeatedly in jail, and when he resists I hope they crush his balls.

[Gun Manufacturers]

For almost 9 years.

Then I'll stick with the latter statement "from the post of a postal worker".

PS: Respect for you man, I know you guys have some tough times at the office.

But there's no real way to stop guns from existing outside the for-mentioned agency's in today's world (unless we go all 1984 style quick), so why not simply put more in depth background checks for gun ownership instead of just blatantly banning guns for civilians?

Actually, it's outside the office that the tough times usually occur. Bad weather, dogs (I had a Great Dane tear into a parcel I'd left at the door, and couldn't get it back without fear of being attacked), bad weather, idiot drivers passing me at inappropriate times, bad weather, wild animals (almost hit a deer today), construction, cable/telephone/electrical contractors, tree work, and other things make me rethink my career choice at times.

$20.13/hr and getting to listen to the radio station I want to hear while in the truck help to balance it out, though.

[Atlanticatia]

I personally would have no problem with that if we lived in a better world, but as it stands there's a lot of things that these can't defend us from (I.E there is a delay in between when you call the police and they arrive to help you) in which case I feel its warranted for people to legally carry concealed weapons for self defense.

What do you mean federal personal? (Postal workers maybe )

The USPS doesn't like us bringing firearms into work, for some strange reason. Also, since it's federal property and we're not law enforcement, it would be against federal law.

Maybe just in case you go postal?

[New Arden]

after actually watching the video, wow... new element introduced.

VERY unfortunate in this climate, I would say 'recent' climate, but no....

[Halnatorum]

I personally believe that only Police, Military, and Federal Personnel should be allowed to carry Firearms.

When you have seconds to live and the police are minutes away, you will be dead. Good luck dead man.

[Marxist Paradisium]

I am sick of people who have no idea what they are doing or talking about. People need to realize that there are many out there with Concealed Carry permits that are then legally able to carry a firearm as along as they follow state and local laws. The man who attacked this guy for absolutely no reason should be charged with aggravated assault. I have a 9mm and a permit and I carry my firearm with me everywhere I ago, including inside Walmart and other establishments that allow it. If I am ever attacked like this for absolutely no reason I would press charges, and people need to stop thinking everyone with a gun has evil intentions. I am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment.

Amen, brother. When will people get it through their heads that not everyone who carries a gun is an evil lunatic?

[Marxist Paradisium]

I personally believe that only Police, Military, and Federal Personnel should be allowed to carry Firearms.

There are two things wrong with that policy:
1. If only the people in power have access to guns, then what is to stop them oppressing the rest of the population?
2. If a madman gets their hands on a gun, and shoots up the general public, how long will it be until the police get there? How many people will die because they couldn't defend themselves?

[New Arden]

I personally believe that only Police, Military, and Federal Personnel should be allowed to carry Firearms.

There are two things wrong with that policy:
1. If only the people in power have access to guns, then what is to stop them oppressing the rest of the population?
2. If a madman gets their hands on a gun, and shoots up the general public, how long will it be until the police get there? How many people will die because they couldn't defend themselves?

exactly, well said

[Marxist Paradisium]

I am having trouble understanding your post, it sounds like you are saying its ok to own a gun, but not to have it with you? What do you mean?

It is fine to have a gun. What is not fine is to go into a public grocery like this Walmart, waving it around. People are bringing rifles to coffee shops,it's getting out of control.

He wasn't waving it around. It accidentally slipped from beneath his jacket. And, furthermore, why not bring a gun to public groceries? Why is it not okay to be ready to defend yourself?

[Esternial]

The criminal who tackled the law abiding citizen is a moron. Hope he gets raped repeatedly in jail, and when he resists I hope they crush his balls.

Honestly, that's bullshit.

The man was in fear of his life - which later turned out to be a normal misunderstanding - and acted on it.

You'd allow people to carry guns to protect themselves but chastise this man because he wanted to protect himself and others against a threat he initially perceived as genuine? Seriously, it's very understandable that he'd do that in his position; guns are still lethal weapons.

It is fine to have a gun. What is not fine is to go into a public grocery like this Walmart, waving it around. People are bringing rifles to coffee shops,it's getting out of control.

He wasn't waving it around. It accidentally slipped from beneath his jacket. And, furthermore, why not bring a gun to public groceries? Why is it not okay to be ready to defend yourself?

Totally okey. Which is what the man did who tackled him.

[Cedoria]

I personally believe that only Police, Military, and Federal Personnel should be allowed to carry Firearms.

There are two things wrong with that policy:
1. If only the people in power have access to guns, then what is to stop them oppressing the rest of the population?
2. If a madman gets their hands on a gun, and shoots up the general public, how long will it be until the police get there? How many people will die because they couldn't defend themselves?

Two things wrong with this assumption
1: The point of gun control is that madmen won't get guns in the first place
2: If you're government was really intending to oppress the rest of the population, they would do so, and you're guns wouldn't stop them, tanks, machine guns and professional military force would be more than enough to deal with a citizen militia. Also, there are several things that stop the government turning tyrannical. The separation of powers, Congress, a system of checks and balances, all of which do far more than gun control to prevent the rise of randy, and don't cause the problems that guns do.

[Ripoll]

Bringing guns into stores isn't really normal, it doesn't justify the mans actions but personally I feel very uncomfortable around civilians with fire arms. The more guns the more chaos when something does happen. No one knows how to respond because everyone is armed, hence why I feel the majority of pro gun arguments that focus heavily on scenarios of "but if you had a gun...." ridiculous.

[Tyrinth]

There are two things wrong with that policy:
1. If only the people in power have access to guns, then what is to stop them oppressing the rest of the population?
2. If a madman gets their hands on a gun, and shoots up the general public, how long will it be until the police get there? How many people will die because they couldn't defend themselves?

Two things wrong with this assumption
1: The point of gun control is that madmen won't get guns in the first place
2: If you're government was really intending to oppress the rest of the population, they would do so, and you're guns wouldn't stop them, tanks, machine guns and professional military force would be more than enough to deal with a citizen militia. Also, there are several things that stop the government turning tyrannical. The separation of powers, Congress, a system of checks and balances, all of which do far more than gun control to prevent the rise of randy, and don't cause the problems that guns do.

*laughs at the bolded*

It's worth noting, however, that when gun control fails and a madman does get his hands on a weapon, things are generally much worse.

[Ripoll]

I also feel very weird about gun control because it is probably one of the only polarizing political topics I'm genuinely liberal on, yet for most liberals it is the opposite, that is the only topic they are more centrist or conservative on

[Cedoria]

Two things wrong with this assumption
1: The point of gun control is that madmen won't get guns in the first place
2: If you're government was really intending to oppress the rest of the population, they would do so, and you're guns wouldn't stop them, tanks, machine guns and professional military force would be more than enough to deal with a citizen militia. Also, there are several things that stop the government turning tyrannical. The separation of powers, Congress, a system of checks and balances, all of which do far more than gun control to prevent the rise of randy, and don't cause the problems that guns do.

*laughs at the bolded*

It's worth noting, however, that when gun control fails and a madman does get his hands on a weapon, things are generally much worse.

That happens anyway, it still never ends well at all, at least this way it would happen less.

I'm not talking about banning all guns, I am talking about restrictions on gun ownership, who may own them, in what circumstances they can be carried, and which types can be owned. That's all, I recognise that there are legitimate reasons for having guns in some circumstances. I just think many states in the US give it too much leeway.

[Esternial]

*laughs at the bolded*

It's worth noting, however, that when gun control fails and a madman does get his hands on a weapon, things are generally much worse.

That happens anyway, it still never ends well at all, at least this way it would happen less.

I'm not talking about banning all guns, I am talking about restrictions on gun ownership, who may own them, in what circumstances they can be carried, and which types can be owned. That's all, I recognise that there are legitimate reasons for having guns in some circumstances. I just think many states in the US give it too much leeway.

There already are a degree of gun ownership restrictions. They just need to be enforced more in some places.

[Marxist Paradisium]

There are two things wrong with that policy:
1. If only the people in power have access to guns, then what is to stop them oppressing the rest of the population?
2. If a madman gets their hands on a gun, and shoots up the general public, how long will it be until the police get there? How many people will die because they couldn't defend themselves?

Two things wrong with this assumption
1: The point of gun control is that madmen won't get guns in the first place
2: If you're government was really intending to oppress the rest of the population, they would do so, and you're guns wouldn't stop them, tanks, machine guns and professional military force would be more than enough to deal with a citizen militia. Also, there are several things that stop the government turning tyrannical. The separation of powers, Congress, a system of checks and balances, all of which do far more than gun control to prevent the rise of randy, and don't cause the problems that guns do.

First off, how many school shootings have gun control laws stopped? All they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, making it harder to stop criminals and lunatics.
Second, human nature dictates that people will do whatever they can get away with. If the people were not armed, the government could simply disregard the safeguards. Why? Because nobody could stop them. The system only works if the people can defend it. Also, you must remember that people have the advantage of sheer numbers. The number of people in the nation is far greater than the number of people in the military.

[Tyrinth]

*laughs at the bolded*

It's worth noting, however, that when gun control fails and a madman does get his hands on a weapon, things are generally much worse.

That happens anyway, it still never ends well at all, at least this way it would happen less.

I'm not talking about banning all guns, I am talking about restrictions on gun ownership, who may own them, in what circumstances they can be carried, and which types can be owned. That's all, I recognise that there are legitimate reasons for having guns in some circumstances. I just think many states in the US give it too much leeway.

Most states already have such restrictions in place. Frankly, when you word your stance vaguely like that I would say I agree with you -- even though I know we disagree.

[Ripoll]

That happens anyway, it still never ends well at all, at least this way it would happen less.

I'm not talking about banning all guns, I am talking about restrictions on gun ownership, who may own them, in what circumstances they can be carried, and which types can be owned. That's all, I recognise that there are legitimate reasons for having guns in some circumstances. I just think many states in the US give it too much leeway.

Most states already have such restrictions in place. Frankly, when you word your stance vaguely like that I would say I agree with you -- even though I know we disagree.

How are things generally worse though? If every idiot were armed and mass shooting occurs there would be chaos as no one would know the instigator was and there would be various misconceptions and even more non needed violence.

[Cedoria]

Two things wrong with this assumption
1: The point of gun control is that madmen won't get guns in the first place
2: If you're government was really intending to oppress the rest of the population, they would do so, and you're guns wouldn't stop them, tanks, machine guns and professional military force would be more than enough to deal with a citizen militia. Also, there are several things that stop the government turning tyrannical. The separation of powers, Congress, a system of checks and balances, all of which do far more than gun control to prevent the rise of randy, and don't cause the problems that guns do.

First off, how many school shootings have gun control laws stopped? All they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, making it harder to stop criminals and lunatics.
Second, human nature dictates that people will do whatever they can get away with. If the people were not armed, the government could simply disregard the safeguards. Why? Because nobody could stop them. The system only works if the people can defend it. Also, you must remember that people have the advantage of sheer numbers. The number of people in the nation is far greater than the number of people in the military.

And not all of those people have guns, thus rendering your point moot.
In my country, we haven't had one massacre since gun control was brought in, so, all of the massacres have been stopped

If the only thing stopping your government from being tyrannical is the fact that some people, not all of them, have guns, then you may want to look at reform of your social and political institutions, that's obviously the real problem. And I think people are too paranoid about this anyway, there is NO example of any country in the world becoming tyrannical due to gun control, and there is no reason why it should occur in the US. That is literally the most unrealistic argument against gun control (and all of the arguments are bad)

[Esternial]

Two things wrong with this assumption
1: The point of gun control is that madmen won't get guns in the first place
2: If you're government was really intending to oppress the rest of the population, they would do so, and you're guns wouldn't stop them, tanks, machine guns and professional military force would be more than enough to deal with a citizen militia. Also, there are several things that stop the government turning tyrannical. The separation of powers, Congress, a system of checks and balances, all of which do far more than gun control to prevent the rise of randy, and don't cause the problems that guns do.

First off, how many school shootings have gun control laws stopped? All they do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, making it harder to stop criminals and lunatics.
Second, human nature dictates that people will do whatever they can get away with. If the people were not armed, the government could simply disregard the safeguards. Why? Because nobody could stop them. The system only works if the people can defend it. Also, you must remember that people have the advantage of sheer numbers. The number of people in the nation is far greater than the number of people in the military.

I don't mind gun ownership but this kind of argumentation is just shitty. "Safeguarding the system" is total bs.

The military has considerably superior hardware, organisation and logistics. The people of the nation aren't as organised as you somehow imagine them to be and not a all of them would actually stand up against the government through an armed resistance, reducing the numbers of your "safeguard" significantly.

This crazy "what if the government goes evil" scenario is just fucked up rhetoric born from...I suppose massively disproportionate fear and a dash of insecurity?

[Cedoria]

That happens anyway, it still never ends well at all, at least this way it would happen less.

I'm not talking about banning all guns, I am talking about restrictions on gun ownership, who may own them, in what circumstances they can be carried, and which types can be owned. That's all, I recognise that there are legitimate reasons for having guns in some circumstances. I just think many states in the US give it too much leeway.

Most states already have such restrictions in place. Frankly, when you word your stance vaguely like that I would say I agree with you -- even though I know we disagree.

I think if the restrictions are strict enough, then they should be better enforced, there are far too many mass shootings in the US, and the fact that everybody else can have guns too doesn't stop them occurring, thereby negating the main argument of gun rights proponents.

[Sebtopiaris]

Why didn't they just ask the guy to show his permit? If it's ok for him to have a gun, then they have no reason to tackle him.