Police Dispatch Recording Open Carry Stop

[jernelsonable]

You had a MAGNUM gun! Holy Shit you are dangerous.

[Snipe4261]

@mlizarr104 Do you really think that someone who intended to commit crimes with a firearm would be announcing their intentions by openly carrying? I don't because that would be an incredibly stupid way to draw attention to yourself, not to mention a poor tactical choice (the element of surprise is everyone’s friend). Sitting at a cafe drinking a coffee doesn't sound anything like criminal activity to me and your ignorance and opposition is not making the world any safer nor reducing crime.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Wouldn't even be a need for open carry if gun laws were more sensible in the United States. Criminals may ignore gun laws, but they can't ignore import bans. If a felon wants to get his hands on an AR-15 in Australia he'd have to smuggle it in from overseas or steal one from a military base. Same felon in the United States? 5 minutes on Craigslist.

And all because these guys think they need a 30 round semi-automatic long rifle to kill Bambi in their backyard.

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 No matter how carefully crafted gun laws are criminals will continue to not give a flying fuck about obeying them, and no matter how efficient the police become they can still only go to where they're needed when they're called and asked to come, meaning they will continue to be too late most of the time.

Taking firearms away from people who would never use them in a crime will not prevent criminals from getting firearms but it will make law abiding citizens into defenseless victims.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 I just tried to explain to you the flaw in that argument. It's a question of availability. Open availability of assault rifles makes obtaining an assault rifle illegally absurdly easy in the United States. Whereas in Australia, ever since the Port Arthur massacre where a mentall-disturbed man killed 22 people in as many seconds with an AR-15, it isn't as simple as going on Craigslist to buy an assault rifle.

Bolt-action is plenty good enough for hunting and target practice.

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 The second amendment doesn't say one single word about target shooting or hunting; It does talk about defense. Defense entails shooting PEOPLE and the m-16 family of firearms were specifically designed for that purpose. That class of weapons is exactly the type of firearm that a person would want to defend themselves no matter what type of firearm their opponent has, which is why police have them. Pistols only exist because they are more convenient to carry around than rifles...

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Did you see what I said about Port Arthur? 22 people in as many seconds. That wouldn't have been possible with any other type of weapon outside of a fully-automatic of some sort. Probably not even then as accuracy played a crucial role.

Your "self-defense" scenario just doesn't hold water with me. You certainly COULD use an AR in a home invasion, but you could also use a pistol and if you DO use a pistol, your neighbors might also survive the encounter.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Oh, one other thing, don't use the Second Amendment blindly. If you submit the phrase "a well-regulated militia" and "keep and bear arms" to an interpretation based on the stance, "Well that includes things designed to kill!" Then why is it illegal to own bazookas and cruise missiles as a private citizen? You certainly COULD use a bazooka in a home invasion.

Use some common sense here. Assault rifles are just as unnecessary as a flamethrower - it would fall under the "neat" category.

[Snipe4261]

...which is why cops also have pistols on their belts. Don't talk to me about shootings perpetrated by the mentally ill (which is basically every spree shooting that has ever occurred) because the firearms they used were not the root cause of the shootings, their illnesses were. It's great that you've led a safe, charmed life but some of us are intimately familiar with just how dangerous the world really is and we choose to take responsibility for our safety because we're the only ones who can.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 A safe, charmed life? You don't know anything about me friend. I go everywhere a marine goes, only without the trillion dollars of overwhelming firepower.

It's exactly the fact that an assault rifle is designed to kill people that I'm talking about. You really don't have a realistic situation in which someone with an AR would be defending themselves where a pistol wouldn't be equally effective. We're talking absurdly rare; too rare to justify the availability of assault rifles.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 P.S. I'm a CCW holder when I'm in the States, so don't be so quick to write my opinion off as some anti-gun, anti-self-defense, rant.

[Snipe4261]

Why did you bring up craigslist again? I told you, you can't buy or sell firearms on craigslist, so no, its not "that simple". Your argument is an argument for trying to reduce the POTENTIAL severity of what are already relatively rare events. Do you have a plan for actually PREVENTING them or do you really think violating the rights of hundreds of millions of people and making all of them more vulnerable to violence because of a handful of incidents is the best course of action? Honestly?

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 ...you're not understanding my argument. I understand it is illegal to buy weapons on Craigslist; that's not the point. Because ANYONE without a felony conviction or mental health history is eligible to purchase firearms like assault rifles, it's ABSURDLY easy for a criminal to obtain one illegally. Craigslist is just an example. Gun shows are a better example.

In Australia, a criminal would have to rob a military base or import it themselves (a very risky operation). Get it?

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 Criminals are criminals because they don't care about laws. A hypothetical broad and strict firearms ban may prevent criminals from obtaining weapons and would reduce their ability to do damage, but the same ban would mean that their preferred victims, the weak, old, and infirm, are now almost entirely defenseless. The criminals are still committing crimes and the victims are no better off. You're arguing for reducing POTENTIAL damage an individual can do ...

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 The weak, old, and infirm need assault rifles? Otherwise they're "almost entirely defenseless?" Come on, now, you're starting to fall apart here logically. They could arm themselves with a pistol; that's my point. You haven't shown a clear, demonstrable risk that can only be countered with an assault rifle. I'm sure you could dream up a scenario, but I could just as easily dream one up for using a cruise missile to protect your daughter from being raped. Understand?

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Go back and read all my points. The word limit on Youtube comments is kind of brutal for a discussion like this. I think you're misunderstanding my perspective somewhat. I'm all for people having fun, but (and while I'm too lazy to verify this scientifically) I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that far more people have been killed by assault rifles in the hands of criminals than innocent citizens saved by the intervention therewith.

[Snipe4261]

..on the basis that a few special cases have occurred where a very sick individual had possession of a highly effective firearm and used it to lash out for reasons only a broken mind can justify. I don't have to invent scenarios where an AR could be used to defend oneself because I know there are plenty of cases where they have been used for just such a purpose. If you want to convince me you're position is better then you would have to prove that the # of lives lost outweighs the lives saved.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 And furthermore, of situations in which an assault rifle was used to prevent the loss of life or commission of a felony, how many of them couldn't have been as successful accomplished with a pistol? You haven't yet proven why the unique deadliness of assault rifles is justified in light of the ability to own handguns for self-defense. They're lethal at unusually long ranges for shootouts and highly-likely to cause penetrative collateral damage. So what's the point? They're "neat?"

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 Okay, I'll explain this again. Pistols only exist because they are more convenient to carry around than a rifle is due to their size and weight. While terminal performance of many pistol calibers is more than adequate you still have to hit your target for that to matter at all. It is very difficult to use a pistol effectively without extensive training, even as close range. Rifles are easy to use instinctively and accurately, not to mention more powerful, because of their longer barrel.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Right, but the fact that rifles are nearly impossible to carry on your person, their ONLY application would be in home and business defense scenarios. And OF home and business defense scenarios in the empirical record, how many took place at distances which would necessitate the use of an assault rifle? You really aren't thinking about this properly. Look past the knee-jerk reaction of "Noooo! Gun laws are bad!" and try and see what I'm saying. The costs outweigh the benefits tenfold.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 And I'm still waiting to hear about why it's acceptable for the law to limit citizen's access to flamethrowers and hand grenades under the Second Amendment, but not assault rifles (which you've admitted to be useful solely and uniquely for killing other human beings).

You're not convincing me with these self-defense arguments. It's deliberately misleading at best to imply assault weapons are somehow a cornerstone of self-defense in this country. Not even the NRA would say that.

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 Again, pistols are common and preferred because the are more CONVENIENT than rifles. In terms of performance, pistols are shitty firearm relative to rifles. The average gun owner who is concerned about self defense usually doesn't have a clear and specific threat in mind so they tend to choose the convenience of a pistol.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Sigh. Fine. You're just going to cling to this notion that assault rifles are vitally necessary to self-defense in the United States. As I've already proven to you, limiting their sale would also severely limit if not completely eliminate criminals' access to firearms. So at the very least everyone is on a level playing field and, as a bonus, we eliminate much of the potential for mass-casualty shootings. Think about it.

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 Oh I haven't even gotten into to tyrannical governments argument yet, which is probably more a valid argument in favor of assault rifles, if far-fetched.

Wait WHAT?! "...proven to you, limiting their sale would also severely limit if not completely eliminate criminals' access to firearms...". Criminals very rarely use assault rifles to commit crimes in the US, despite their prevalence, and I don't think you've even come close to proving anything of the sort.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Well I have a a rather concrete empirical example to make that statement. As I said, the process by which a mentally-disturbed felon illegally obtains an AR in the United States vs the process by which that SAME felon could illegally obtain an AR in Australia is NIGHT AND DAY. It would be as easy as strolling into a gun show in the United States and a full-on robbery of a military installation in Australia.

I know criminals rarely use ARs. That's my point - mass shooters use them.

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 And mass shooters are both rare and motivated by mental illness, which is the root problem in their case. I think mentally ill people obtaining firearms in the US is a fairly big issue that needs to be addressed but there are AT LEAST 2 million legal ARs in the hands of US citizens (that's not even including other models of similar rifles) and how many of those have been used in spree shootings? I can only think of 1 off hand, but I'm sure there are a few more.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 By that same token, how many of those 2 million legal ARs have been used in a self-defense shootout situation occurring at such distances and in an area of such low population density that the use of an AR was both necessary and appropriate? The logic goes both ways. I'm not saying we would change the face of gun violence in the United States by banning assault rifles. But it would be an important, reasonable step towards mitigating future mass-shooting incidents.

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 The police in my city have fully automatic M-4s in their patrol cars. By your logic, since they operate inside a city they are clearly armed with rifles they could never use because they're too powerful. Why do patrol officers have them then?

What about the tens of millions of Americans who live in rural areas? Should they have to demonstrate they wouldn't be putting their neighbors at risk before being allowed to buy an AR?

Spree shootings are RARE. Too rare to justify your arguments.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 You just proved my point talking about the m-4's. The police are required by their own policies to use discretion in the application of force. And their frequent mistakes which result in the wounding or killing of innocent bystanders is, if anything, a rather strong argument in favor of taking similar weapons out of the hands of the people who, statistically speaking, will NEVER need them.

Mass shootings may be rare, but the things you're talking about are even rarer.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 As for the third part of your argument, I think a registration program that A) Unequivocally establishes the criminal history of the purchaser, B) Firmly establishes the mental soundness of the purchaser and C) imposes safeguards to prevent the illegal transfer or sale of the purchased firearm to non-vetted individuals (see gun shows).

These are just some ideas and seem like a small price to pay to mitigate mass shootings. They may be rare but they've killed more people than Al Qaeda

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 The simple fact of the matter is that you're advocating taking peoples rights away and therefore the  onus is on you to objectively prove that the benefits of people having this right do not outweigh the hazards. Your best argument is that spree shooters favor efficient firearms. You've used two examples of spree shootings that are not relevant because they didn't occur in the US and one that did but didn't involve an AR type rifle. Its just not convincing.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 AR is just a convenient example and I bring up Port Arthur and Columbine because they're indicative of the potential for mass-murder.

Furthermore I object to the contention that I'm advocating taking anyone's "rights" away. Show me where it says in the 2nd Amendment that the right to bear high-capacity assault rifles shall not be infringed? For that matter, where does it say that the right to bear a bazooka SHALL be infringed? We aren't talking about rights but specific firearms.

[mike3641385]

@Valyn66 A firearm is something that shoots a fairly small projectile(often lead/copper/steel) at a high velocity. A bazooka is an explosive device designed for military use to deal with armored vehicles. Apples and oranges. An 'assault' rifle is a repeating rifle, correct? So does that make a lever action an assault rifle? Define assault rifle. Be specific.

[Valyn66]

@mike3641385 You're trying to jump in on a 2 month old debate. Read the whole thing and THEN come back if you still have questions.

Because you completely missed the point. I'm using assault weapons as an example of the need for tighter controls at point-of-sale for guns. Namely a registration database maintained by each state and controls on private gun sales (requiring FFL, for example).

Under the current system the bad guys have as easy a time getting armed as the good.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 When it comes to technology that directly endangers the lives of the people around you by it's general availability, if nothing else, would seem to place the onus on the people wanting to acquire those weapons. As I've said, there's no right guaranteeing access to assault weapons and I think you'll be hard-pressed to use the 2nd Amendment in light of other illegal weapons.

So, how about it? Aside from the absurdly unlikely scenario of self-defense, what's it for?

[mike3641385]

@Valyn66 Define assault weapon. A firearm is a tool designed to shoot bullets. Intent is with the person, not the gun. On top of that, shooting can be a fun sport, it can be used to hunt, it can be shot competitively, self defense, or as a financial investment(gun values tend to rise as the gun ages due to production runs ending). I own about 6 firearms, I've competed with 2 of them, I've hunted with 3 of them. The last one is a family heirloom. Guns aren't just about killing.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 I would invite you to actually look up "Spree shootings in the United States" and just observe how many of the incidents involving 8 or more people killed involve the use of assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

Compare the total deaths to deaths attributable to terrorist actions in the context of our national response to it: we're spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to mitigate a threat statistically less severe than the rifles we're able to buy.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 The fact that criminals rarely use assault rifles in the United States only further supports my point here. If they aren't using them, why should you have to? The people who DO use them (Aside from the irrelevant "neato" recreational shooters) tend to be the mass-shooter types. See Columbine, Oslo, Port Arthur, etc etc.

And I'm not even going to get into the "revolution" argument. That's an antiquated notion that really has no contemporary relevance.

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 What I'm hearing from you is "Why don't the police use subcompact pistols like the criminals they have to deal with? Its all they need after all, since its what the criminals have." Do you think the police would find that to be a convincing argument for giving up their M-4s? Why should I? No one want's to have "adequate" or "proportional" firepower when it's their LIFE they're trying to preserve. They want SUPERIOR firepower and the capabilities of a rifle are superior to a pistol.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 That's a seriously skewed argument. The police are FAR more likely to encounter a threat of such severity that long rifles would INDEED be necessary for their defense. This ranges from shootouts involving a suspect in a vehicle (certainly a common enough occurrence), stand-offs at long distances, and serious crime interventions (like the body armored bank robbers).

Your average American citizens is statistically never going to fire a gun in anger in their entire life.

[Snipe4261]

If there were no dangerously mentally ill people or violent criminals in the world then we could all be armed to the teeth and nothing bad would ever happen, intentionally at least. If there were no firearms in the world but the number of dangerously mentally ill people and violent criminals remained the same then we would still experience all sorts of violence. That suggests to me that taking away firearms, even just a specific type, is not a true solution to the real problem.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Well that's a rather sweeping logical generalization you're making there. Let me ask you this: should private citizens be allowed to purchase bazookas and cruise missiles alongside their AR's? You could make the exact same arguments for legalizing almost any conceivable weapon under that kind of thinking.

Obviously the law concedes some weapons are too dangerous to enjoy protection under the law. Why should assault rifles be any different?

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 Bazookas are for tanks and pillboxes. Criminals don't have tanks and self defense doesn't entail assaulting fortified positions. Cruise missiles are even more ridiculous than that. Don't try to get smart with me. A semiautomatic rifle fed by a detachable magazine is the firearm I would think of first if I KNEW a criminal was going to attack me; I wouldn't even consider a pistol in that scenario. Since I don't actually expect to be attacked the convenience of a pistol is preferable.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Obviously the bazookas example is hyperbolic to make a point. If you're really going to try and attack it on such a superficial level, fine, let's talk about fully-automatic weapons. Why are THEY illegal, then? You're making this really logically unsound argument that assault rifles are necessary for defense. You can't carry them around so you'd only use them in a defense situation. How many home invasion shootouts occur at rifle distances? How many neighbors get shot?

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 Automatic weapons aren't illegal. Neither are artillery pieces for that matter. If you're willing to pay the all extra fees you can own some pretty ridiculous weapons in this country. No that I think anyone needs a cannon but I feel compelled to set the record straight. Automatic rifles don't concern me too much because they are extremely expensive to obtain, even if they are legal, and criminals are usually not very wealthy which is often why they are criminals.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Well, I guess we're at a stalemate, then. Because nothing you've said has convinced me that assault rifles are necessary for self-defense. I understand they could be ideal in certain hypothetical circumstances, but then again so could a bazooka. I think the empirical record would support me in the notion that of incidents involving using a firearm to defend yourself, only a tiny majority would have occurred at such a distance you'd require a long rifle. And that's not good enough.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Pistols are ENTIRELY adequate to meet the average American's self-defense needs. And if for some reason you have particularly feisty neighbors, I would fully support a carefully-monitored system under which qualified individuals would be allowed to purchase semi automatic rifles for defense.

But open to ANYONE without a felony conviction or diagnosed mental illness? How in the world does that make sense?

[Snipe4261]

@Valyn66 Besides which you're wrong on several points. 1. You cant buy or sell firearms on craigslist. 2. The overwhelming majority of firearms used in the violent crimes are small inexpensive semiautomatic pistols (often with a magazine capacity of 10 rounds or less) that were obtained illegally to begin with. 3. Rifles like the AR-15 that use an intermediate round aren't very good for hunting but are great for shooting violent criminals with little semi-auto pistols.

[Valyn66]

@Snipe4261 Pistols are far less of a threat in a mass-shooting incident and represent a manageable risk to LEO. They're also far less likely to cause collateral damage in a shootout. What you need for shooting violent criminals with little semi-auto pistols is a semi-auto pistol of your own. Using an assault rifle for self-defense is an absurdly unlikely scenario, so I don't see how you justify their open legality in light of incidents like Oslo, Columbine, and Port Arthur.

[Snipe4261]

Took up position with an M-4? So I guess someone calmly drinking coffee is a serious threat to public safety in California. It really sounds like the threat to public safety in this case is the police, overreacting to a situation that is clearly just someone excercising their legal rights.

[tronclay]

@mlizarr104 theres no telling what anyones true intentions are is there?? You, like many of people, have just been bred into ignorance of the law. IF you think every person with a gun should be hassled then why not everyone driving a car?

[USDAChuckSteak]

@mlizarr104 So a person exercising a right is an idiot?

[lax2ams]

Whys it gotta be black!

[xwar]

@mlizarr104 Why be harassed for doing nothing? That is like stopping a black man in a traditionally white neighborhood WHY he is there? Because he CAN BE, just as the man open carrying has the right. Of course you won't harrase the black man, because that is politically incorrect, heaven forbid you offend him, but the man exercising his right to open carry... def give him a hard time...

[truthx187]

"BLACK MAGNUM" are they joking? LMFAO

[benjaminbartholomew]

How long did it take to get the 911 dispatch tape? Hours, days, weeks? I am looking into getting 911 dispatch tapes on calls made about me open carrying.

[LIBERTYORDEATH2008]

These are the dispatch communications with police responding at the scene of the "ABC News Covers Open Carry in Livermore CA" interview!

[pullnshoot25]

Geez, what a joke. Black MAGNUM gun? Really? REALLY?

BTW, you can feed the audtio from your stereo into the computer line-in and record with audacity.