Got to Love Arizona

[ssc]

It seems to me that the attitude in Arizona works for me. I hear it more and more and from many in law enforcement. Be careful who you attempt to victimize, our citizens are armed.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... -dead.html

Regards, Steve

[BorregoWrangler]

Thanks for posting this. Makes me wonder how the same case would be handled here in the land of litigation and regulation.

[DaveK]

The California Rifle and Pistol Association has been saying it for years. In fact, it is their motto: "Society is safer when criminals don't know who is armed".

And, of course, there are the side benefits - just think of all the legal expenses that are saved.

John, your question about how it would be handled in California is, unfortunately, one that would take years to answer!

[ssc]

The mind set of people is interesting. There is a boating forum that I read on occasion and when guns or crime and punishment come up, you can really tell who is from Ca and who is from AZ. The forum seems to focus on Havasu. There was a thread about a Havasu resident who had his car broken into and he was upset. It had been some 20 something people from CA who had rented a house for a weekend and they were drunk and acting like idiots. Someone, from AZ, posted that people should keep in mind that many folks in AZ had gun rights and they should think twice before committing crimes in AZ. Too me it was a fairly accurate, non offensive statement. However, the response and anger from many folks from CA was incredible. The gist of the CA position was astonishment that anyone would even mention guns. It was the usual, why should they be responsible for their actions and they should not suffer consequences and if someone trys to intervene then they are the problem, not the people committing the crime.

I guess when we have a society that has been told that no matter what they do it is someone else's fault, we get a culture who never believes they are responsible for what they do. Then when someone steps up and says enough, they are the monster.

Regards, Steve

[xtatik]

There was a thread about a Havasu resident who had his car broken into and he was upset. It had been some 20 something people from CA who had rented a house for a weekend and they were drunk and acting like idiots.

Help me understand....Are the Arizona members on this boating forum suggesting that an individual could be shot in Arizona for drunk and disorderly conduct, or while in the midst of burglarizing a vehicle? Or, is there more to the story?....cuz, I certainly hope there is.
Seems to me a gun owner should think long and hard before taking law enforcement into their own hands (finger) and actually pulling a trigger in these instances. Neither situation warrants the discharge of a weapon, not even for law enforcement.
What would a gun owner do if he were to use a gun to confront this group whilst mid-party or mid burglary? What's to keep these revelers from simply "droppin' trou" and flashing em' a B/A? The gun owner can't legally discharge the weapon in this instance, so where's the threat?
Seriously, what good does the gun owner expect to achieve when he has no authority to use a gun unless physically threatened. This is the only crime for which a scofflaw should be concerned. Arizonans have the right to carry but are extremely limited as to when they can actually use it. To me, the whole idea seems lame and impotent. So there is really very little threat of being shot for someone who wants to break the law in AZ. What concerns me when reading these posts is that a gun owner may misconstrue law and actually think there is some twisted justification or right for using a gun in these instances you've mentioned.

[ssc]

Randy,
Your post demonstrates exactly what I was pointing out. Please read what I typed; it was a non offensive statement made by someone in Arizona. Then people went off making all kinds of assumptions about everything and anything as you have. I would suggest you review SB 1243 which is the law in AZ. Defensive display of a firearm. In Calif you would go to jail for branishing, not in AZ. Had you just posted your first paragraph, I might have been inclined to further discuss this situation. Considering your missive, I will politely just move on.

Regards, Steve

[DaveK]

There was a thread about a Havasu resident who had his car broken into and he was upset. It had been some 20 something people from CA who had rented a house for a weekend and they were drunk and acting like idiots.

Help me understand....Are the Arizona members on this boating forum suggesting that an individual could be shot in Arizona for drunk and disorderly conduct, or while in the midst of burglarizing a vehicle? Or, is there more to the story....cuz, I certainly hope there is.
Seems to me a gun owner should think long and hard before taking law enforcement into their own hands (finger) and actually pulling a trigger in these instances. Neither situation warrants the discharge of a weapon, not even for law enforcement.
What would a gun owner do if he were to use a gun to confront this group whilst mid-party or mid burglary? What's to keep these revelers from simply "droppin' trou" and flashing em' a B/A? The gun owner can't legally discharge the weapon in this instance, so where's the threat?
Seriously, what good does the gun owner expect to achieve when he has no authority to use a gun unless physically threatened. This is the only crime for which a scofflaw should be concerned. Arizonans have the right to carry but are extremely limited as to when they can actually use it. The whole idea to me seems lame and impotent. So there is really very little threat of being shot for someone who wants to break the law in AZ. What concerns me when reading these posts is that a gun owner may misconstrue law and actually think there is some twisted justification or right for using a gun in these instances you've mentioned.

I would be honored to help you understand.

I need to make sure I understand you first. I get the sense that you think the whole idea of defending oneself from an attacker, intent on inflicting bodily harm, is “lame and impotent”. Is this true?

The concept of allowing citizens to carry concealed is not to stop all crime. No one pretends this to be the case. There are quite a number of crimes for which the right to use a firearm is legally sanctioned. They include, attempted murder, attempted rape, attempted kidnaping, crimes involving the use of deadly force, (armed robbery), attempted assault and others. I guess, in a sense, you are correct, that the right to use a firearm is “extremely limited”, but for these situations, the right is extremely important. For this class of “scofflaws”, the way this works is quite simple. When criminals don’t know who is armed, they are less likely to ply their trade. That means less crime.

Now on to your more important question: Is there any justification for the use of a firearm for, as you say, "droppin' trou" and flashing em' a B/A? Well, Randy, I suppose it all depends on who is doing the flashing.

[xtatik]

I would be honored to help you understand.

I need to make sure I understand you first. I get the sense that you think the whole idea of defending oneself from an attacker, intent on inflicting bodily harm, is “lame and impotent”. Is this true?

No, let's review:

According to SSC, there is a boating forum.
On this forum, we have an Arizonan complaining about an occurrence of drunk and disorderly Californians and an allegedly related auto burglary with no direct threat to person/s.
Also on this forum, we have another (assumedly Arizonan) who is very suggestively brandishing words about Arizonans brandishing weapons as if it has some relevance.
Didn't consider much beyond your first paragraph do to lack of relevance.

My point is simple. Suppose I and a handfull of my friends were inclined to be drunk and disorderly and bent on keeping an entire neighborhood of Arizonans from catching a wink one night. Additionally, that night we also chose to burglarize or vandalize their unoccupied and unattended vehicles. Were talkin' crime. A couple heads of the local households approach us sporting properly holstered shooting irons in true Arizona "wild west" fashion. We moon them, then ignore them, on go on with our mischief of being loud and vandalizing property. What are Wyatt and Doc to do with their guns?

[ssc]

"According to SSC, there is boating forum.
On this forum, we have an Arizonan complaining about an occurrence of drunk and disorderly Californians and an alleged related auto burglary with no direct threat to person/s.
Also on this forum, we have another (assumedly Arizonan) who is very suggestively brandishing words about Arizonans brandishing weapons as if it has some relevance." QUOTE

Randy, you apparently only hear or read what you want to hear or see. No where did I say there was no direct threat to persons. You made an assumption. Second reread what the person said. He never suggested anything about "brandishing weapons." He made a simple statement that you have construed in a ludicrous fashion. This is the point of the post. Taking things out of context and adding a condescending attitude.

As an aside--If someone walks out and sees you vandalizing there property, they do have the right to use force to get you to stop and remove you from their property. Not deadly force, but it can escalate to a point where they could be justified in using deadly force.

Perhaps you have jumped the gun a bit?
Regards, Steve

[xtatik]

"According to SSC, there is boating forum.
On this forum, we have an Arizonan complaining about an occurrence of drunk and disorderly Californians and an alleged related auto burglary with no direct threat to person/s.
Also on this forum, we have another (assumedly Arizonan) who is very suggestively brandishing words about Arizonans brandishing weapons as if it has some relevance." QUOTE

Randy, you apparently only hear or read what you want to hear or see. No where did I say there was no direct threat to persons. You made an assumption. Second reread what the person said. He never suggested anything about "brandishing weapons." He made a simple statement that you have construed in a ludicrous fashion. This is the point of the post. Taking things out of context and adding a condescending attitude.

Perhaps you have jumped the gun a bit?
Regards, Steve

Nowhere did you say there was a direct threat to persons. I made no assumption.
Steve, you brought the story and presented it as you did. I asked you if there was more to the story and you could have cleared the air.
When someone suggests the civilian use of guns to curtail any crimes that don't involve a threat to a person, we should all get bent out of shape over it. If what you're telling me now is different, perhaps you could apply a bit more duty of care into your posts on this subject. I've added nothing to what you had posted. It was extrapolated pretty accurately.
However, I will admit to taking some liberties and having some fun in trying to demonstrate the fact that carrying or brandishing a gun will only legally serve to protect a person in very limited situations and can only serve to reduce those very specific crimes.
Beyond self-defense situations, you better forgetting that you're carrying it and just call the cops.