Stupid Hick

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 9:44 p.m.

"You cannot be aware of them as the are carrying concealed. You may not get a militaristic vibe but IT IS GOING ON AROUND YOU" Well, I really don't worry about whether people are carrying concealed weapons downtown. I'm sure it happens all the time. I don't feel threatened by it. In Ann Arbor, if you carry a weapon it's because of choice not necessity. It's a precaution you might take, but it's not like you're actually expecting to have to fire at anyone on a daily basis are you? You could afford to leave your pistol home for a day and by doing so wouldn't expose yourself to significantly greater risk. Not so in places like Mogadishu. If living in Ann Arbor becomes so risky that ordinary people have to hire private security to keep from being kidnapped, or carry guns not as a precaution, but because they actually expect to have use them, I'll know that our society has failed and I'll move somewhere else. Or if someone moves in next door and posts a sign in their yard reading, "Trespassers will be shot. Survivers [sic] will be reshot! Smile I will!", it will also be a clue that society is failing in Ann Arbor, and I will consider moving somewhere else.

Stupid Hick

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 8:09 p.m.

"And yes actually seatbelts can be used as offensive and deadly weapons under some cercumstances" Yup, exactly as I thought. Thanks for your insightful commentary, Ricebrnr.

Ricebrnr

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 7:59 p.m.

Ah I forgot to address; "It would, however, concern me if I went to downtown Ann Arbor and everyone on the street were carrying weapons, legal or not. If I wanted that kind of militaristic vibe, I'd move to a place like Baghdad or Mogadishu." I don't understand. Criminals are CONCEALED carrying all around you. Legally armed citizens are CONCEALED carrying all around you. Undercover, detective, off duty and retired policemen are carrying CONCEALED all around you. You cannot be aware of them as the are carrying concealed. You may not get a militaristic vibe but IT IS GOING ON AROUND YOU. One can choose to bury your head in the sand or accept reality and decide how you choose to live your life in light of this reality. I'm in downtown often so if you see people running and screaming away from a Chinese guy...well, come say hi, we'll go to Sweetwaters and I'll buy you a coffee or something.

Ricebrnr

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 7:39 p.m.

Ah I see why I didn't recognize it now. The whole quote was: "Isnt this the same as saying, I wear a seatbelt because Im too fearful of being in an accident? I own a fire extinguisher because Im too afraid of fire?..smoke detectors..life insurance? Do we NOT do these things because we refuse to live in fear of these events? NO we dont, we do these thing to prepare in case these events come to pass. So is not doing them normal or rational then?" Which was in response to your: What I'm saying is I don't want to live somewhere where everyone is so fearful of being a victim of crime that carrying guns in public is considered a normal, rational, precaution. Which was not about open carry but lawfully carrying a firearm in general in preperation of foreseeable trajic events. PREPARATION was the point, seatbelts for car accidents, smoke detectors for house fires, life insurance for well you get the idea hopefully. And yes actually seatbelts can be used as offensive and deadly weapons under some cercumstances. Also passively they can be utilized so that a driver with ill intent would survive ramming things. Like other cars, people, etc etc.. So in the sense that wearing a holstered pistol can be like wearing a seatbelt...Yes I do stand by that sentiment. Why here's a perfect example... examiner.com/x-18149-SelfDefense-Examiner~y2010m5d30-Armed-citizen-comes-to-the-aid-of-a-police-officer "Maybe you can explain why you're fixated on measuring the success of CPL regulations by whether they keep guns out of criminals' hands?" Because you may not be aware but CPL laws are always proposed as a way of doing exactly that. Making sure only the 'right' people are carrying. See jpfo.org/. This was about racism and control NOT capturing criminals. Besides which all criminal laws are about deterence. To make those considering an illegal action from commiting it for fear of the consequences. BY this measure yes CPL and Gun Control laws in general, LIKE drug laws, and drunk driving laws fail miserably. "It's like arguing drunk driving laws are useless because they don't keep alcohol out of the hands of irresponsible drunks! Again, that's not the point of the law" It is the point of the law. If not then why call for tougher drunk driving laws, drug war laws AND gun control laws after every trajedy? Check your history. Criminal does heinous act. People and Government react by calling for tougher laws. Does the tougher laws make it easier to catch the criminals OR does it make the stakes higher for a criminal to consider? Look at the oil in the gulf. The mortgage and loan crisis. Bernie Madoff. on and on and on. What happenned after each and every one of those?

Stupid Hick

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 2:33 p.m.

Maybe you can explain why you're fixated on measuring the success of CPL regulations by whether they keep guns out of criminals' hands? It's like arguing drunk driving laws are useless because they don't keep alcohol out of the hands of irresponsible drunks! Again, that's not the point of the law! Whether the person arrested was the one doing the shooting, or whether others were involved but got away, and no matter whether the arrestee could have done something simple to avoid arrest, the fact remains: police were able to arrest someone who was a threat. And what made that possible? Because in our society, law-abiding citizens have to get a permit to carry concealed firearms, and by definition someone who does not is an outlaw. Whose rights were infringed here? Nobody's. Whose gun was taken away here? An outlaw's. So what is there to complain about? About breathalyzer ignitions, finally you're starting to make a little sense now that you compare them to smart guns. Make it that narrow and it's a valid comparison, and I don't support either. About seatbelts, this is what you wrote in commentary to a story about a U-M student who was mugged with a baseball bat: 'What I'm saying is I don't want to live somewhere where everyone is so fearful of being a victim of crime that carrying guns in public is considered a normal, rational, precaution. Isnt this the same as saying, I wear a seatbelt because Im too fearful of being in an accident?' At the time I figured it was pointless to argue with someone who equates wearing a holstered pistol to wearing a safety belt. Now here I am, months later, sliding on a slippery slope... OK, for starters, a seat belt can't be used as an aggressive weapon, so why should it concern me if other drivers in my community wear their seat belts? It would, however, concern me if I went to downtown Ann Arbor and everyone on the street were carrying weapons, legal or not. If I wanted that kind of militaristic vibe, I'd move to a place like Baghdad or Mogadishu.

pluto77

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 11:27 a.m.

South Maple? I'ts obvious, this was a Mensa meeting that gathered to settle a scientific disagreement in physics regarding speed, mass & velocity. It's too bad the po po had to show up before sound conclusions could be reached.

Ricebrnr

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.

"gun laws actually worked quite well in this case" Really? You are missing the point. The police stopped this guy WHY? NOT because they had xray vision certainly. The had RAS Reasonable Articulable Suspicion to stop him. That RAS again did not come from him concealing a gun. Did he match a description? Did someone point him out? I bet he probably had a pocket knife on him, and if so the police still could have charged him with a concealed weapon if they so chose. I reiterate, gun laws kept guns out of this guy's hands? If this was the guy that fired the shot, gun laws prevented him from doing so? If this was not the guy who fired the shots, gun laws caught him? No he's still out there somewhere. Carrying, likely without a CPL or a registered handgun. "And no, it's nothing like requiring breathalyzer car ignitions. On so many levels, I don't know where to start." Please feel free to elaborate. Cars, drunks and drunk drivers kill many more than law abiding gun owners every day. By your logic, a little extra costs to install a breathalyzer in every vehicle to have safer roads is perfectly analogous and reasonable. This is in fact the very argument for "smart" guns and microstamping that no law enforcement agency would subject their own officers to and yet is supposed to pass the no infringement test. "I don't know if I can explain it simply to someone who once compared open carry to wearing a seatbelt." Please show me where I did so as I serously don't recall and would be very interested to see it. I wouldn't want to be confused with some other gun nut after all. Please explain it to me, as if to a child, to paraphrase a fun movie.

Stupid Hick

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 10:31 a.m.

Hey, I'm just a stupid hick, but even I can see that gun laws actually worked quite well in this case. Are you not in favor of laws that allow police to arrest criminals? Let me put it even more simply: did not having a CPL keep the guy from concealing his weapon? NO, but that's not the point. The point is that because of the law the police had grounds to arrest someone. How was your liberty infringed? Did someone take your guns away? Do you not still have a CPL? You really believe our society lost liberty and safety because you had to fill out some forms and pay a fee? And no, it's nothing like requiring breathalyzer car ignitions. On so many levels, I don't know where to start. I don't know if I can explain it simply to someone who once compared open carry to wearing a seatbelt.

Ricebrnr

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 7:52 a.m.

"I disagree. The fact that criminals tend not to follow the law and law-abiding people do is precisely what makes gun regulations work. As in the story we're commenting on: what would the police be able to do if there weren't a CCW violation? Are gun regulations a burden on law-abiding people? Yes, but that's the price of civilization." 1) Safety inspections / handgun registration kept the gun out of this guy's hands? umm...no 2) Not having a CPL, kept this guy from concealing a firearm? umm....no 3) A smarter criminal could have simply not tucked or not worn some sort of covering garment and the gun would've been legally carried. So the difference between arresting this guy and not was a bit of cloth. But you can't legislate stupid, eh? 4) Let me rephrase your statement for you. Are breath analyzing ignition locks a burden on law abiding people? Yes, but that's the price of safer roads. 5) Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "Will criminals be able to get guns regardless of gun regulations? Yes, but that's not really the point." Well as you so atutely interpreted, it surely was mine and illustrated so nicely by this topic. Thank you for yielding the point.

Stupid Hick

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 8:35 p.m.

Ricebrnr, my comment was sarcastic. Let me put it another way. In response to: "Does this mean that gun registrations, licensing and all the other gun laws do not keep guns out of the hands of those who do not follow the law?" I read your comment as negative criticism of gun control laws: that they are ineffective because criminals tend not follow the law. I disagree. The fact that criminals tend not to follow the law and law-abiding people do is precisely what makes gun regulations work. As in the story we're commenting on: what would the police be able to do if there weren't a CCW violation? Are gun regulations a burden on law-abiding people? Yes, but that's the price of civilization. Will criminals be able to get guns regardless of gun regulations? Yes, but that's not really the point.

Ricebrnr

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 9:11 p.m.

@Tru2Blu76 A couple of minor corrections on your comment. 1) Police may 'take custody' of a weapon pending the investigation. They are not and can not simply confiscate it which means somethig else entirely. If the person was legally carrying, either openly or concealed with a CPL and had nothing to do with the investigation the weapon must be returned when the person is released. 2) "If someone with a CPL fires his gun in self defense: that person will still have to surrender their weapon and themselves pending investigation. Only after it's determined that the shooting was legitimate will the person and gun be released." Just minor point here, thanks to the Self Defense Act, if a person has to denfend themselves somewhere they are legally able to carry then the burden is not to determine if the shooting was legitimate but to prove that it was not. While the shooter may still be detained during some of this investigation, the burden is upon the law to prove 'guilt' not upon the 'shooter' to prove their innocense. A very significant difference. Cheers and be safe.

anti-thug

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 3:14 p.m.

Tru2Blu76@ that person may have shot in self -defense, but scattered away do too outstanding warrants? lol

anti-thug

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 3:07 p.m.

oh boy! Thing like is just don't happen in Ann Arbor how shocking the town first shooting.

15crown00

Sat, May 29, 2010 : 11:09 a.m.

was the guy carrying the gun illegally?if the answer is yes then the cops had every right to arrest him. as for you who condemn the cops for all they do pick a lawless country somewhere in the word,move to it,live there for a year and keep us informed how much you ENJOY it. Frauds that's what you are.

Merkava

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 11:21 p.m.

I'm just glad nobody was hurt in the idiocy.

Ricebrnr

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 5:02 p.m.

"Gee, if only they All had been carrying!" How do you know they were not? Only one of the crowd was detained.

David Briegel

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 4:10 p.m.

Gee, if only they All had been carrying!

Ricebrnr

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 2:58 p.m.

I for one would also like to know if the gun taken into custody had been fired recently? Enquiring minds want to know....

rusty shackelford

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 2:54 p.m.

Care to do any actual reporting on this article beyond repeating police statements? Who were this "large group of people"? A gang? A roving band of carnies? Should we be on the lookout for anything? Should be concerned about a rumble? Why did the cops not pursue anyone after they "immediately took off?" They could only get one person after what sounds (based on your non-description) like a brawl? Why didn't they call for back up? Do you ever ask anyone any questions? Do you ever leave your office?

djm12652

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 2:49 p.m.

@juice...do you know the difference between CCW and CPL? For example which one can a person be charged a felony with?

juice

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 2:42 p.m.

CCW means no shooting period unless life is theatened, A thug shooting to disperse a crowd is illegal even if this person had a CCW.They would (authorities ) revoke it immediatley.Please lock this criminal up for all concerned citizens.And please inform yourselves on what you can and cannot do when you own GUNS, There are way to many know it all IDIOTS out there. Take care good people and learn the right way to do things so you dont get in trouble.

Ricebrnr

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 2:18 p.m.

@Clara, You are correct they don't specify the type of firearm but the fact that it was 9mm and concealed leads me to believe it was a handgun rather than a pistol caliber carbine. If it was a carbine they no doubt would have called it a high powered rifle or AK 47. @Stupid Hick. If he was a law abiding citizen he would have by definition chosen any of several other LAWFUL options to protect himself. But if his choice was to exercise his Second Amendment rights and could not afford the fees to apply for a CPL he could still have chosen to lawfully openly carry his firearm. If he had chosen to openly carry his firearm then the police can not charge him with concealed carry of said firearm now could they? I know several people who do so in Ann Arbor and about 2 years ago there was an open carry picnic in town so the police are well aware of this legal activity. Therefore even if the police chose to 'harass' this person IF he was a lawful citizen who made lawful choices they would have had to let him go. There, you learn something new everyday, keep this up and you can change your name!

Stupid Hick

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 1:25 p.m.

Surely he's a law-abiding citizen who couldn't afford time off from work, nor the fees associated with obtaining a CPL. So why are the police hassling him? Apparently he wasn't doing anything else illegal, and the CCW charge is just a trumped up excuse to hassle poor people who exercise their second ammendment rights. Right, Ricebrnr?

clara

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 12:27 p.m.

Ricebrnr, the article does not address if this was a pistol or a rifle or if this gun had been recently fired. A "large" group of people and they were only able to stop one? I also wonder about the gun, was it legally purchased? Was this person the legal owner?

Ricebrnr

Fri, May 28, 2010 : 10:41 a.m.

"Police are pursuing a concealed weapons charge against him." Hmmm...I would assume this means this 'gentleman' did not have a CPL. Does this mean that gun registrations, licensing and all the other gun laws do not keep guns out of the hands of those who do not follow the law? SHOCKING!