# Refused to drive police officer because he had a gun.



## simpsonsverytall

Guy identified as an off-duty LEO. 

Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider 

Felt great.


----------



## Jo3030

Hmm... Was it clearly visible?


----------



## grams777

*Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy*
Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app.*

Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber.

** To the extent permitted by applicable law.*

https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/


----------



## t5contra

I am very pro-gun/military/law. I drove a cop yesterday, she jumped out of her squad car and into mine.


----------



## Jo3030

You drive a squad car? 
_I *had* to!

_


----------



## t5contra

When Camry says pull over, you pull over. It doesn't take no for an answer.


----------



## unPat

If it's a police officer I would happily trasport them gun or no gun.


----------



## tohunt4me

I'll give a cop a ride.
They have given me rides before . . . .


----------



## brendon292

Screw Uber's policy. It's my car, I'll do what I want.

I'm Canadian so we don't have concealed weapons here but....

If an armed and uniformed peace officer needs a ride, no problem (although I can't think of any scenario where an on-duty officer would need to use an Uber).

If a PAX is lawfully traveling with their firearm and it is locked in a case and stored in my trunk, no problem.


----------



## JimKE

I'm a retired police officer, so yeah, I would transport an off-duty cop who was carrying -- provided he/she wasn't drunk.

If they've been drinking, nope, no way -- and I would not hesitate to tell them why. Drunks and guns do not play well together; drunk cops are not an exception to that rule.

I don't really think an officer *in uniform* would be taking a ride!


----------



## brendon292

JimKE said:


> I would transport an off-duty cop who was carrying


So would I but Canadian police officers that are not on duty cannot carry so I'll never encounter that.



JimKE said:


> I don't really think an officer *in uniform* would be taking a ride!


Agreed. It seems pretty unlikely.


----------



## JimKE

On the other hand, I would certainly not fault any Uber driver who refused to drive a cop with a gun.

First of all, as noted above, it is against Uber's policy for anyone using the app to be armed. And second, there is the unofficial my car, my rules attitude. Either one is adequate justification to refuse a ride, IMHO.


----------



## JimKE

brendon292 said:


> So would I but Canadian police officers that are not on duty cannot carry so I'll never encounter that.


But different jurisdictions, different rules. In my alma mater, we were _required_ to carry a firearm, badge and ID off duty -- unless it was "clearly inappropriate," like taking your family to the beach. Nobody always, _always_ did -- but that was the reg.


----------



## tohunt4me

JimKE said:


> I'm a retired police officer, so yeah, I would transport an off-duty cop who was carrying -- provided he/she wasn't drunk.
> 
> If they've been drinking, nope, no way -- and I would not hesitate to tell them why. Drunks and guns do not play well together; drunk cops are not an exception to that rule.
> 
> I don't really think an officer *in uniform* would be taking a ride!


Lol. Cops are crazy. I'll transport a drunk cop with a gun. There's one club in New Orleans where a lot of ATF & DEA,FBI used to party.
Sometimes they talk too much when they drink.


----------



## tohunt4me

The craziest ones are the young jump squad task force guys. They get pumped. Kicking down doors with no idea what's on the other side . . .

I'll also carry drunk bikers with guns.
Both have a chain of command to answer to.
I would not do it on Pool ride if we had Pool in my area. No mixing.


----------



## Karen Stein

"Gun safe" policies are counter productive. Ever notice that mass shootings ALWAYS take place in gun free zones?

A sign won't affect a bad guy.

The good guys don't worry me.


----------



## Damiannn

Good for you. I would never provide a ride for someone I knew to be a criminal with a gun. I've been harassed by way too many cops, seen way too many real videos that the MSM hides.

Cops are not your friends. They are dangerous lunatics.

*edit:
I would like to add that I'm always respectful to cops & have never given them reason to bother me. In my real job, I have to work closely with them as part of my job.


----------



## Odinaf

Legal Studies guy here, you could actually be sued for refusing a Police Officer a ride. It's Illegal to Discriminate.


----------



## UberChicago80

If the pax is a policeman I will kindly ask him to see his badge before entering the car. I will explain that the scent of marijuana is simply from a prior passenger and the mints are truly mints. But high in sugar, don't try them. And also don't drink the water. 
He can use the aux cord.


----------



## simpsonsverytall

Odinaf said:


> Legal Studies guy here, you could actually be sued for refusing a Police Officer a ride. It's Illegal to Discriminate.


Refused to take service dogs for a while and been fine. LEO not welcome if they have a firearm...


----------



## elelegido

Jo3030 said:


> You drive a squad car?


Ba-dum Tssshhhhh...


----------



## circle1

grams777 said:


> *Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy*
> Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app.*
> 
> Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber.
> 
> ** To the extent permitted by applicable law.*
> 
> https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/


Yeah, but . . . is that absolute? Doubt it.


----------



## circle1

Odinaf said:


> Legal Studies guy here, you could actually be sued for refusing a Police Officer a ride. It's Illegal to Discriminate.


*Check your state law.



elelegido said:


> Ba-dum Tssshhhhh...


----------



## Damiannn

LOL who would they sue? lmfao get real. My car. I have the right to refuse any ride for any reason.


----------



## Odinaf

simpsonsverytall said:


> Refused to take service dogs for a while and been fine. LEO not welcome if they have a firearm...


Violation of the almost ever state law as they have a exemption. Look at Cheescake factory, they refused LEOS because of there guns and got hit with a $50k fine.


----------



## Odinaf

Damiannn said:


> LOL who would they sue? lmfao get real. My car. I have the right to refuse any ride for any reason.


Actually Yes, If they can prove you refused them because of their Service Weapon, you are liable for a Discrimination Lawsuit.


----------



## circle1

Damiannn said:


> LOL who would they sue? lmfao get real. My car. I have the right to refuse any ride for any reason.


 . . . as the law allows . . .


----------



## GalinMcMahon

brendon292 said:


> Screw Uber's policy. It's my car, I'll do what I want.
> 
> I'm Canadian so we don't have concealed weapons here but....
> 
> If an armed and uniformed peace officer needs a ride, no problem (although I can't think of any scenario where an on-duty officer would need to use an Uber).
> 
> If a PAX is lawfully traveling with their firearm and it is locked in a case and stored in my trunk, no problem.


Canadians are so cute. Officers have nothing to do with peace in the states.


----------



## Phillip Jones

GalinMcMahon said:


> Canadians are so cute. Officers have nothing to do with peace in the states.


Wish we could export the U.S. thug culture to Canada.


----------



## Phillip Jones

Karen Stein said:


> "Gun safe" policies are counter productive. Ever notice that mass shootings ALWAYS take place in gun free zones?
> 
> A sign won't affect a bad guy.
> 
> The good guys don't worry me.


^^ T H I S ^^ A good guy/gal in possession of a concealed firearm is beneficial, and not something to be feared. The only way to defend against armed criminals is for good people to be armed.


----------



## Scuba Steve

Damiannn said:


> Good for you. I would never provide a ride for someone I knew to be a criminal with a gun.
> 
> Cops are not your friends. They are dangerous lunatics.
> 
> *edit:
> I would like to add that I'm always respectful to cops & have never given them reason to bother me.


No way I'm letting a cop get in my car, carrying or not

Cancel -> do not charge rider


----------



## Trump Economics

grams777 said:


> *Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy*
> Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app.*
> 
> Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber.
> 
> ** To the extent permitted by applicable law.*
> 
> https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/


Yea, they also say "assaults are not permitted" and "drivers are independent contractors," and look where that's got us.


----------



## grams777

William Marshall said:


> Yea, they also say "assaults are not permitted" and "drivers are independent contractors," and look where that's got us.


A good way to hurt someone is to broadcast to the world they will be unarmed.


----------



## brendon292

GalinMcMahon said:


> Canadians are so cute. Officers have nothing to do with peace in the states.


Peace officer is just a professional title. It is the equivalent of "Law Enforcement Officer" in the US. Trust me, we've got some real characters working as police officers up here too.


----------



## merkurfan

tohunt4me said:


> I'll give a cop a ride.
> They have given me rides before . . . .


but they sit in the back.. like you did right?


----------



## Damiannn

Good luck with that Odin. You clearly don't understand either law or business.


----------



## UberBastid

Odinaf said:


> Legal Studies guy here, you could actually be sued for refusing a Police Officer a ride. It's Illegal to Discriminate.


Then you may want to review .... discrimination is NOT illegal, unless you are discriminating because of sexual orientation, religion, race ... and about six other categories. It is not illegal to discriminate because of occupation. 
I refused to rent to someone because she was a lawyer. And I told her so. 
Lawyers are too troublesome and litigious. I don't rent to them. Period. And it's legal.


----------



## tohunt4me

merkurfan said:


> but they sit in the back.. like you did right?


I don't make them wear handcuffs.


----------



## tohunt4me

brendon292 said:


> Peace officer is just a professional title. It is the equivalent of "Law Enforcement Officer" in the US. Trust me, we've got some real characters working as police officers up here too.


----------



## UberBastid

GalinMcMahon said:


> Canadians are so cute. Officers have nothing to do with peace in the states.


Exactly right. In the olden days, when I was a lad, a cop was a "Peace Officer", now they are "Police Officers." Big difference.

I never, as in ever, associate with, talk with, share anything with a cop. They will bust their mom for a joint if it will get them promoted or in good with their superior officer. Right or wrong has nothing to do with the game they play. As a group, they lie routinely and steal when they can get away with it. They are predators. Just like pimps, drug dealers, gang bangers ... all predators. I don't play with predators; because they have no morals or loyalty they are not to be trusted. If they are hungry they will feed on you, eventually you will get bit.


----------



## tohunt4me

UberBastid said:


> Exactly right. In the olden days, when I was a lad, a cop was a "Peace Officer", now they are "Police Officers." Big difference.
> 
> I never, as in ever, associate with, talk with, share anything with a cop. They will bust their mom for a joint if it will get them promoted or in good with their superior officer. Right or wrong has nothing to do with the game they play. As a group, they lie routinely and steal when they can get away with it. They are predators. Just like pimps, drug dealers, gang bangers ... all predators. I don't play with predators; because they have no morals or loyalty they are not to be trusted. If they are hungry they will feed on you, eventually you will get bit.


You are confusing them with POLITICIANS


----------



## UberBastid

tohunt4me said:


> You are confusing them with POLITICIANS


Yes, politicians are another subset of predators.
Lawyers, bail bondsmen, IRS agents, heroin dealers, bankers, pimps, judges ... I avoid them all. 
I don't want to be friends with any of these beings, I don't even want to be in the same room.

I remember as a younger man, chasing pu ... um women. I had a probie gf take me to 'friends' house for dinner. Found out DURING the dinner that the guy is an IRS agent. 
I couldn't eat. Tried - couldn't. I knew that the food on that table was there at the expense of much misery of my fellow citizens. I couldn't eat it.
I told them I was ill, and had to leave.
I told probie GF that I didn't want to see her any more. Her judgement and taste in friends was suspect.


----------



## Damiannn

I'm really liking this UberBastid guy!


----------



## UberBastid

brendon292 said:


> Peace officer is just a professional title. It is the equivalent of "Law Enforcement Officer" in the US. Trust me, we've got some real characters working as police officers up here too.


No, sorry buddy. In American English "peace officer" is an obsolete job description. It was accurate back when the USA was a free country. It is no longer used. Our cops do not ensure the peace - sometimes they do the opposite, they ensure chaos. NOW, they are income producing gang members - just like the Crips or the Hells Angels. They protect other brothers in their 'club' while generating money and further the exercise of power. They are gang members. 
We don't have "characters" working as cops here. We have thugs.


----------



## Trafficat

Damiannn said:


> Good for you. I would never provide a ride for someone I knew to be a criminal with a gun. I've been harassed by way too many cops, seen way too many real videos that the MSM hides.
> 
> Cops are not your friends. They are dangerous lunatics.





simpsonsverytall said:


> Refused to take service dogs for a while and been fine. LEO not welcome if they have a firearm...


Dogs, including normal non-service animal pets, and dangerous lunatics are all welcome passengers for me as long as I get paid. I actually like the dogs.

I don't mind pax carrying guns.


----------



## MrA

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


He could write you tickets while riding in the back seat. That would be a penile move, but I bet some would also enjoy doing it. Mods won't let write the D word , lame!


----------



## everythingsuber

tohunt4me said:


> I'll give a cop a ride.
> They have given me rides before . . . .


Did you lock them in your room as well?


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Karen Stein said:


> "Gun safe" policies are counter productive. Ever notice that mass shootings ALWAYS take place in gun free zones?
> 
> A sign won't affect a bad guy.
> 
> The good guys don't worry me.


NRA myth of the gun-free zone killer

"Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns."

Use your brain and stop spoutting mindless NRA arms dealer funded propaganda.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Phillip Jones said:


> ^^ T H I S ^^ A good guy/gal in possession of a concealed firearm is beneficial, and not something to be feared. The only way to defend against armed criminals is for good people to be armed.


And how many children have died from playing with a loaded firearm in the home of good people too stupid to keep their gun unloaded and locked up.

Oh, that's right, the gun lobby has prevented Govt from collecting and publication of those statistics. I wonder why.

More guns, more dead children. Plain and simple.


----------



## tohunt4me

Trafficat said:


> Dogs, including normal non-service animal pets, and dangerous lunatics are all welcome passengers for me as long as I get paid. I actually like the dogs.
> 
> I don't mind pax carrying guns.


Let the drunken service dogs have guns too !


----------



## shiftydrake

Hey after 13 years I have never refused service to a cop.because they carried........hell I'm NOT a cop and I carry so why can't pax in my car carry if their an off duty cop.......few of the best trips and tips come from cops


----------



## Mattio41

WOW, Just Wow at some of the anti-law enforcement sentiment from a few here.


----------



## steveK2016

Unless the officer was in uniform, if I'm not allowed to be armed, I'm not going to take a plainclothes individual with a visible weapon in my backseat with me unprotected. I understand I'm sure more times than I'd like to consider, someone has been in my backseat with a concealed weapon. Nothing much we can do about that... but if it's visible, I'm not taking that chance.

If he's in uniform, I'd be ok with that but not sure why a uniformed officer would need an Uber...

If he jumped in and said "Follow that car!" Hell yea I'd follow car, i've always wanted to be in a police chase!


----------



## TBone

Phillip Jones said:


> ^^ T H I S ^^ A good guy/gal in possession of a concealed firearm is beneficial, and not something to be feared. The only way to defend against armed criminals is for good people to be armed.


I don't mind weapons however people seem to forget that some "Good people" with guns suddenly turn into "Bad people" with guns. Many of the largest shootings have been committed by people without a record so how can you tell who is good or bad.


----------



## MSUGrad9902

Sacto Burbs said:


> NRA myth of the gun-free zone killer
> 
> "Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns."
> 
> Use your brain and stop spoutting mindless NRA arms dealer funded propaganda.


While there may not be "evidence" that the target chosen was a gun free zone, it just happens to work out that way, just about all the time. Purely coincidence I'm sure.


----------



## simpsonsverytall

TBone said:


> I don't mind weapons however people seem to forget that some "Good people" with guns suddenly turn into "Bad people" with guns. Many of the largest shootings have been committed by people without a record so how can you tell who is good or bad.


I invented an app, that would easily track "good guys with guns".
"Good guys" were blue, "Bad guys" were red. I assumed this would be a big moneymaker considering how hot of a topic it is.
I couldn't bring the app to market, because the "good guys" kept changing to "bad guys" and back during stressful situations.
Traffic incidents, after the most minor of fights, domestic incidents, depression/suicide, etc... 
Too many "good guys with a gun" kept changing to bad guys whenever something stressful triggered it. So I trashed the experiment and I'm driving Uber with a degree in social psychology barely making minimum-wage...


----------



## Mattio41

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


I just kind a want to be clear here. Did you cancel him because he was a cop? Or did you cancel him because he had a gun??

Because your post seems to be more bragging about canceling because he was a cop.


----------



## Blackout 702

grams777 said:


> *Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy*
> Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app.*
> 
> Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber.
> 
> ** To the extent permitted by applicable law.*
> 
> https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/


Another poorly written and therefore incomprehensible policy by Uber.

I live in a state where concealed carry is legal with a permit, and open carry is legal without a permit. Basically, any adult (with a few restrictions that apply in very specific situations) can carry a gun. Therefore if no one is permitted by Uber to carry a gun in a vehicle except when "permitted by applicable law," then all Uber drivers and riders in the state of Nevada may carry a gun.


----------



## Blackout 702

Mattio41 said:


> I just kind a want to be clear here. Did you cancel him because he was a cop? Or did you cancel him because he had a gun?? Because your post seems to be more bragging about canceling because he was a cop.


OP followed up with "LEO not welcome if they have a firearm."


----------



## Beur

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


Let's be even more clear, did you see the gun or simply assume he had a gun because he said he was an off-duty LEO?


----------



## Mattio41

Blackout 702 said:


> OP followed up with "LEO not welcome if they have a firearm."


Again.... Shaking my head !!!!

But ok, his car, his comfort zone... but it appeared more to be bragging that he was "Sticking it to the Man", than anything else.


----------



## Scuba Steve

[QUOTEWOW, Just Wow at some of the anti-law enforcement sentiment from a few here.[/QUOTE]


Mattio41 said:


> WOW, Just Wow at some of the anti-law enforcement sentiment from a few here.


police are thugs and the thin blue line is a gang symbol


----------



## phillipzx3

Karen Stein said:


> "Gun safe" policies are counter productive. Ever notice that mass shootings ALWAYS take place in gun free zones?
> 
> A sign won't affect a bad guy.
> 
> The good guys don't worry me.


Always? Care to back that with facts vs. rhetoric? 'Course, I see you had to preface your argument by changing things to "mass shootings." You seem to have this fairytale belief that a gun will keep you safe, no matter what. Dream on. I bet you believe a seat belt will always save your life, right? ;-)


----------



## Mattio41

Scuba Steve said:


> [QUOTEWOW, Just Wow at some of the anti-law enforcement sentiment from a few here.


police are thugs and the thin blue line is a gang symbol[/QUOTE]

Ok then, tell us how you really feel...


----------



## phillipzx3

Odinaf said:


> Legal Studies guy here, you could actually be sued for refusing a Police Officer a ride. It's Illegal to Discriminate.


No it isn't. You're not refusing "him." You're refusing to carry his/her firearm.

By your logic, if you refuse to carry a drug dealer while they have drugs on them, would that be discrimination too.


----------



## Mattio41

phillipzx3 said:


> You seem to have this fairytale belief that a gun will keep you safe


I would rather take my chances than being disarmed and helpless.


----------



## Blackout 702

phillipzx3 said:


> I bet you believe a seat belt will always save your life, right?


Yeah, how naïve. I bet you also belive that a fire extinguisher will put out a fire. I bet you also believe a spare tire will help you out if you have a flat.


----------



## htx21

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


You should of made an exception for a LEO.


----------



## phillipzx3

Blackout 702 said:


> Yeah, how naïve. I bet you also belive that a fire extinguisher will put out a fire. I bet you also believe a spare tire will help you out if you have a flat.


Well....fire extinguishers don't always put out fires and a spare tire won't always save your life. I'm pro-firearm. But people who feel being armed is the answer are living a dream. I especially like the idiots who advocate open carry. If I was a nut out to start shooting people, the open carry fools would be my first group of targets.


----------



## BurgerTiime

Where guns are prohibited, that doesn't apply to police. They may carry at schools, library, church, government centers, airports and courts. Ask any cop, off duty never means "off duty".


----------



## Trafficat

Sacto Burbs said:


> NRA myth of the gun-free zone killer
> 
> "Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns."
> 
> Use your brain and stop spoutting mindless NRA arms dealer funded propaganda.


Most of these shooters spend months planning their attack, studying previous shootings, and trying to maximize casualties to top the others, and you don't think they would select a location where they are unlikely to be shot back from? These guys may be crazy murderers but that doesn't mean they are incapable of simple logic. I like how it is "propaganda" that a terrorist is capable of

The NRA is mostly funded from its 5 million member base. But arms dealers are good guys too that also donate to the NRA.



Mattio41 said:


> WOW, Just Wow at some of the anti-law enforcement sentiment from a few here.


When I was a kid I wanted to be a cop. I wanted to arrest robbers, thieves, murderers, etc. I grew up watching westerns where the bad guys were bad and the law was good.

In middle school I heard how a cop threatened the dad of one of my friends with arrest for having a gun in his car unless he gave the cop his gun, so he did. The thing is the gun wasn't illegal. That cop stole that gun in my opinion by taking advantage of the ignorance of my friend's dad.

When I turned 18 I carried a gun in plain sight and police kept harassing me just because I had a gun, and conducted many illegal searches. And when I went to their building to apply for a permit the police maintained an illegal gun ban in their building and kicked me out just because I was carrying. They said "they don't care what the law is" and they are supposed to uphold the law. And WITHOUT FAIL every police chief and police union rep in the land testifies before the legislature supporting every single gun ban. It seems that the police, or at least their leadership, loathe freedom and all they want to do is strip people of their rights. I don't know why they hate guys with guns. It's like they think if people start defending themselves they will be out of a job. Is it just a few bad apples? Not in my opinion. Corruption comes from the top. Police chiefs justify the misbehavior of their officers or sometimes are the ones calling the shots to begin with.

I do know some officers that are pro gun, polite, and adhere to procedure. I have much greater respect for these people, and if I meet a new officer I will always assume the best of them. Every officer I've ever transported in my car has been a model passenger. But ultimately their allegiance is still to the law. Even if they aren't going around harassing people for what is legal, considering how bad the law is, even the people with integrity who are in law enforcement are still putting good people in jail because the law itself is bad. What good person would put another man in prison just for violating some law like possessing a self-defense weapon or an illegal plant? The only way for a cop to not put innocent people in jail is to not enforce all of the laws, in my opinion. There may be some officers that only enforce moral laws, as much as possible, and if so kudos goes to them. But the badge itself is a symbol of the government in my opinion, and the government is wicked and corrupt. Many people think democracy justifies bad laws but in my opinion the majority can be wrong too.

I noticed a comparison to Hells Angels in a previous post. What I wonder is what exactly they did that was so bad? I've never been worried that Hells Angels would harass me if I walked past one on the street. I guess they violated motorcycle helmet laws and a handful of members got caught selling pot. At least Hells Angels aren't going down to the legislature building lobbying against my human rights. In fact, the only time I saw motorcycle club members at the legislature building in large numbers they were there to lobby against helmet requirements.



Sacto Burbs said:


> And how many children have died from playing with a loaded firearm in the home of good people too stupid to keep their gun unloaded and locked up.
> 
> Oh, that's right, the gun lobby has prevented Govt from collecting and publication of those statistics. I wonder why.
> 
> More guns, more dead children. Plain and simple.


There should be gun safety and familiarization training in schools for kids. That would do the most to reduce gun accidents. Ironically it is the anti-gun people who seem opposed to this. Even if you don't personally own a gun your kid could find a gun out in public.

Personally when I'm at home I carry a gun loaded in my holster. There aren't kids in my house, and if there were, I'm not worried about being overpowered by toddlers.


----------



## Mattio41

phillipzx3 said:


> Well....fire extinguishers don't always put out fires and a spare tire won't always save your life. I'm pro-firearm. But people who feel being armed is the answer are living a dream. I especially like the idiots who advocate open carry. If I was a nut out to start shooting people, the open carry fools would be my first group of targets.


Open carry has it's time and place that it is appropriate. And all though I agree with you about looking to shoot them first. I would want to be as secretive as possible, not to give up my edge. On a different note, I also understand why states have to do a all or nothing when it to Open Carry, and not allow each individual towns make their own ordinances.


----------



## Trafficat

phillipzx3 said:


> Well....fire extinguishers don't always put out fires and a spare tire won't always save your life. I'm pro-firearm. But people who feel being armed is the answer are living a dream. I especially like the idiots who advocate open carry. If I was a nut out to start shooting people, the open carry fools would be my first group of targets.


Well, I'm one of those "open carry fools". Obviously not while driving Uber.

In my state they made it so you had to be 21 to conceal but 18 to carry open so I did that for 3+ years before I got my hide-a-gun license.

Does it not make it safer for you if they shoot me first? Why are you so opposed to other folks being targeted first? If they shoot me first, that gives you more time to run away and concealed carriers time to draw.

Guns also have a deterrent effect. Most criminals seek weak targets. What 7-11 is more likely to get robbed? The one where the robber cases it and finds the clerk and 2 customers are open carrying? Or the one where everyone is apparently unarmed? If your gun is hidden you are more likely to need to draw it.

I've also noticed that most police carry in the open for some strange reason.


----------



## Blackout 702

Mattio41 said:


> Open carry has it's time and place that it is appropriate.


Innocent people have been killed in schools, churches, movie theaters, airports, and shoppings malls. Please tell me a "time and place" where I am safe from violence and I'll stop carrying.


----------



## Trafficat

BurgerTiime said:


> Where guns are prohibited, that doesn't apply to police. They may carry at schools, library, church, government centers, airports and courts. Ask any cop, off duty never means "off duty".


Even when bans do apply to police (some bans do, especially off duty), they have a thing they call "professional courtesy" which is code for "above the law". Sometimes it is not guaranteed, but it seems when an officer gets charged there is always an outrage by other officers. I used to hang around a shooting range where police qualified at and I've heard plenty of officers tell me they carry always even when it is illegal.


----------



## Blackout 702

phillipzx3 said:


> Well....fire extinguishers don't always put out fires and a spare tire won't always save your life.


And yet you still have one in your home and carry one in your vehicle.



phillipzx3 said:


> I'm pro-firearm. But people who feel being armed is the answer are living a dream.


No, you're not, or you'd realize that being armed is unfortunately too often the answer.



phillipzx3 said:


> If I was a nut out to start shooting people, the open carry fools would be my first group of targets.


And yet that never plays out in real life. Interesting.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

Scuba Steve said:


> WOW, Just Wow at some of the anti-law enforcement sentiment from a few here.
> 
> 
> 
> police are thugs and the thin blue line is a gang symbol
Click to expand...

Ever have to call the police to have them show up and save your donkey?

I have, i'd rather have the thugs actually like me as a demographic *cab driver* than to worry if they are going to show up if i'm getting assaulted or robbed.

I've never heard anyone say "i'm with the government and i'm here to help"

"Sheriff's department!, Are you OK?" on the other hand is one that i've heard before.


----------



## Mattio41

Blackout 702 said:


> Innocent people have been killed in schools, churches, movie theaters, airports, and shoppings malls. Please tell me a "time and place" where I am safe from violance and I'll stop carrying.


Let me clarify my position, because I think you misunderstood my intent. 1) I am extremely pro-gun 2) I am a firm believer in concealed carry 3) I dont have to much of an issue with open carry of pistols on your hip, but do we really need to sling an AR or an AK over your shoulder while shopping at the local Piggly Wiggly. That being said though, If I am out hiking in a more rural area, your damn right I want a rifle with me.

Now, to follow up with that comment, it is impossible for any state to allow each individual town to regulate what is acceptable and appropriate, so you basically have to have a All or Nothing law. And coming from New Jermany, where it is not my right to own, but I have to have "Permission" in the form of an exemption to the law. I am fully aware of how towns create their own laws.


----------



## Blackout 702

Mattio41

There was a time not that long ago when children's summer camps had rifle ranges, and grammar school kids rode to school with .22 caliber rifles across their handlebars because they were going plinking after school with their friends. Rifles have been demonized by the government and the media. You seem to have fallen for it.

The second amendment doesn't mention anything about handguns or rifles, or where or when they are "appropriate." It guarantees me, as a free citizen, the right to own and carry "arms."

We're going down a rabbit hole here and I doubt we're likely to see eye-to-eye on this anyway, but I appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

MSUGrad9902 said:


> While there may not be "evidence" that the target chosen was a gun free zone, it just happens to work out that way, just about all the time. Purely coincidence I'm sure.


Yes. Pure coincidence. The key fact is the KILLER's intent. And gun-free zone had nothing to do with it. The horrible killings of Police Officers in Dallas was not a gun-free zone.

Let's focus instead in the children's killed by guns in the home of these strangers who, without evidence you call "good".

Even 90% if NRA members disagree with you. They want sensible gun violence protection laws.

If you want more guns in the home - you want more dead children.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Blackout 702 said:


> Mattio41
> 
> There was a time not that long ago when children's summer camps had rifle ranges, and grammar school kids rode to school with .22 caliber rifles across their handlebars because they were going plinking after school with their friends. Rifles have been demonized by the government and the media. You seem to have fallen for it.
> 
> The second amendment doesn't mention anything about handguns or rifles, or where or when they are "appropriate." It guarantees me, as a free citizen, the right to own and carry "arms."
> 
> We're going down a rabbit hole here and I doubt we're likely to see eye-to-eye on this anyway, but I appreciate your thoughts.


And children ended up dead. From gunshot wounds. My dad killed his own well loved hunting dog when he was a kid when he went hunting and thought the motion in the woods was a squirrel.

There is a reason we take matches away from children. People die. Usually family members. You seem to have fallen for the fallacy that no one got shot or died when kids had guns.

Dead people. Dead children. By loaded guns - in the home.


----------



## Mattio41

Blackout 702 said:


> Mattio41
> 
> There was a time not that long ago when children's summer camps had rifle ranges, and grammar school kids rode to school with .22 caliber rifles across their handlebars because they were going plinking after school with their friends. Rifles have been demonized by the government and the media. You seem to have fallen for it.
> 
> The second amendment doesn't mention anything about handguns or rifles, or where or when they are "appropriate." It guarantees me, as a free citizen, the right to own and carry "arms."
> 
> We're going down a rabbit hole here and I doubt we're likely to see eye-to-eye on this anyway, but I appreciate your thoughts.


I lived in those times. As kids, we use to take our plinkers and ride with them on our bikes down into the woods to go plinking. And no, I have not fallen for it, but at the same time, I can appreciate how others feel and am conscious about it. Over all, I do believe we agree on everything in principle, maybe just not everything in execution. but that is alright.


----------



## Trafficat

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> Ever have to call the police to have them show up and save your donkey?
> 
> I have, i'd rather have the thugs actually like me as a demographic *cab driver* than to worry if they are going to show up if i'm getting assaulted or robbed.
> 
> I've never heard anyone say "i'm with the government and i'm here to help"
> 
> "Sheriff's department!, Are you OK?" on the other hand is one that i've heard before.


A lot of the time police do morally virtuous things like save your donkey.

Sometimes though, the law requires them to confiscate your donkey and euthanize it.

Is an officer virtuous merely by his profession? That question is essentially the same as asking if the law is just, and if the government is good. Some things the government does are good, some things are bad.

Personally I would never expect an officer to be quick enough to the scene to save me from a robbery or an assault. When seconds count, the police are minutes away... most of the time. Some guys get lucky, but personally I'd rather have my own sidearm than have to prey for a cop to come from nearby to use his to save me.



Mattio41 said:


> Let me clarify my position, because I think you misunderstood my intent. 1) I am extremely pro-gun 2) I am a firm believer in concealed carry 3) I dont have to much of an issue with open carry of pistols on your hip, but do we really need to sling an AR or an AK over your shoulder while shopping at the local Piggly Wiggly. That being said though, If I am out hiking in a more rural area, your damn right I want a rifle with me.
> 
> Now, to follow up with that comment, it is impossible for any state to allow each individual town to regulate what is acceptable and appropriate, so you basically have to have a All or Nothing law. And coming from New Jermany, where it is not my right to own, but I have to have "Permission" in the form of an exemption to the law. I am fully aware of how towns create their own laws.


I've only ever carried a pistol, but I think the guys with rifles are still good guys.

If there was another ISIS attack like in San Bernardino or Paris, the guys with the rifles would be welcome. One problem is that the government has restricted armor piercing handgun ammunition so the only guns people have any more that can reliably penetrate armor is going to be a rifle. Armor is increasingly prolific too. You can buy a vest that stops pistol bullets online easily for like $300.

Most of the guys who were carrying rifles in the media lately were doing so as a protest of laws that also forbade the carrying of handguns. For instance, in Texas the law only allows you to carry a rifle until you are 21, and also in Texas they only allowed rifles in plain sight but handguns had to be hidden. They legalized open carrying handguns now but one of the reasons the issue got so much attention was that people who wanted to be allowed handguns were open carrying rifles to protest the handgun ban.



Sacto Burbs said:


> Even 90% if NRA members disagree with you. They want sensible gun violence protection laws.
> 
> If you want more guns in the home - you want more dead children.


The NRA compromises way too much. I know many gun owners that feel that way. However, the NRA strongly believes in people defending their homes with guns.

The problem with most "sensible" laws you speak of is that they actually don't make any sense at all. They are usually knee jerk reactions to the latest tragedy in the news because "we have to do something" or to "send a message" but these laws don't actually usually accomplish much but causing more people to be less able to defend themselves and maybe filling our jails with gun owners who committed technical violations. Most gun owners also have a limit to the laws they will follow, contrary to the "law-abiding-citizen" image that the NRA puts forth. When most gun owners won't comply with gun bans, I think it is funny that people think murderers will.

For instance, check out this poll on Nevada shooters. Out of 50 people, only 1 person said they would comply with a magazine capacity restriction: http://www.nevadashooters.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=200 (Usually these laws require dimples in the sides of mags to limit mag capacity, but anyone with a brain can cut the dimples out or buy a mag out of state)

What makes us safer? Law enforcement using their resources to track down robbers and murderers and filling our jails with those folks? Or law enforcement searching people for 11 round mags and filling our jails with those folks?


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Karen Stein said:


> "Gun safe" policies are counter productive. Ever notice that mass shootings ALWAYS take place in gun free zones?
> 
> A sign won't affect a bad guy.
> 
> The good guys don't worry me.


The Dallas soothing if Police Officers was not a gun-free zone. Care to amend your post to it is accurate?


----------



## Trafficat

Sacto Burbs said:


> The Dallas soothing if Police Officers was not a gun-free zone. Care to amend your post to it is accurate?


Not all shootings happen in gun free zones. But the results can be a lot different.

Compare a mass shooting in a Nevada alcohol establishment where carry is allowed to a Florida alcohol establishment where carry is banned which was the worst mass shooting in US history (and still less people died than from a Truck attack in paris)

In Winnemucca, Nevada, a CCW permit holder shot the mass shooter. The killer killed 2 people before being killed by the citizen.

In Orlando, Florida, the nightclub was a disarmed victim zone. 49 people were murdered.

Here is an article that talks about mass shootings stopped by CCW holders.

http://concealednation.org/2015/10/here-are-5-times-concealed-carriers-have-stopped-mass-shootings/

#1 on the list is the Winnemucca incident.
#2 on the list was when an Uber driver stopped a mass shooting in Chicago, which was the incident that prompted Uber to ban guns for drivers. (AFTER Uber banned drivers from carrying was when an Uber driver went on a rampage: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/21/us/michigan-kalamazoo-county-shooting-spree/ )

The fact of the matter is, when armed citizens intervene in mass shootings, a lot less people die.

A shootout is always better than an execution.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Mattio41 said:


> I lived in those times. As kids, we use to take our plinkers and ride with them on our bikes down into the woods to go plinking. And no, I have not fallen for it, but at the same time, I can appreciate how others feel and am conscious about it. Over all, I do believe we agree on everything in principle, maybe just not everything in execution. but that is alright.


Your kid did not go to neighbours house and get shot when the neighbour kid got out Mommy's gun she kept for "safety" - loaded.

You did not have a neighbour who had a gun, but did not carry it around the house loaded, but went out to turn off the sprinklers at 10 pm and got jumped by three guys in ski masks who put a gun to his head, put his wife and kid and himself in a room and ransacked his house.

Guns do not keep you safe.


----------



## georgiahomeboy

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


why would u refuse? whats wrong with some of you drivers? idiots


----------



## Blackout 702

Sacto Burbs said:


> And children ended up dead. From gunshot wounds. My dad killed his own well loved hunting dog when he was a kid when he went hunting and thought the motion in the woods was a squirrel.
> 
> There is a reason we take matches away from children. People die. Usually family members. You seem to have fallen for the fallacy that no one got shot or died when kids had guns.
> 
> Dead people. Dead children. By loaded guns - in the home.


Dead people. Dead children. In the malls and schools and shopping centers and churches and movie theaters and streets and parking lots - because a good guy with a gun wasn't there to protect them, because people like you want them to be defenseless victims. Thanks.


----------



## Mattio41

Trafficat said:


> Most of the guys who were carrying rifles in the media lately were doing so as a protest of laws that also forbade the carrying of handguns. For instance, in Texas the law only allows you to carry a rifle until you are 21, and also in Texas they only allowed rifles in plain sight but handguns had to be hidden. They legalized open carrying handguns now but one of the reasons the issue got so much attention was that people who wanted to be allowed handguns were open carrying rifles to protest the handgun ban.


For those who don't know, this is actually a very true statement.


----------



## yojimboguy

I picked up a couple of plain clothes cops once -- at least they claimed to be, and their conversation was very cop-like. If they were armed, they were carrying concealed, but it never even occurred to me that I could refuse them for being armed.


----------



## Trafficat

Sacto Burbs said:


> Your kid did not go to neighbours house and get shot when the neighbour kid got out Mommy's gun she kept for "safety" - loaded.
> 
> You did not have a neighbour who had a gun, but did not carry it around the house loaded, but went out to turn off the sprinklers at 10 pm and got jumped by three guys in ski masks who put a gun to his head, put his wife and kid and himself in a room and ransacked his house.
> 
> Guns do not keep you safe.


Mom could have carried the gun on her person if she wanted it to be ready but secure from kids, and should have taught her kids gun safety. A quick access safe with a loaded gun in it would probably be too slow to be useful unless she reinforced the door jambs and used 3M burglar resistant tape on the windows, but still makes a lot more sense then you guys saying we should be forced to have unloaded guns.

There are also kids who used guns to shoot people who broke into their houses. Some of those kids would not be alive today if kids were banned guns. http://thegrio.com/2015/08/21/teen-boy-saves-siblings-home-invasion/
http://www.ksla.com/story/10741492/child-shoots-intruder-during-home-break-in

Neighbor guy should have carried the gun around his house loaded. A gun won't be useful for defense if it is unloaded, or if it is in your drawer or safe and you need it in your hand.


----------



## Mattio41

Sacto Burbs said:


> Your kid did not go to neighbours house and get shot when the neighbour kid got out Mommy's gun she kept for "safety" - loaded.
> 
> You did not have a neighbour who had a gun, but did not carry it around the house loaded, but went out to turn off the sprinklers at 10 pm and got jumped by three guys in ski masks who put a gun to his head, put his wife and kid and himself in a room and ransacked his house.
> 
> Guns do not keep you safe.


Actually, we were taught about firearm safety and to respect firearms. We had police come to our schools and scout meetings. We had parents that taught us at an early age. Firearms were not demonized and abused they way they are now in certain cultures and elements.

Yes, I have fired my firearm in self defense before inside of my home. Yes, I do know someone who was held at gunpoint. But that is alright, you have your view and the bubble that you live in. Not everybody gets to live in your same bubble...


----------



## Blackout 702

Sacto Burbs said:


> Your kid did not go to neighbours house and get shot when the neighbour kid got out Mommy's gun she kept for "safety" - loaded.
> 
> You did not have a neighbour who had a gun, but did not carry it around the house loaded, but went out to turn off the sprinklers at 10 pm and got jumped by three guys in ski masks who put a gun to his head, put his wife and kid and himself in a room and ransacked his house.
> 
> Guns do not keep you safe.


You just gave two perfect examples of how guns would have saved someone if they had been properly carried by the owners!


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Trafficat said:


> Not all shootings happen in gun free zones. But the results can be a lot different.
> 
> Compare a mass shooting in a Nevada alcohol establishment where carry is allowed to a Florida alcohol establishment where carry is banned.
> 
> In Winnemucca, Nevada, a CCW permit holder shot the mass shooter. The killer killed 2 people before being killed by the citizen.
> ( http://concealednation.org/2015/10/here-are-5-times-concealed-carriers-have-stopped-mass-shootings/ )
> (#2 on the list was when an Uber driver stopped a mass shooting in Chicago, which was the incident that prompted Uber to ban guns for drivers)
> 
> In Orlando, Florida, the nightclub was a disarmed victim zone. 49 people were murdered.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, when armed citizens intervene in mass shootings, a lot less people die.
> 
> A shootout is always better than an execution.


Comparing bar-to-bar is a specious correlation. As expected by your quoted source.

How did these "good" citizens get a gun in the first place and then use it to kill people. ONLY 3 people died?

Real life is the gal who was murdered by a psyco who would not have passed a background check but the Feds are only give 3 days to do the check and after that the gun dealer can sell to anyone - known criminal or psyco.

Reality is not on propaganda sites, it is in your local murder report.


----------



## tohunt4me

Sacto Burbs said:


> Your kid did not go to neighbours house and get shot when the neighbour kid got out Mommy's gun she kept for "safety" - loaded.
> 
> You did not have a neighbour who had a gun, but did not carry it around the house loaded, but went out to turn off the sprinklers at 10 pm and got jumped by three guys in ski masks who put a gun to his head, put his wife and kid and himself in a room and ransacked his house.
> 
> Guns do not keep you safe.


No,common sense keeps you safe.
A gun is a tool.
If you use a power saw wrong,or leave it plugged in around kids,bad things can happen.
A maniac with a power saw can cut up a room full of people.
Should we ban everything but Manuel handsaws for safety?
Perhaps we should limit the amount of cuts you can make with a battery operated power saw before batteries need changing ?
No one needs more than 7 cuts per a battery ?
Ban " High Capacity" Batteries ?
More children have been injured and killed by contents of hot pots on stoves. Education is key,not banning stoves.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Blackout 702 said:


> You just gave two perfect examples of how guns would have saved someone if they had been properly carried by the owners!


My Dad owned his own gun.

You wanted my Neighbor to carry his loaded gun inside and outside his own house 24/7. If he had, he would have no time to draw it when he got grabbed as the bad guys and their gun was already at his head. Instead no one died. And no one got shot.

His gun did not protect him or his family.


----------



## Mattio41

Sacto Burbs said:


> Real life is the gal who was murdered by a psyco who would not have passed a background check but the Feds are only give 3 days to do the check and after that the gun dealer can sell to anyone - known criminal or psyco.


And here is real life right back at you. How about the woman who was stabbed to death in New Jersey by her Ex-Boyfriend. She had a restraining order against him, but that is just a piece of paper. She had applied for a permit to "Own" a firearm, but the local authorities had still not processed her paperwork after 45 days, forgetting even the fact of a permit to carry one.

Her name was Carol Bowne!!!


----------



## Trafficat

Sacto Burbs said:


> Comparing bar-to-bar is a specious correlation. As expected by your quoted source.
> 
> How did these "good" citizens get a gun in the first place and then use it to kill people. ONLY 3 people died?
> 
> Real life is the gal who was murdered by a psyco who would not have passed a background check but the Feds are only give 3 days to do the check and after that the gun dealer can sell to anyone - known criminal or psyco.
> 
> Reality is not on propaganda sites, it is in your local murder report.


Comparing a bar shooting where an armed citizen stopped it to one where an armed citizen did not stop it is a specious example?

Yes, 3 people died. One of the 3 was the shooter. But if you had your way it could have been 49 plus the shooter like what happened in the other bar where nobody was allowed to carry.

Guns are super easy to get. You can buy a gun from a store, from a guy on armslist.com, and even from most drug dealers. The guns that drug dealers supply are often stolen, but are sometimes also illegally imported or manufactured. Guys in Pakistan at the Khyber Pass make guns with simple hand tools and lathes and those guns are often quality replicas of guns made with CNC machines in other countries. People in America often even own their own personal CNC machines. You can find directions on how to make a submachinegun with sheet metal and plumping components if you google it. You can even 3D print a gun. In other countries criminal manufacture or import of guns is more common because it is harder to buy legally. But what is better? A criminal buys a gun from a gun store, paying local taxes in the process? Or a criminal buys a gun that was stolen from someone, fueling burglary, or buys a gun from black market tradesmen who are often members of violent gangs?

The war on drugs is a failure. Police have been unable to stop the proliferation of drugs, even though drugs often require sophisticated facilities to produce, sunlight to grow, and can easily be detected by drug dogs.

Guns on the other hand can be made underground and don't smell any different than normal machine parts until they are fired. Illegal arms manufacture is easy as pie to do compared to drugs. Even in Nazi occupied Poland where Gestapo didn't even need a warrant to do a search, the resistance made submachineguns under their noses.

Stopping people from getting guns is a pipe dream, and it works as well as prohibition of alcohol did before and the drug war does now.


----------



## LASAC_BER

Sacto Burbs said:


> NRA myth of the gun-free zone killer
> 
> "Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns."
> 
> Use your brain and stop spoutting mindless NRA arms dealer funded propaganda.


That's not what the statistic is proving - rather, that extremely liberal areas that promote the strictest firearm laws, are actually home to the most dangerous people. Look at the political stance of the families of gun violence perpetrators.

*spouting, btw.


----------



## Blackout 702

Sacto Burbs said:


> You wanted my Neighbor to carry his loaded gun inside and outside his own house 24/7. If he had, he would have no time to draw it when he got grabbed as the bad guys and their gun was already at his head. Instead no one died. And no one got shot.


You have no idea if that is true. You are making up a hypothetical situation and then saying how it would have played out.



Sacto Burbs said:


> Real life is the gal who was murdered by a psyco who would not have passed a background check but the Feds are only give 3 days to do the check and after that the gun dealer can sell to anyone - known criminal or psyco.


Wow, too bad she wasn't able to have a gun to protect herself.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Mattio41 said:


> And here is real life right back at you. How about the woman who was stabbed to death in New Jersey by her Ex-Boyfriend. She had a restraining order against him, but that is just a piece of paper. She had applied for a permit to "Own" a firearm, but the local authorities had still not processed her paperwork after 45 days, forgetting even the fact of a permit to carry one.
> 
> Her name was Carol Bowne!!!


You are assuming the gun would have made a difference. Specious argument.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

LASAC_BER said:


> That's not what the statistic is proving - rather, that extremely liberal areas that promote the strictest firearm laws, are actually home to the most dangerous people. Look at the political stance of the families of gun violence perpetrators.
> 
> *spouting, btw.


Specious argument. Gun violence prevention laws do not Make a place dangerous. Nice try.


----------



## LASAC_BER

Sacto Burbs said:


> And children ended up dead. From gunshot wounds. My dad killed his own well loved hunting dog when he was a kid when he went hunting and thought the motion in the woods was a squirrel.
> 
> There is a reason we take matches away from children. People die. Usually family members. You seem to have fallen for the fallacy that no one got shot or died when kids had guns.
> 
> Dead people. Dead children. By loaded guns - in the home.


And YOU seem to have fallen for the fallacy that removing items from someone's path solves society's problems. It doesn't. At all. In fact, it exacerbates them. Why? Because people are not properly trained how to use or respect things that are tools. How many kids are playing M rated violent games? Or watching R rated movies on TV? Combine this with never touching a real firearm, and the second they have access of course they want to mimic what they see. Kids are mimics, that's how they learn. I was exposed to firearms when I was under 10, saw the effect of a FMJ that I fired from a rifle penetrating solid steel and digging the bullet out of a dirt bank...and have not once in my almost 40 years, had a single desire or thought of pointing one toward another living being. Everyone else I was raised with has the exact same story. It is about respect, and current society has NONE. Just look at media.



Sacto Burbs said:


> Specious argument. Gun violence prevention laws do not Make a place dangerous. Nice try.


L2R
Not what I'm saying.


----------



## tohunt4me

Scuba Steve said:


> [QUOTEWOW, Just Wow at some of the anti-law enforcement sentiment from a few here.


police are thugs and the thin blue line is a gang symbol[/QUOTE]^°^°°°^^^^^°°°°°^^^^^°°°°°^^^^^°°°°°^^^
So which gang you going to turn to when you have to defend your turf and can't do it alone ? The gang that " collects" sales tax ?
Or the gang that wants 50% of what you earn,if they dont just take your business and run you out ?
And remember,when you call a gang for help,they call you for help. Doesn't matter if you agree with what's going on,you have to go.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Blackout 702 said:


> You are making up a hypothetical situation and then saying how it would have played out.


Like " if You have a gun - you will be safe". Or safer.


----------



## tohunt4me

phillipzx3 said:


> Well....fire extinguishers don't always put out fires and a spare tire won't always save your life. I'm pro-firearm. But people who feel being armed is the answer are living a dream. I especially like the idiots who advocate open carry. If I was a nut out to start shooting people, the open carry fools would be my first group of targets.


Well,parachutes save lives.
Now if someone off the street grabs one and jumps out a plane,it might not do him much good.
Training. Training is key.


----------



## Mattio41

Sacto Burbs said:


> You are assuming the gun would have made a difference. Specious argument.


the mere brandishing of a firearm can make all the difference. The fact of the matter is, she was not even given the chance or opportunity to defend herself. If you have a beef with the 3 day law, then take it up with the states who fail to file their records properly.


----------



## Oscar Levant

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


If he had a badge, what's the problem? Besides , is someone has a gun they intend on using on you, they are not going to ID themselves. This really sounds like you dissed a man who risks his life daily to protect you, and you wouldn't give him a ride. Most officers are good people, like 99.9% but the bad cops get all the publicity.


----------



## tohunt4me

Sacto Burbs said:


> Specious argument. Gun violence prevention laws do not Make a place dangerous. Nice try.


And signs do not make a place safe.
A red light is for safety.
If a criminal purposely drives through it and kills a family,the stop sign or red light has done nothing.
Respect for life. Some people do not have it.
People who lack respect must be removed. Not cars,not signs.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Mattio41 said:


> the mere brandishing of a firearm can make all the difference. The fact of the matter is, she was not even given the chance or opportunity to defend herself. If you have a beef with the 3 day law, then take it up with the states who fail to file their records properly.


Ya, it can get you shot. By your argument a toy gun would work fine.


----------



## merkurfan

MSUGrad9902 said:


> While there may not be "evidence" that the target chosen was a gun free zone, it just happens to work out that way, just about all the time. Purely coincidence I'm sure.


actually didn't they prove the colorado shooter picked the theater he did because it was gun free?

To the anti-gun nuts that think more guns means more dead kids.. my kid is a better shot than me and knows how to handle a firearm (horn honking moment, he earned sharpshooter in scouts and stopped shooting before he used all his allowed shots because he had nailed it).. The only dead person in my house if there ever is one is the guy that made the mistake of breaking in while he is home. he's 9.

Guns don't kill people. stupid people with guns do. and that does include kids that are not training in the proper care of a firearm.


----------



## Blackout 702

Blackout 702 said:


> You have no idea if that is true. You are making up a hypothetical situation and then saying how it would have played out.





Sacto Burbs said:


> Like " if You have a gun - you will be safe". Or safer.


Hey, at least you admit you're making things up, but don't drag me into it.


----------



## Scuba Steve

tohunt4me said:


> So which gang you going to turn to when you have to defend your turf and can't do it alone ? The gang that " collects" sales tax ?
> Or the gang that wants 50% of what you earn,if they dont just take your business and run you out ?


Police rarely prevent crimes. They show up after the fact and write a report, and then you never hear from them again.

I thought the rest of your post was talking about cops, until I realized you were talking about the mob.

See the government is the exact same as the mob. Taxes = protection payments and the gov't absolutely will take your business if you don't pay. The cops are the goons. Their main function is revenue collection. I could go on. But you see now that our gov't = organized crime


----------



## Blackout 702

tohunt4me said:


> Well,parachutes save lives.
> Now if someone off the street grabs one and jumps out a plane,it might not do him much good.
> Training. Training is key.


Obviously training is key, but would you train with a parachute and then outlaw them because sometimes they don't work?


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Blackout 702 said:


> Hey, at least you admit you're making things up, but don't drag me into it.


 Any
argument that begins with "if" is specious.


----------



## Blackout 702

Sacto Burbs said:


> Any
> Any
> argument that begins with "if" is specious.


Um... no. Sorry professor. But any post that starts with "Any Any" is redundant.


----------



## tohunt4me

Mattio41 said:


> the mere brandishing of a firearm can make all the difference. The fact of the matter is, she was not even given the chance or opportunity to defend herself. If you have a beef with the 3 day law, then take it up with the states who fail to file their records properly.


" Brandishing" a firearm may get you killed too. You might be standing at a urinal 3 years later,and hear click,a hammer cocking back,steel at the base of your skull and someone you haven't seen yet asking " Remember me "?


----------



## Blackout 702

tohunt4me said:


> " Brandishing" a firearm may get you killed too. You might be standing at a urinal 3 years later,and hear click,a hammer cocking back,steel at the base of your skull and someone you haven't seen yet asking " Remember me "?


Yes, because that's how life works. Just like in a John Woo movie!


----------



## tohunt4me

Scuba Steve said:


> Police rarely prevent crimes. They show up after the fact and write a report, and then you never hear from them again.
> 
> I thought the rest of your post was talking about cops, until I realized you were talking about the mob.
> 
> See the government is the exact same as the mob. Taxes = protection payments and the gov't absolutely will take your business if you don't pay. The cops are the goons. Their main function is revenue collection. I could go on. But you see now that our gov't = organized crime


I like to think of it as paying dues,to a club. I probably get more than my money's worth.


----------



## tohunt4me

Blackout 702 said:


> Yes, because that's how life works. Just like in a John Woo movie!


That's how life works with crazy people.
The EXACT kind you would have to pull a gun on. You think I made that story up or saw it on a movie ?( doesn't matter either way. You can take advice,or find out for yourself)


----------



## Trafficat

tohunt4me said:


> That's how life works with crazy people.
> The EXACT kind you would have to pull a gun on. You think I made that story up or saw it on a movie ?( doesn't matter either way. You can take advice,or find out for yourself)


Not always. Sometimes a crazy guy dyes his hair funky colors and walks into a movie theater shooting indiscriminately, for instance.


----------



## tohunt4me

What I CAN tell you,here in print ,is Brandishing a gun is not a rep. I want. You play King of the hill,you get knocked off.


----------



## tohunt4me

After his father de


Trafficat said:


> Not always. Sometimes a crazy guy dyes his hair funky colors and walks into a movie theater shooting indiscriminately, for instance.


After his father develops an Algorithm for G.E.Capitol that detects fraud and helps expose the Libor Scandal? Another guy on the same project had a son end in a bad way. Gangsters in suits get crazy over Billions.
Humming" it's a big enough umbrella,to keep the both of us from being wet"-Sting.
We not even going to get into World Bank collection agency and blue helmets.


----------



## Cocobird

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


Yep, and when you need the police, you'll be the first one to call them.


----------



## Blackout 702

I have no problem with someone refusing to give any service to a police officer, as long as they are consistant with their philosophy and never again for the rest of their life call the police for any reason whatsoever.


----------



## Trafficat

Another thing is that it would really suck to get pulled over by the cop you refused to give a ride to the day before!


----------



## Raywood

Fuber are breaking the 2nd amendment,

"the *right* of the people to keep and *bear Arms*, shall not be infringed."

Infringed (defy, weaken, impair, compromise)

Yes the 2nd amendment has been compromised here ladies and gents.


----------



## Retired Senior

Now this is simply my opinion.... after many years of skirmishes with the boys in blue (a few which resulted in me being a guest of the municipality for a night) I have come to believe that there is nothing to be gained by waving a red flag in front of a bull. A bull has his genetic imperatives and will act accordingly. When I was a young man I behaved according to hormonal imperatives.... thankfully those days are long gone and I can think more clearly than I used to.

So if a cop - in uniform or not - wanted/needed a ride I would drive him to his/her destination. If the officer had a gun it would not matter to me - as long as it was not pointed in my direction. There was an episode just recently when I needed the police to be police, and they helped me out of a jam.

For the most part, I do not look for or require any more drama in my life. I am certainly not going to provoke either law men or criminals. Ping me, and I'll drive you to where you need to go and then kindly depart from my car. If you rob a bank 5 minutes later that's all on you. If you act like Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral that's on you, too.


----------



## Blackout 702

Raywood said:


> Fuber are breaking the 2nd amendment,
> 
> "the *right* of the people to keep and *bear Arms*, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Infringed (defy, weaken, impair, compromise)
> 
> Yes the 2nd amendment has been compromised here ladies and gents.


Nope. The constitution outlines the rights and responsibilities of the American government, not of private businesses.


----------



## Older Chauffeur

I've driven many times over the years with an armed bodyguard on board, and countless times with my LEO son while he was carrying. It never crossed my mind to worry. If I hadn't retired when I did, I would have been given training and issued a CCW as part of the job. My former colleagues all got licensed.
Regarding the discrimination issue, businesses are allowed to have rules, even prohibiting off duty cops from carrying on their premises- Dodger Stadium and Disneyland come to mind in my area. That's not discrimination.


----------



## MSUGrad9902

I thought about this all day. If somebody tells me they are carrying before the trip I'll ask them to unload before entering. I'll keep the ammo up front until the ride is nearly complete. Problem solved.


----------



## Trafficat

MSUGrad9902 said:


> I thought about this all day. If somebody tells me they are carrying before the trip I'll ask them to unload before entering. I'll keep the ammo up front until the ride is nearly complete. Problem solved.


You should probably cancel the ride or just let them carry it as they normally do.

You will most likely get 1 star ratings if you say that to passengers.


----------



## DSB

tohunt4me said:


> I'll give a cop a ride.
> They have given me rides before . . . .


Bahahahahaha!


----------



## Blackout 702

MSUGrad9902 said:


> I thought about this all day. If somebody tells me they are carrying before the trip I'll ask them to unload before entering. I'll keep the ammo up front until the ride is nearly complete. Problem solved.


You seriously want a stranger to draw their weapon in a parking lot or on a sidewalk, remove the magazine, rack the slide to eject the round in the chamber, reholster the weapon, and hand you a loaded magazine and one loose round? Other than possibly being illegal depending on local ordinances, do you know how unsafe that is?


----------



## LEO2112

MSUGrad9902 said:


> I thought about this all day. If somebody tells me they are carrying before the trip I'll ask them to unload before entering. I'll keep the ammo up front until the ride is nearly complete. Problem solved.


----------



## ziliano

Good for you OP! You can refuse any ride that you aren't comfortable with. I do the same thing. I don't care about UBER Policy, Political Correctness, Lawsuit threats..... pfffft please.. It's my car & my life on the line. 

Police officers aren't super heroes... They are susceptible to breakdowns, depression, & homicidal thoughts just like the rest of us. You never know what a persons triggers are. One minute you could be having a great conversation, next thing you know... your pax is in BEAST mode because of a comment you made. 

The only one packing heat in my vehicle will be me (unless of course it isn't noticeable on my pax - which I'm sure has happened more than a few times - but oh well, such is life).


----------



## steveryder

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


Congratulations you just put the biggest target on the Uber U!! I hope the cops in your city cite you and every Uber driver in your city. As of now the cops are over gracious with rideshare drivers, you my friend single handily changed that in your city. I would love to be sitting in the traffic roll call as the U turned into a no warning violation target. Cops are your friend until they are not! Dumb, dumb, dumb.


----------



## XeithPaladin

grams777 said:


> *Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy*
> Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app.*
> 
> Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber.
> 
> ** To the extent permitted by applicable law.*
> 
> https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/


uber shitty policies are not above the constitution, I have the right to have a weapon in MY CAR...


----------



## Blackout 702

XeithPaladin said:


> uber shitty policies are not above the constitution, I have the right to have a weapon in MY CAR...


And they have the right to deactivate you as a driver. Aren't rights fun?


----------



## UberLaLa

Trust me, all of us have hauled passengers with legal _concealed carry permits.
_
That's sort of the point of 'concealed.'

And we have probably hauled a few without legal _concealed carry permits_, too!


----------



## crazytown

Karen Stein said:


> "Gun safe" policies are counter productive. Ever notice that mass shootings ALWAYS take place in gun free zones?
> 
> A sign won't affect a bad guy.
> 
> The good guys don't worry me.


Says Uber HQ


----------



## crazytown

Damiannn said:


> Good for you. I would never provide a ride for someone I knew to be a criminal with a gun. I've been harassed by way too many cops, seen way too many real videos that the MSM hides.
> 
> Cops are not your friends. They are dangerous lunatics.
> 
> *edit:
> I would like to add that I'm always respectful to cops & have never given them reason to bother me. In my real job, I have to work closely with them as part of my job.


Some of them are so caught up in themselves that it made them crazy lunatics


----------



## Rooster06

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


Maybe your "Gun Free Zone" will be the site of the next mass shooting... one can only hope...


----------



## Rooster06

JimKE said:


> On the other hand, I would certainly not fault any Uber driver who refused to drive a cop with a gun.
> 
> First of all, as noted above, it is against Uber's policy for anyone using the app to be armed. And second, there is the unofficial my car, my rules attitude. Either one is adequate justification to refuse a ride, IMHO.


State laws will trump company policies, especially when dealing with a subcontractor any day of the week. Similar to carry on college campus, carry on publicly funded property, the Castle Doctrine, and CCW Reciprocity. Hell, why am I telling you this if you're retired LEO? Any person lawfully carrying; A. should be allowed, and will not be legally punished, and B. will not pose a threat to a driver, and if they're doing right, the driver won't even know. But, that whole "my car, my rules," is the gotcha there. Your car, your rules you're an ill-informed ******canoe!


----------



## Tedgey

Damiannn said:


> LOL who would they sue? lmfao get real. My car. I have the right to refuse any ride for any reason.


Oh boy. Here we go again.


----------



## Charlie Schwartz

tohunt4me said:


> I don't make them wear handcuffs.


you should at least offer it to them...


----------



## Odinaf

Damiannn said:


> Good luck with that Odin. You clearly don't understand either law or business.


 Yea Clearly, I only own my own law firm and do my own taxes and drafted my own LLC. I clearly no nothing of what I'm doing. That Juris Doctorate that U.W. Gave me must have been a mistake, or the fact I have never lost a legal case. I'm a complete idiot on these matters. I mean just look at my profile pic, that screams this guy must not know anything.

And lets just be honest about this whole thing, This had nothing to do with his firearm. These are just more anti police people that like to do what they want and hate any rule enforcers, It was never about his gun, it was about his badge, he just used the gun as a excuse to be a jerk so he could come online and brag to everyone thinking he is cool. Well your not your just another jerk, I worked Corrections for 2 years. At the end of the day i just want to go home to my family. Most jurisdiction REQUIRE you to carry at all times, and FYI, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OFF DUTY. A Officer when swore in, is OBLIGATED to ENFORCE the laws at any time it is committed within his presence or he has knowledge of it. LEO's are never offduty. If they are out with there family and see someone go at someone with a brick, THEY ARE REQUIRED to ENFORCE.


----------



## tirebiter

Don't let them see your gun unless you are going to (you hope) kill them.
That is all.


----------



## Rooster06

tirebiter said:


> Don't let them see your gun unless you are going to (you hope) kill them.
> That is all.


Walk softly but carry a big stick. Or a big caliber...


----------



## Sometimes

JimKE said:


> I'm a retired police officer, so yeah, I would transport an off-duty cop who was carrying -- provided he/she wasn't drunk.
> 
> If they've been drinking, nope, no way -- and I would not hesitate to tell them why. Drunks and guns do not play well together; drunk cops are not an exception to that rule.
> 
> I don't really think an officer *in uniform* would be taking a ride!


 your wrong, ive taken them to the court house...they work there


----------



## Danny3xd

tohunt4me said:


> I'll give a cop a ride.
> They have given me rides before . . . .


LoL, 2Hunt! Ayup, they are kind that way.

===================================

Not for nuttun but (and I like cops) they now only higher officers with lower than average IQ's. Then they give them guns;

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...gainst+police+applicants+who+score+high+on+IQ


----------



## steveryder

XeithPaladin said:


> uber shitty policies are not above the constitution, I have the right to have a weapon in MY CAR...


Exactly!!! Anyone that would follow Uber or the leftwing nutjobs that make up Uber the company and would trust them for you or your customers safety by not allowing legal firearms in your personal car, must be complete moroons.


----------



## UberBastid

Odinaf said:


> Most jurisdiction REQUIRE you to carry at all times, and FYI, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OFF DUTY. A Officer when swore in, is OBLIGATED to ENFORCE the laws at any time it is committed within his presence or he has knowledge of it. LEO's are never offduty. If they are out with there family and see someone go at someone with a brick, THEY ARE REQUIRED to ENFORCE.


Which is EXACTLY why I don't want to be around them. You are right; it has nothing to do with the gun (I have one too). It has to do with their never ending, and never questioning relationship with a para-military and corrupt organization. They can not use their own brain, they can not consider right vs. wrong, they can have no feelings of empathy, they can't 'give a guy a break'. They MUST follow orders. They are robots. Why do you think that cops only have friends that are cops?

They are "the Kings men" who, if ordered by their superior, would put a bullet between your eyes with NO hesitation. And sleep just fine tonight.


----------



## Blackout 702

UberBastid said:


> Why do you think that cops only have friends that are cops?


Gosh, I don't know, maybe because of people who think like you?


----------



## 58756

My friend is a cop and he drives Lyft and Uber frequently, almost daily like I do and he has his concealed because as a cop your on duty 24/7 even if your off duty your still a cop.


----------



## Blackout 702

Ozzyoz said:


> My friend is a cop


No, didn't you hear? Cops are mindless killer robots who don't have friends except other cops. I know it's true because I read it on the Internet.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Tedgey said:


> Oh boy. Here we go again.


I wonder if a driver is allowed to refuse ducks rides.


----------



## JimKE

Rooster06 said:


> First off, company policies do not apply to LEO, retired LEO, or Federal LEO. They can carry concealed onto airplanes and through airport security, and pretty much anywhere they choose.


That is simply not true. For a law enforcement officer to bring a firearm through airport security, they have to have a letter from their department detailing the reason why they need to be armed on an aircraft. Generally, off-duty officers have no reason to carry on an aircraft.

And even IF you have a letter to get you _through security_, whether the gun remains in your possession _on the aircraft_ is strictly up to the Captain of the aircraft. I once escorted a murdered officer's family to Washington DC for the national Police Memorial Ceremony. That Friday afternoon, there were four separate families from four local departments on that aircraft. All of the escort personnel were in uniform and armed. The Captain was very gracious, but he said his policy was that all the guns had to be in his possession until we de-planed. We all surrendered our weapons.

There are a number of other exceptions. For example, it is illegal under Federal law for anyone except a _federal_ LEO to be armed inside any US government building or facility. So local/state officers going to Federal court have to surrender their weapons. (BTW, we also check our weapons in State Court).


----------



## McGyüber

t5contra said:


> I am very pro-gun/military/law. I drove a cop yesterday, she jumped out of her squad car and into mine.


Uhhh, ya. Me too. Kind of a dic# move IMHO. Gave that LEO a bad impression of uber drivers. If you get harassed in the future that's just karma


----------



## JimKE

Rooster06 said:


> State laws will trump company policies, especially when dealing with a subcontractor any day of the week. Similar to carry on college campus, carry on publicly funded property, the Castle Doctrine, and CCW Reciprocity. ..


Again, this is just incorrect.

State and Federal laws trump company policies in those situations where company policies violate those laws. Barring someone from bringing a gun into a building or business of any kind does not violate the Second Amendment (which I support, BTW).

CCF reciprocity means simply that one state's permit is valid in another state; but you still have to follow the laws of the state you are in pertaining to carrying firearms.

Rights are not absolute. They can, and are, restricted all the time -- perfectly legally.

You really should fact-check your opinions before posting them as fact.


----------



## 58756

Oh yeah I hear they have an attitude that is THEM VS US


Blackout 702 said:


> No, didn't you hear? Cops are mindless killer robots who don't have friends except other cops. I know it's true because I read it on the Internet.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad

Bad idea all around. If he is a police officer, you are antagonizing a police officer. If he is not a police officer, you are antagonizing an armed person.


----------



## Disgusted Driver

Cops are people too, some nice, some not. Whatever the case, you pick up ahole pax some times right? So why would you not pick up cops? As far as the gun is concerned, they are licensed and trained to carry so what's the problem? I have way too many other things to think about to make this a problem. I pick them up, get them safely and comfortably to their destination and drop them off, I really don't care who them is.


----------



## Cocobird

Raywood said:


> Fuber are breaking the 2nd amendment,
> 
> "the *right* of the people to keep and *bear Arms*, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Infringed (defy, weaken, impair, compromise)
> 
> Yes the 2nd amendment has been compromised here ladies and gents.


Constitution applies to government entities, not private sector


----------



## Cocobird

crazytown said:


> Says Uber HQ


Sure it will, can you name one single incident where there has been a shooting in a gun free zone, or cite any where that more gun control has led to higher crime, or cite a dictatorship that was pro gun control?


----------



## Blackout 702

Cocobird said:


> Sure it will, can you name one single incident where there has been a shooting in a gun free zone, or cite any where that more gun control has led to higher crime, or cite a dictatorship that was pro gun control?


*blink*

Please tell me you're kidding.


----------



## JimKE

Cocobird said:


> Constitution applies to government entities, not private sector


You are right with regard to the 2nd Amendment -- it is a constraint on governmental bodies infringing on the rights of citizens. Most of the Bill of Rights is like that -- protecting the rights of citizens against the powerful central government created by the Constitution.

But that is not true of the entire constitution. Many parts of the constitution have been widely applied beyond governmental activities to virtually every aspect of American life, using the "intrastate commerce clause" and other approaches.


----------



## Josealberto11613

tohunt4me said:


> I'll give a cop a ride.
> They have given me rides before . . . .


Lmfaoooo what was your rating to them. I rate them 2 cuz they wont let me speak!! Lmfaoooo


----------



## Worker Bee

Jo3030 said:


> You drive a squad car?
> _I *had* to!
> _


Ha!


----------



## Lyftonly

I always carry a heat when I drive. Never know when someone is gonna try to rob me or steal my car.


----------



## Driving and Driven

brendon292 said:


> I'm Canadian so we don't have concealed weapons here but....


If they're concealed, then you wouldn't know.


----------



## Driving and Driven

Cocobird said:


> Sure it will, can you name one single incident where there has been a shooting in a gun free zone,


Every school shooting.



Cocobird said:


> or cite any where that more gun control has led to higher crime,


Chicago.



Cocobird said:


> or cite a dictatorship that was pro gun control?


Nazi Germany, Hitler.


----------



## UberTrip

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


And you're a ******ed troll.
I'm a driver and I drive with my pistol, OC spray, and a torch. Oh god Uber might find, and what deactivate me! You know, you likely have already taken passengers that had a concealed weapons permit and their firearm with them in getting in your car. Most people who carry a firearm for defensive purposes do not open carry.

You sound like one of those that talk trash about law enforcement all day long until you get robbed, hurt, or burglarized and then you're crying to 911 to send the police.

UBER has no legal authority to say I can't carry a weapon on me, or in my vehicle if I'm working for them. They can choose to end their partnership with me for doing that but I will never suffer legal consequences from them. Now if they have a sign posted in their office stating no firearms, this is a different scenario and legally I can't proceed on to their property, regardless if I have my concealed permit.


----------



## UberTrip

UberTrip said:


> And you're a ******ed troll.
> I'm a driver and I drive with my pistol, OC spray, and a torch. Oh god Uber might find, and what deactivate me! You know, you likely have already taken passengers that had a concealed weapons permit and their firearm with them in getting in your car. Most people who carry a firearm for defensive purposes do not open carry.
> 
> You sound like one of those that talk trash about law enforcement all day long until you get robbed, hurt, or burglarized and then you're crying to 911 to send the police.





Lyftonly said:


> I always carry a heat when I drive. Never know when someone is gonna try to rob me or steal my car.


Isn't LA crazy as hell regarding concealed or vehicle carry? I thought it was very difficult to legally carry in almost all of CA


----------



## Cocobird

Blackout 702 said:


> *blink*
> 
> Please tell me you're kidding.


Yes, using sarcasm


----------



## Dback2004

grams777 said:


> *Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy*
> Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app.*
> Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber.
> ** To the extent permitted by applicable law.*
> https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/


Uber's policy, while unenforceable where carry is legal and the driver or pax is following the law (open carry or permit, etc). What that means as a driver is if a pax complains and they deactivate you, you'll have to fight them, probably in court under the silly arbitration clause, to get reinstated. And then try to collect for missed work (if you do this full time). Going to be an uphill battle.

That being said, there's usually a firearm in my car or on my person when I drive that is compliant with Iowa & Illinois law. Last I checked Uber didn't do background checks on pax and I've driven some shady people into some shady neighborhoods (damn Uber hiding destination until pax is already in car - less confrontational to take the trip than try to kick someone out in most cases)...


----------



## fickey mitz

good on you. I don't let anyone bring ice cream into my car. whatever works


----------



## Lyftonly

UberTrip said:


> Isn't LA crazy as hell regarding concealed or vehicle carry? I thought it was very difficult to legally carry in almost all of CA


Tell that to the thugs in Los Angeles , Inglewood and compton. Maybe they didnt get the memo


----------



## crazytown

Cocobird said:


> Sure it will, can you name one single incident where there has been a shooting in a gun free zone, or cite any where that more gun control has led to higher crime, or cite a dictatorship that was pro gun control?


Yes its called....Chicago


----------



## Odinaf

Cocobird said:


> Constitution applies to government entities, not private sector


Not true, Or else your Bill of Rights would not apply to you by your logic.


----------



## uber1969

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


You ar loser. When u need help call a thug


----------



## Cocobird

Driving and Driven said:


> Every school shooting.
> 
> Chicago.
> 
> Nazi Germany, Hitler.


Ok, but what about Airports and other gun free zones like theaters?

And Obama is going to step up and do something about minorities being killed in Chicago. Remember how he stopped minority neighborhoods from being destroyed because he cares about minorities. He stopped it before the first fire started.

And OMG, the Nazis, always the Nazis. You must really hate them like you hate Muslim terrorists because you like Jews. I think you should not be such a judgmental Xenophobe. Also, what about Pol Pot. Did he abolish guns before he slaughtered millions of people? Did Fidel Castro take guns away from the people before he executed who ever he wanted? Did Saddam Hussien let people have guns? And in the Sudan, black people were prohibited owning guns and look what happened to them in 1993. Weren't they allowed to escape? You should try being more open minded instead of being so closed minded. So what if millions and millions of people were killed by their government when they had no way to defend theirselves. That does not mean just because we give up our guns that government becomes a dictatorship. Look, we tried gun control before when a group of people were not allowed to have guns based on their race and did they live under a dictatorship? No, they were slaves and they were fed and had a place to stay. If you think about, socialism is like an advanced form of slavery, so you better think twice before you knock gun control!


----------



## roadman

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


Pigs don't get my help.


----------



## rosco_78

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


Yeah, it would be in a lock-box in my trunk or no ride.....that's how that one ends


----------



## yeahTHATuberGVL

Odinaf said:


> Actually Yes, If they can prove you refused them because of their Service Weapon, you are liable for a Discrimination Lawsuit.


I'm not familiar with specific guns, but I always keep a Black card in my deck to play...


----------



## diehard88

Odinaf said:


> Legal Studies guy here, you could actually be sued for refusing a Police Officer a ride. It's Illegal to Discriminate.


two magic sentences that never fail:

- officer, am I being detained?
- am I free to go?


----------



## Driving and Driven

Cocobird said:


> Ok, but what about Airports and other gun free zones like theaters?


Yes! Absolutely! Those are other great examples of why declaring a place to be a "gun-free zone" is senseless.



Cocobird said:


> And Obama is going to step up and do something about minorities being killed in Chicago. Remember how he stopped minority neighborhoods from being destroyed because he cares about minorities. He stopped it before the first fire started.


I was answering a question. Chicago has gun control and Chicago has high crime. If Obama is going to fix that...great! But that is superfluous to the question.



Cocobird said:


> And OMG, the Nazis, always the Nazis. You must really hate them like you hate Muslim terrorists because you like Jews. I think you should not be such a judgmental Xenophobe. Also, what about Pol Pot. Did he abolish guns before he slaughtered millions of people? Did Fidel Castro take guns away from the people before he executed who ever he wanted? Did Saddam Hussien let people have guns? And in the Sudan, black people were prohibited owning guns and look what happened to them in 1993. Weren't they allowed to escape? You should try being more open minded instead of being so closed minded. So what if millions and millions of people were killed by their government when they had no way to defend theirselves. That does not mean just because we give up our guns that government becomes a dictatorship. Look, we tried gun control before when a group of people were not allowed to have guns based on their race and did they live under a dictatorship? No, they were slaves and they were fed and had a place to stay. If you think about, socialism is like an advanced form of slavery, so you better think twice before you knock gun control!


You have a whole helluva lot of presumption written up there and very little logic. I think you read a few books and a lot more news articles and fell like you are somehow fitting all the pieces together as only you know how. Well, I could try to wax philosophical with you...but I'm just going to say that most of what you spewed out up there is, again, superfluous to the conversation. Long story short...I'm not for banning guns and, no, I don't like Nazis.


----------



## brendon292

Driving and Driven said:


> If they're concealed, then you wouldn't know.


True but they'd also be illegal.


----------



## Driving and Driven

brendon292 said:


> True but they'd also be illegal.


I am not denying that. They are certainly illegal.

My point is that it was said they don't have concealed weapons. The reality is...they DO have concealed weapons...of which one is not aware.


----------



## Blackout 702

Driving and Driven said:


> You have a whole helluva lot of presumption written up there and very little logic. I think you read a few books and a lot more news articles and fell like you are somehow fitting all the pieces together as only you know how. Well, I could try to wax philosophical with you...but I'm just going to say that most of what you spewed out up there is, again, superfluous to the conversation.


 Eh-hem.



Cocobird said:


> Yes, using sarcasm


----------



## Driving and Driven

Blackout 702 said:


> Eh-hem.


Well, that explains a lot.


----------



## Tom B.

simpsonsverytall said:


> Refused to take service dogs for a while and been fine. LEO not welcome if they have a firearm...


Most Police officers are required to carry, even if off duty.


----------



## czervik7

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


You're a real POS! Our police are under-paid, not appreciated, in constant danger for their lives and you, all high and mighty, refuse to give one a ride. You should be ashamed of yourself. But I know you're not.


----------



## czervik7

JimKE said:


> On the other hand, I would certainly not fault any Uber driver who refused to drive a cop with a gun.
> 
> First of all, as noted above, it is against Uber's policy for anyone using the app to be armed. And second, there is the unofficial my car, my rules attitude. Either one is adequate justification to refuse a ride, IMHO.


A police officer is often required to carry his weapon at all times. Plus, he's a police officer. They deserve our respect. When did this country go so wrong. Oh, yeah, about 8 years ago.


----------



## Adieu

Jo3030 said:


> You drive a squad car?
> _I *had* to!
> _


I do.

Plastic floors. NO aux input. HD suspension..... What's not to love???


----------



## Adieu

czervik7 said:


> You're a real POS! Our police are under-paid, not appreciated, in constant danger for their lives and you, all high and mighty, refuse to give one a ride. You should be ashamed of yourself. But I know you're not.


I'm not even gonna say anything about pigs and donuts and glorified meter maids....

Oh, btw, our job is MORE dangerous.


----------



## Adieu

czervik7 said:


> When did this country go so wrong. Oh, yeah, about 8 years ago.


Trump and his buddy/idol/rolemodel Vlad (the world's biggest and richest career criminal) are SOOO gonna fix that...


----------



## Uber Fish

czervik7 said:


> A police officer is often required to carry his weapon at all times. Plus, he's a police officer. They deserve our respect. When did this country go so wrong. Oh, yeah, about 8 years ago.



So glad in 8 days the awesome people who are about to take charge are going to point our country in the right direction . I do agree on the respect for cops part of your post.


----------



## Adieu

Oink oink squeal sizzle

I do love me some bacon


----------



## Driving and Driven

Adieu said:


> I'm not even gonna say anything about pigs and donuts and glorified meter maids....
> 
> Oh, btw, our job is MORE dangerous.


Where as you would refuse a ride to a cop, a cop doesn't choose whether or not they go when you call 911. They just go.


----------



## Adieu

Driving and Driven said:


> Where as you would refuse a ride to a cop, a cop doesn't choose whether or not they go when you call 911. They just go.


Or NOT. No shows common.

IF you actually need anything other than reporting your neighbour illegally parking or kids *maybe* stealing your mail

Been there done that got the "please wait outside sir, you're bleeding on out newly waxed linoleum" walk-in experience

AND the "please wait in handcuffs in the squad car for your tow truck, it's for OUR safety, no you're NOT under arrest, YES you did pass the breathalyzer test. This is just standard procedure sir. No you cannot refuse." (Multiple lies and infringements on personal rights there btw)
.....

Or they pull you over for brake lights and wave their weapon in your face (that's just the white kid with a ponytail in a beater car plan for rich communities - personal experience...cold sober no drugs no violations)

....and then proceed to apply pavement to your face if you Mexican or Black. While threatening to do you great bodily harm (mostly a game to deny due process and rights ....but you JUST NEVER KNOW). Btw, this is from accounts of perfectly well behaved tipping customers. No red flags and FAR better model citizens/residents than Trent Brent and Chad from the gated coastal 'burbs


----------



## Driving and Driven

I've always had good experiences with cops and all the cops I have met in my community are polite and adamant professionals. I am aware there is a very small percentage of cops across the nation who are not professional and cross lines and break laws. Most cops are not that way. 

I imagine there are even some cops that are wary and weary from having to deal with people who freakin' hate cops and generalize all cops under one blanket description as a result of having one or more bad experiences in the past. Keep in mind, a "bad" experience does not necessarily mean the cop did anything wrong. It may simply be that someone had a "bad" experience because they got caught doing something they shouldn't. 

Anyway, it's all just statistics and speculation. I'm not saying anything about your personal situation because I don't know anything about your personal situation. 

I do know this: Most cops are not bad cops. Believe me, if they were, this country would be a different place. Anyone who really thinks America is a police state...has never experienced a police state. If your community itself has bad cops, take political action to change it or move to another community. 

Again, the vast majority of cops are not bad people.


----------



## Adieu

I come from a real police state.

THEIR cops were a lot more reasonable.
I even dated one girl cop for a while.

She didn't carry and opted for a tazer because she was AFRAID of being in a situation where self defense would require using whatever is on hand....because she would likely go to jail if she shot some angry drunk molester.



Driving and Driven said:


> I've always had good experiences with cops and all the cops I have met in my community are polite and adamant professionals. I am aware there is a very small percentage of cops across the nation who are not professional and cross lines and break laws. Most cops are not that way.
> 
> I imagine there are even some cops that are wary and weary from having to deal with people who freakin' hate cops and generalize all cops under one blanket description as a result of having one or more bad experiences in the past. Keep in mind, a "bad" experience does not necessarily mean the cop did anything wrong. It may simply be that someone had a "bad" experience because they got caught doing something they shouldn't.
> 
> Anyway, it's all just statistics and speculation. I'm not saying anything about your personal situation because I don't know anything about your personal situation.
> 
> I do know this: Most cops are not bad cops. Believe me, if they were, this country would be a different place. Anyone who really thinks America is a police state...has never experienced a police state. If your community itself has bad cops, take political action to change it or move to another community.
> 
> Again, the vast majority of cops are not bad people.


----------



## JimKE

Driving and Driven said:


> I imagine there are even some cops that are wary and weary from having to deal with people who freakin' hate cops and generalize all cops under one blanket description as a result of having one or more bad experiences in the past. Keep in mind, a "bad" experience does not necessarily mean the cop did anything wrong. It may simply be that someone had a "bad" experience because they got caught doing something they shouldn't.


Actually, most cops are more _amused_ than upset by such silliness. You learn pretty quickly to consider the sources of things.



> I do know this: Most cops are not bad cops. Believe me, if they were, this country would be a different place. Anyone who really thinks America is a police state...has never experienced a police state.


Agree -- people who complain about police states should come visit us in Miami. I'll take you for a little Cafe con leche and let you fill your ears with true police state stories. I have hundreds of Cuban friends, and every family I know has at least one true horror story.



> If your community itself has bad cops, take political action to change it or move to another community.


Perfect, sensible advice, but not the sort of advice those people will take to heart. That requires putting on your big boy pants, standing up for yourself, and doing some real work on the issue. Anybody can riot, or march shouting silly slogans -- but it's much more difficult to ask the right questions of the right people, and demand truthful answers and responsible action if, in fact, there is a real problem.

Angry people with no backbone just enable bad actors.


----------



## Adieu

American cops are VIOLENT, SPOILED, BRATTY PARANOID WUSSIES...on powertrips. Non-bullies need not apply.

the literal and moral equivalent of a firefighter too afraid to approach a burning candle, and spending his days hassling people over imaginary code violations to make sure he's too "busy" to ever get called to a blaze.....except envision this fireman with his red fireaxe ALWAYS in hand or menacingly slung over his shoulders, and making sure to step on your flowers or your cat with his fireboots and track mud all over with a smirk as he barges in looking to fine somebody for anything whatsoever

Except there are NO firefighters who act like that. See, they're ACTUALLY serving their communities and taking risks for people....while the glorified meter maids bully somebody and pig out on donuts


----------



## Adieu

Anyway. You two smell like bacon...

Or those punks with "proud cop family" bumper stickers. Which they HOPE will help them avoid being shaken down by their good friends the popo, cuz they know damn well from dinner table convo what pieces of work uniforms are


----------



## Trafficat

czervik7 said:


> Our police are under-paid, not appreciated, in constant danger for their lives and you, all high and mighty.


While it may be true that they may put their lives in danger for you, that many people do not appreciate them, and that they often act high and mighty, I'll disagree with the under-paid part of the equation.

Most police, at least where I live, make more money than any Uber driver would. In Nevada their salaries are published:

http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/search/?q=police+officer&s=-base

~$170K total annual ( $100 K per year base salary + $15K overtime + $5K in "other pay" and $50 K in benefits. ) Sounds pretty sweet to me. I found it pretty funny when I got stopped by some cops and they asked me questions about who I was. When I told them I was going to college they remarked I'd be making a lot of money some day, which is funny because I can't really fathom making as much money as they do unless I got a government job somewhere.

I have a side hustle to Uber where I offer services that I get to choose the rate for. At times I have an officer ask about a law enforcement discount. While I don't feel that an officer makes so little that he needs discounts, generally speaking, I think it is a wise business tactic to offer discounts.


----------



## Adieu

Trafficat said:


> While it may be true that they may put their lives in danger for you, that many people do not appreciate them, and that they often act high and mighty, I'll disagree with the under-paid part of the equation.
> 
> Most police, at least where I live, make more money than any Uber driver would. In Nevada their salaries are published:
> 
> http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/search/?q=police+officer&s=-base
> 
> ~$170K total annual ( $100 K per year base salary + $15K + $5K in "other pay" and $50 K in benefits. ) Sounds pretty sweet to me. I found it pretty funny when I got stopped by some cops and they asked me questions about who I was. When I told them I was going to college they remarked I'd be making a lot of money some day, which is funny because I can't really fathom making as much money as they do unless I got a government job somewhere.
> 
> I have a side hustle to Uber where I offer services that I get to choose the rate for. At times I have an officer ask about a law enforcement discount. While I don't feel that an officer makes so little that he needs discounts, generally speaking, I think it is a wise business tactic to offer discounts.


"Services"? Negotiable price? LEO discount???

...in Nevada but NOT in LV. Hmmm..


----------



## JimKE

Adieu said:


> American cops are VIOLENT, SPOILED, BRATTY PARANOID WUSSIES...on powertrips. Non-bullies need not apply.
> 
> the literal and moral equivalent of a firefighter too afraid to approach a burning candle, and spending his days hassling people over imaginary code violations to make sure he's too "busy" to ever get called to a blaze.....except envision this fireman with his red fireaxe ALWAYS in hand or menacingly slung over his shoulders, and making sure to step on your flowers or your cat with his fireboots and track mud all over with a smirk as he barges in looking to fine somebody for anything whatsoever
> 
> Except there are NO firefighters who act like that. See, they're ACTUALLY serving their communities and taking risks for people....while the glorified meter maids bully somebody and pig out on donuts


One of the best things about these boards is the Ignore option.


----------



## thezeus88

Just drove an LA Sheriff deputy home from his station. He was in full uniform and carrying his issued gun....I remembered this thread lol.


----------



## czervik7

Trafficat said:


> While it may be true that they may put their lives in danger for you, that many people do not appreciate them, and that they often act high and mighty, I'll disagree with the under-paid part of the equation.
> 
> Most police, at least where I live, make more money than any Uber driver would. In Nevada their salaries are published:
> 
> http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/search/?q=police+officer&s=-base
> 
> ~$170K total annual ( $100 K per year base salary + $15K overtime + $5K in "other pay" and $50 K in benefits. ) Sounds pretty sweet to me. I found it pretty funny when I got stopped by some cops and they asked me questions about who I was. When I told them I was going to college they remarked I'd be making a lot of money some day, which is funny because I can't really fathom making as much money as they do unless I got a government job somewhere.
> 
> I have a side hustle to Uber where I offer services that I get to choose the rate for. At times I have an officer ask about a law enforcement discount. While I don't feel that an officer makes so little that he needs discounts, generally speaking, I think it is a wise business tactic to offer discounts.


Do you really think Uber driving should be paid the same rate as being a cop? No wonder this country elected a guy who never ran, did anything prior to becoming president. Cops risk their lives EVERY SINGLE DAY! Is every one a saint? Of course not. They're not in the customer service business. But think of a world without them. You're not going to do it.


----------



## czervik7

Trafficat said:


> While it may be true that they may put their lives in danger for you, that many people do not appreciate them, and that they often act high and mighty, I'll disagree with the under-paid part of the equation.
> 
> Most police, at least where I live, make more money than any Uber driver would. In Nevada their salaries are published:
> 
> http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/search/?q=police+officer&s=-base
> 
> ~$170K total annual ( $100 K per year base salary + $15K overtime + $5K in "other pay" and $50 K in benefits. ) Sounds pretty sweet to me. I found it pretty funny when I got stopped by some cops and they asked me questions about who I was. When I told them I was going to college they remarked I'd be making a lot of money some day, which is funny because I can't really fathom making as much money as they do unless I got a government job somewhere.
> 
> I have a side hustle to Uber where I offer services that I get to choose the rate for. At times I have an officer ask about a law enforcement discount. While I don't feel that an officer makes so little that he needs discounts, generally speaking, I think it is a wise business tactic to offer discounts.


You live in Cleveland. Here, they make about 40% less than you attribute to them. I have a bunch of great cop friends. Under paid. Under appreciated.


----------



## Trafficat

Pay rates vary throughout the country. It isn't just Uber drivers they make more than in Nevada. They make more than most people. More than most lawyers and engineers for example. Less than a physician, but not by much. Military folks also risk their lives and usually only make a small fraction of what a cop would make around here. Military officers, lawyers, engineers all require college degrees too, whereas police only have a short academy that is usually paid for by the hiring department. Physicians make a lot of money on paper but also have huge debts to pay off since med school is extremely expensive (and extremely long, taking away many years of earnings), and also have to fend off a lot of malpractice lawsuits. When police departments get sued it is usually tax payers that pay, not the officers.

I never said an Uber driver was underpaid. I just said I didn't think cops were underpaid. Maybe in Cleveland, but as a generality, CA and NV officers seem pretty well paid.

Even 40% less pay doesn't sound too bad. 40% less pay is still like 3 Uber drivers combined, or maybe similar to an entry level engineer salary.


----------



## JimKE

Trafficat said:


> Pay rates vary throughout the country. It isn't just Uber drivers they make more than in Nevada. They make more than most people. More than most lawyers and engineers for example. Less than a physician, but not by much. Military folks also risk their lives and usually only make a small fraction of what a cop would make around here. Military officers, lawyers, engineers all require college degrees too, whereas police only have a short academy that is usually paid for by the hiring department. Physicians make a lot of money on paper but also have huge debts to pay off since med school is extremely expensive (and extremely long, taking away many years of earnings), and also have to fend off a lot of malpractice lawsuits. When police departments get sued it is usually tax payers that pay, not the officers.
> 
> I never said an Uber driver was underpaid. I just said I didn't think cops were underpaid. Maybe in Cleveland, but as a generality, CA and NV officers seem pretty well paid.
> 
> Even 40% less pay doesn't sound too bad. 40% less pay is still like 3 Uber drivers combined, or maybe similar to an entry level engineer salary.


All good points. Why didn't you become a cop?


----------



## Trafficat

JimKE said:


> All good points. Why didn't you become a cop?


It conflicts with my personal morals to enforce unjust laws, and in my opinion there are too many unjust laws.


----------



## UberNaToo

Jo3030 said:


> Hmm... Was it clearly visible?


That's what she said.


----------



## JimKE

Trafficat said:


> It conflicts with my personal morals to enforce unjust laws, and in my opinion there are too many unjust laws.


Wow...how cool is that!!! LMAO.

Uber on righteously, my friend!


----------



## Chris1962

As long as the pax is sober, I could care less if they are armed or not and I would never, ever, tell somebody who is putting their life on the line every day to serve and protect they couldn't get in my car. To those that would, I hope that cop takes down you plate and finds you on another day!!!


----------



## Adieu

czervik7 said:


> Do you really think Uber driving should be paid the same rate as being a cop? No wonder this country elected a guy who never ran, did anything prior to becoming president. Cops risk their lives EVERY SINGLE DAY! Is every one a saint? Of course not. They're not in the customer service business. But think of a world without them. You're not going to do it.


Look up the stats.

Taxi/for hire drivers have a higher violent mortality rate and have more crimes committed against them

More than LEOs. More than enlisted troops.

...Also, cops are SCUM.


----------



## Adieu

Chris1962 said:


> As long as the pax is sober, I could care less if they are armed or not and I would never, ever, tell somebody who is putting their life on the line every day to serve and protect they couldn't get in my car. To those that would, I hope that cop takes down you plate and finds you on another day!!!


Oink oink.

ALREADY showing true colors, fantasizing about abusing the powers of the uniform and taking law into own hands to resolve personal slights....

Also, law enforcement is a comparatively SAFE, LOW RISK job. Compared to ours.

Life on line???? Stop watching Hawaii Five-O....they got a higher mortality rate per month than all cop fatalities in that state's history. Cuz it's a SHOW.


----------



## Chris1962

Adieu said:


> Look up the stats.
> 
> Taxi/for hire drivers have a higher violent mortality rate and have more crimes committed against them
> 
> More than LEOs. More than enlisted troops.
> 
> ...Also, cops are SCUM.


A dirt ball without a clue or the balls to do what cops and soldiers do!


----------



## Adieu

Chris1962 said:


> A dirt ball without a clue or the balls to do what cops and soldiers do!


Stats dont lie

You ever have to deal with a bona fide serial killer, manly cop man? I have.

Ever been stabbed? Ever disarm an armed attacker with your bare hands?
I have.

Go hide in your armored vest behind your mountain of artillery


----------



## Chris1962

Adieu said:


> Stats dont lie
> 
> You ever have to deal with a bona fide serial killer, manly cop man? I have.
> 
> Ever been stabbed? Ever disarm an armed attacker with your bare hands?
> I have.
> 
> Go hide in your armored vest behind your mountain of artillery


Your my hero, when I grow up I wanna be just like you! #sarcasm


----------



## Driving and Driven

Adieu said:


> Look up the stats.
> 
> Taxi/for hire drivers have a higher violent mortality rate and have more crimes committed against them
> 
> More than LEOs. More than enlisted troops.
> 
> ...Also, cops are SCUM.


That's not proving anything except that it is obviously safer to carry a weapon while you are working.

Cops and troops don't have less incidents. They just get to shoot back. Their mortality rates are lower because they fight back.

Now THAT'S logic.

... and cops are freakin' awesome.

Every industry has bad apples that need to go. Bad cops are the exception and not the norm.


----------



## Southdiver

Hell, you can get into my Uber carrying a LAW rocket with a bayonet attached for all I care. As long as you are a paying pax and you take care not to rip my seat.


----------



## PCH5150

Out of curiousity, would you refuse to call a cop with a gun if someone was breaking into your house? Thought so....


----------



## Chris1962

Driving and Driven said:


> That's not proving anything except that it is obviously safer to carry a weapon while you are working.
> 
> Cops and troops don't have less incidents. They just get to shoot back. Their mortality rates are lower because they fight back.
> 
> Now THAT'S logic.
> 
> ... and cops are freakin' awesome.
> 
> Every industry has bad apples that need to go. Bad cops are the exception and not the norm.


You can't fix stupid.


----------



## Wardell Curry

In my city,the TLC says it is illegal for me to drive anyone with a firearm whether he or she is licensed to carry it or not. Next trip awaits.


----------



## X Drive LV

grams777 said:


> ** To the extent permitted by applicable law.*


Law Enforcement Officers are exempt from gun prohibition rules that apply to normal citizens. Uber would not be able to enforce that rule against any law enforcement officer, hence the asterisk. My Uncle always tells me, "off duty doesn't mean off the clock. It just means I won't get a call unless it's absolutely necessary." The oath most law enforcement officials take requires them to be on-call and at the ready at all times, just in case.

Think of it like Ride Share insurance, we're on call whenever the App is on (no collision coverage), but we're on duty with a customer in the vehicle.


----------



## X Drive LV

Odinaf said:


> Legal Studies guy here, you could actually be sued for refusing a Police Officer a ride. It's Illegal to Discriminate.


You should comment when you are a Legal Practitioner, not a student.

Kindly cite _any_ law that exists that lists a person's vocation as something that can be discriminated against? I don't believe it is even possible. I would like to be proven wrong here, so please do so. I promise to apologize.


----------



## Blackout 702

X Drive LV said:


> The oath most law enforcement officials take requires them to be on-call and at the ready at all times, just in case.


The oath I took was to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution recognizes the natural right of a free citizen to bear arms.


----------



## X Drive LV

Thank you for your service, sincerely.


Blackout 702 said:


> The oath I took was to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution recognizes the natural right of a free citizen to bear arms.


----------



## Douglas

This thread is disturbing and really should end...anti-police rhetoric, if you get robbed or car jacked, who is going to help you? Who is going to put their life on the line to protect yours?

Yes, about 1 out of every 1,000 police officers is bad...but you cannot paint a broad stripe against all police, just like you cannot do that for "stereotypes" of certain races, religions, sex, etc.

I can't believe this is a top story here with moderators commenting


----------



## JimKE

Chris1962 said:


> As long as the pax is sober, I could care less if they are armed or not and I would never, ever, tell somebody who is putting their life on the line every day to serve and protect they couldn't get in my car. To those that would, I hope that cop takes down you plate and finds you on another day!!!


I would hope the cop would NOT do that, but I am a realist... 

You'd be absolutely amazed what a cop can learn about you with just your tag number!


----------



## Tommy Vercetti

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


You really showed them!!!!!! WOOOO!


----------



## JimKE

X Drive LV said:


> Law Enforcement Officers are exempt from gun prohibition rules that apply to normal citizens.


That is true in some places, not true in other places. Firearms laws vary widely, and officers are often not exempt.

For example, in most states, officers are exempted from needing a CCF license. But they may, or may not, have to abide with any number of firearms laws average citizens have to follow.

I have two friends who almost got arrested on an extradition trip to NYC because they struck up a conversation with a beat cop on a street corner. His sergeant nixed the arrest and told the girls to go lock their guns in their hotel room safe until they went to pick up their prisoner.


> My Uncle always tells me, "off duty doesn't mean off the clock. It just means I won't get a call unless it's absolutely necessary." The oath most law enforcement officials take requires them to be on-call and at the ready at all times, just in case.


Actually, "off duty" means _exactly_ "off the clock." It means you are not getting paid.

It does NOT mean you are not a cop though, and in many cities/states off-duty officers are _required_ to take police action off-duty if they encounter a situation that warrants it.


----------



## RockinEZ

My ex wife was a cop. She was required to carry her gun 24/7 on or off duty. 
Sure I would transport an off duty cop with a firearm as long as he had identification and was not drunk.


----------



## UberTrip

X Drive LV said:


> Law Enforcement Officers are exempt from gun prohibition rules that apply to normal citizens. Uber would not be able to enforce that rule against any law enforcement officer, hence the asterisk. My Uncle always tells me, "off duty doesn't mean off the clock. It just means I won't get a call unless it's absolutely necessary." The oath most law enforcement officials take requires them to be on-call and at the ready at all times, just in case.
> 
> Think of it like Ride Share insurance, we're on call whenever the App is on (no collision coverage), but we're on duty with a customer in the vehicle.


You are absolutely wrong. Uber can discriminate against gun holders on their platform, police or otherwise. Likewise, if I owned a business and didn't want any weapons on my property that would forbid any person from carrying a weapon in my business, including police. The only exception to this would be a officer conducting their lawful duty such as responding to a call, investigating a crime, pursuing a suspect onto my property. If a officer was not there on official capacity, they are not permitted to have their firearm on them.

I say this as a driver who has their consealed weapons permit and always carry when I drive. I support the 2nd amendment, but also support the laws and exceptions that come with it.


----------



## BentleyK9

Im CCW holder. Im an Uber Driver.
That doesnt mean i am carrying while driving.
That doesnt mean i am NOT carrying...
First part of CCW.. "Consealed".
Now if something drastic happened while driving... Violent assault, carjacking... thats when it would be known ..IF... i was carrying.
Policy is policy with Uber.
Safety is safety too.
Thats when i would deal with policy.
And also i would allow ANY LE officer in my car anytime and thank him/her for what they do.


----------



## X Drive LV

JimKE said:


> That is true in some places, not true in other places. Firearms laws vary widely, and officers are often not exempt.
> For example, in most states, officers are exempted from needing a CCF license. But they may, or may not, have to abide with any number of firearms laws average citizens have to follow.





UberTrip said:


> If a officer was not there on official capacity, they are not permitted to have their firearm on them..


How fun, a debate 

Private property, yes, you are correct. Property being used at _any_ commercial capacity, you are wrong. Privately-owned commercial businesses (any property being used in any act of commerce) that pursued legal process to be exempt from LEOSA under the "Private Property Exemption" and bar off duty officers form carrying on their property failed. The commercial property application is now precedence, and an Uber car is commercial property when being driven with pax, as is one of the reasons Uber provides commercial insurance to all drivers.

Read up on your case law surrounding _*LEOSA: Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act*_. It applies to off-duty officers and _even_ retired officers. The law is written as such that it allows "qualified" (meaning that they are sober, not on disciplinary review, and essentially are or were in good standing) la enforcement officials (even Coast Guardsmen) to carry a concealed firearm in _any_ jurisdiction, _regardless of state or local laws_.

Property used at a commercial capacity is not constituted as "personal property" in previous LEOSA ruling. Uber would be violating this law, again, hence the asterisk due to LEOSA, an applicable law. If you need more clarification, write support. They will confirm this for you. It's not the same as "your car your rules" with someone smoking in the back.

I do not know of a single case heard by a Judge (Liberal and Conservative alike) that has successfully challenged LEOSA. The example JimKE gave, if true, is a clear violation of LEOSA, and those NYC officers would expect the same courtesy if they traveled to other jurisdictions. His example even had them there on official business, not off-duty. His example is one of those "I know a guy who said this so my point is valid" kind of response. NY and CA (two of the most anti-gun states) have attempted several _failed_ prosecutions against law enforcement personnel who carried in their jurisdictions, but some have been awarded monetary damages against those who attempted to prosecute.

The only real exemptions are Government property, State and Local Government buildings (with applicable laws), Federal Gun-Free Zones, USPO's, Airports, etc.

All of this is public record. Google it, and _read the law itself_ so you have a basic understanding of it, and _then search for applicable case law_ associated with it that has created precedence, such as commercial property designation. Case law creates the guide on how a law is to be enforced. So just reading the law itself does you no good, as you won't understand how it is to be applied and enforced.

Long story short, if you are expecting to make any money on that ride, are under Uber's commercial insurance at the time, then technically you are not following the law. Your car, your rules, yes; but you're expected to follow all applicable laws (as is in our Uber IC Agreements). If you really are just anti-police, then reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Cancel the ride, and say you had a bad feeling. Then the burden of proof falls on them. We'll all reserve the right to laugh at your hypocrisy when you call 9-1-1 in the event, heaven forbid you need them.


----------



## Kembolicous

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


I had two guys for ride. The conversation got into guns and if I carried. I said I would like to take the Beretta with me while driving, but it was against Lyft policy. They're almost insistent that I be armed, due to the crazies out there. I agreed, told them I was very pro gun, but that's the way Lyft wants it. They did not agree with that policy AT ALL!. Turns out they were both armed. Also turns out they were two detectives from the Atlanta Police Dept in town for an OSU game. They are always welcome in my car.


----------



## Braden Scott

Yes I most certainly would transport a police officer on or off duty who is carrying a gun.


----------



## Southdiver

Kembolicous said:


> I had two guys for ride. The conversation got into guns and if I carried. I said I would like to take the Beretta with me while driving, but it was against Lyft policy. They're almost insistent that I be armed, due to the crazies out there. I agreed, told them I was very pro gun, but that's the way Lyft wants it. They did not agree with that policy AT ALL!. Turns out they were both armed. Also turns out they were two detectives from the Atlanta Police Dept in town for an OSU game. They are always welcome in my car.


I had a similar conversation yesterday with pax:

Pax: Is this a dangerous job?
Me: I suppose it could be if someone started acting crazy in my back seat.
Pax: Do you carry a pistol?
Me: Uber policy dictates that I am not supposed to carry a firearm while driving for Uber.
Pax: Right, I understand the policy but, that's not what I asked.
Me: I know what you asked.
Pax:....
Me:....
Pax: Fair enough.


----------



## Undecideduber

I would transport a LEO with a firearm without reservation.
I am not driving an Uber lease vehicle. Uber has zero say on if firearms are permitted in my vehicle or not.


----------



## PCH5150

Driving a LEO with a firearm is probably the safest you will be all day.


----------



## TwoScoops

Odinaf said:


> Legal Studies guy here, you could actually be sued for refusing a Police Officer a ride. It's Illegal to Discriminate.


You haven't gotten to the chapter where you learn occupation is not a protected classification yet.


----------



## SpeedyGonzalez11

Odinaf said:


> Actually Yes, If they can prove you refused them because of their Service Weapon, you are liable for a Discrimination Lawsuit.


Sounds like bullshit to me. Guns aren't something that you are born with or a physical condition. No way you can be sued for that. First off, it's your own property. Last I checked, the govt cant quarter on your property just because.


----------



## Blackout 702

SpeedyGonzalez11 said:


> Sounds like bullshit to me. Guns aren't something that you are born with or a physical condition. No way you can be sued for that.


So if someone isn't born a Mormon (and it's certainly not a physical condition), I can legally refuse to give rides to Mormons? Interesting.


----------



## Southdiver

Blackout 702 said:


> So if someone isn't born a Mormon (and it's certainly not a physical condition), I can legally refuse to give rides to Mormons? Interesting.


You cannot discriminate because of race, religion, sex, or handicap however; you CAN reserve the right to refuse service to a police officer because of his/her profession. Your vehicle is your PRIVATE PROPERTY and you can refuse to allow him/her to get in your private property.
The same applies to a family owned restaurant. They have the complete legal right to refuse service to a cop if they want.


----------



## TheMilkyWay

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


Don't let me pick you up either then!


----------



## SpeedyGonzalez11

Blackout 702 said:


> So if someone isn't born a Mormon (and it's certainly not a physical condition), I can legally refuse to give rides to Mormons? Interesting.


Well if you want to break federal law, go ahead dofus.


----------



## Blackout 702

SpeedyGonzalez11 said:


> Well if you want to break federal law, go ahead dofus.


Exactly my point, friend.


----------



## SpeedyGonzalez11

Blackout 702 said:


> Exactly my point, friend.


You conservatives are dense. Religious beliefs are a protected status under federal law. Having or owning a gun isn't a protected status bc its not a group of people that have been discriminated against or prohibited by society from doing certain things.


----------



## Blackout 702

SpeedyGonzalez11 said:


> You conservatives are dense. Religious beliefs are a protected status under federal law. Having or owning a gun isn't a protected status bc its not a group of people that have been discriminated against or prohibited by society from doing certain things.


Lol, I'm dense because you can't understand when someone is making an obvious joke. Keep on being you, tiger. Your anger warms the world.


----------



## SpeedyGonzalez11

Blackout 702 said:


> Lol, I'm dense because you can't understand when someone is making an obvious joke. Keep on being you, tiger. Your anger warms the world.


If that's a joke, you need to work on your delivery. How you gon make a serious question, and then joke, and act like I'm the weird one bc you can't stay on a serious topic.

Wasn't obvious to me. Especially after you were pretty mad on your first question.


----------



## Blackout 702

SpeedyGonzalez11 said:


> If that's a joke, you need to work on your delivery. How you gon make a serious question, and then joke, and act like I'm the weird one bc you can't stay on a serious topic.
> 
> Wasn't obvious to me. Especially after you were pretty mad on your first question.


I'll work on my delivery, you work on making assumptions based on little to no evidence and insulting people who say things that you disagree with.


----------



## SpeedyGonzalez11

Blackout 702 said:


> I'll work on my delivery, you work on making assumptions based on little to no evidence and insulting people who say things that you disagree with.


I'm making assumptions based on what you deliver bro. You don't like the conclusion maybe you should work how you present yourself. Only the truth hurts people. If youreyoure not dumb, why would me calling you dumb hurt you.... You should think about that.


----------



## Trafficat

SpeedyGonzalez11 said:


> You conservatives are dense. Religious beliefs are a protected status under federal law. Having or owning a gun isn't a protected status bc its not a group of people that have been discriminated against or prohibited by society from doing certain things.


If I told you that I belonged to a religion, which felt gunpowder was divine, which had a creed to carry a firearm as a central tenet, and felt that Samuel Colt made all men equal, would you recognize my beliefs as equal to those of any other?

Many gun carriers believe in carrying a gun with what practically amounts to religious fervor. Many gunslingers will not fly on a plane because they cannot bring a gun on a plane. Just as a Sikh may violate a law to carry his dagger, many gun carriers will break a law to carry their gun and see it as a moral imperative to carry one and a moral failing to not do so. Not all gun carriers are like that, perhaps not even all of those who profess to hold such beliefs hold them that strongly you might point out. For instance, I've heard people who say they carry 100% of the time no matter what admit later that they disarmed to fly on a plane. Yet I've also witnessed self-professed Mormons who are intoxicated. And I've read about Catholics who committed sodomy. Does one drunk Mormon prove that Mormonism is a fake religion? Does one gay Catholic prove that Catholicism is a fake religion? Of course not.

Sikh's are religiously required to carry a dagger. At times, laws have exempted Sikh's specifically from weapons laws while others may be convicted for doing the same thing on the basis that a non-Sikh does not have a religious requirement to carry a dagger, or if he claims to, it is not legitimate. Is that fair? Who decides what makes a religion legitimate? Is my religion illegitimate because there are less followers of my religion than another religion?

As a gun carrier, I have been asked to leave many places because I have carried my gun. Is that not discrimination? Am I not being prohibited from doing certain things by society? You could argue that I could leave my gun at home. A Sikh could leave his Kirpan at home, too. A Sikh could always stop being a Sikh and then he could get into places that discriminate against the Kirpan. You might try to argue that a Sikh has a stronger belief. But how can you know how strong my belief is?

Of course, you could rightly point out that a victim of racial discrimination cannot change his race. I would agree that the discrimination against a gun carrier is not as evil as racist discrimination. But when we start discussing religion, I do not see why it is fair to say that one set of beliefs is more legitimate than another. Who gets to decide what beliefs are legitimate, and what are the criteria?

In some states, wearing a colander on the head is now authorized on driver license pictures after the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster successfully argued before a court that it was an aspect of their religious faith. So beware kicking anyone out of your car because they wear the colander for they may simply be an Orthodox Pastafarian.


----------



## Blackout 702

SpeedyGonzalez11 said:


> I'm making assumptions based on what you deliver bro. You don't like the conclusion maybe you should work how you present yourself. Only the truth hurts people. If youreyoure not dumb, why would me calling you dumb hurt you.... You should think about that.


Lol, do you actually think that you hurt me? So let's add delusional to the list. Now how about we let the conversation get back on topic.


----------



## SpeedyGonzalez11

Blackout 702 said:


> Lol, do you actually think that you hurt me? So let's add delusional to the list. Now how about we let the conversation get back on topic.


Obviously I did if you think that was an insult. Let's add naivete and ignorance to your column. I glad to return to the conversation if certain people didn't derail it with ridiculous examples and situations. Js


----------



## Trafficat

SpeedyGonzalez11 said:


> Tl;dr im not reading that drivel from the mind of an insane asylum patient. You are posing to many what if's. The issue isn't what could happen. The issue is what can happen. Religion is a protect status, gun owning isn't. If you refuse a customer based on their religion, they might have a lawsuit. If you refuse based on a weapon, the customer doesn't have a lawsuit. It's as simple as that. You want to make all these exceptionsexceptions and shit. Don't have time for that. You're not a protected status bc your condition has been discriminated against in history. Stop whining like your orange trumpet.


So you are saying that if those are my religious beliefs, that makes me akin to an insane asylum patient instead of being considered a real religion. And that's not religious discrimination?

What other religions do you consider to be akin to an insane asylum patient? Do you have a list of legitimate religions and any religion not on your list is considered insanity?

I mentioned how the law sometimes protects Sikhs and Pastafarians. I mentioned how Sikh's carry Kirpans and Pastafarians wear colanders. Since you condemn my post as insane drivel, are you also considering those religions to not be legitimate? I'll bet if you kick a Sikh out for his Kirpan you could face a lawsuit just as readily as if you kicked out a Mormon.

I've read from New Testament and the Old Testament, and also I've read from the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And personally I cannot see any reason why a Pastafarian should be relegated any less status. Different people have different beliefs. Just because there are more Christians than Pastafarians and more Mormons than single sect of Pastafarianism may have, does not make Pastafarianism illegitimate, legally or ethically.


----------



## Blackout 702

SpeedyGonzalez11 said:


> Obviously I did if you think that was an insult. Let's add naivete and ignorance to your column. I glad to return to the conversation if certain people didn't derail it with ridiculous examples and situations. Js


"Certain people" refer to religious beliefs and quote historic documents, and you fling schoolyard insults when you are unable to follow the conversation. I get that you wanted to participate. I guess youngsters are used to being rewarded for that these days.

I urge you to be more civil if you continue to contribute to this conversation.


----------



## Southdiver

Trafficat said:


> So you are saying that if those are my religious beliefs, that makes me akin to an insane asylum patient instead of being considered a real religion. And that's not religious discrimination?
> 
> What other religions do you consider to be akin to an insane asylum patient? Do you have a list of legitimate religions and any religion not on your list is considered insanity?
> 
> I mentioned how the law sometimes protects Sikhs and Pastafarians. I mentioned how Sikh's carry Kirpans and Pastafarians wear colanders. Since you condemn my post as insane drivel, are you also considering those religions to not be legitimate? I'll bet if you kick a Sikh out for his Kirpan you could face a lawsuit just as readily as if you kicked out a Mormon.
> 
> I've read from New Testament and the Old Testament, and also I've read from the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And personally I cannot see any reason why a Pastafarian should be relegated any less status. Different people have different beliefs. Just because there are more Christians than Pastafarians and more Mormons than single sect of Pastafarianism may have, does not make Pastafarianism illegitimate, legally or ethically.


Believe it or not but, a religion needs to be "recognized" by the state in order to have protected status. The gunpowder religion is not recognized by the state and is therefore not tax exempt nor protected under the civil rights act. In other words; your religious belief of wanting to bring a firearm into my private vehicle does not supersede my right to personal safety.


----------



## Tuley boi

Trafficat said:


> Dogs, including normal non-service animal pets, and dangerous lunatics are all welcome passengers for me as long as I get paid. I actually like the dogs.
> 
> I don't mind pax carrying guns.


Completely agree. I support every Americans 2nd amendment, and if I have one on me why should I be uncomfortable with another person excersising their right to bear arms as well? And as long as it's a paying lunatic who cares one bit? I always kept the crazies by my side you never know when you'll need em


----------



## TheMilkyWay

Uber's policy is anyone who violates *may *lose job. Seriously, let's go over this a wee bit. When was the last time you were pat down before you started your day? Seriously, if push came to shove and you were legally carrying a concealed weapon do you realllllly, thinking you'd lose your job for exercising your right to protect yourself?


----------



## Disgusted Driver

TheMilkyWay said:


> Uber's policy is anyone who violates *may *lose job. Seriously, let's go over this a wee bit. When was the last time you were pat down before you started your day? Seriously, if push came to shove and you were legally carrying a concealed weapon do you realllllly, thinking you'd lose your job for exercising your right to protect yourself?


More importantly, if it came to their attention you were carrying it was probably a bigger problem than worrying about your "job" with uber.


----------



## Elmo Burrito

tohunt4me said:


> I'll give a cop a ride.
> They have given me rides before . . . .


Yeah and it's so sweet, they never charge anything for that ride and never accept or expect a tip. Plus, they get you to your destination in no time at all safe (well as long as you don't mouth off) and sound!


----------



## Cocobird

Southdiver said:


> Believe it or not but, a religion needs to be "recognized" by the state in order to have protected status. The gunpowder religion is not recognized by the state and is therefore not tax exempt nor protected under the civil rights act. In other words; your religious belief of wanting to bring a firearm into my private vehicle does not supersede my right to personal safety.


I can see you surrendered your man card a long time ago.


----------



## Me_and_T_in_02

First of all, if you refused to give a cop a ride simply because he was carrying his gun, don't you think that would piss them off?? And no matter what ANYONE SAYS....I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE, THAT COPS, IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST YOU....OR HOLDING A GRUDGE...CAN MAKE YOUR LIFE A LIVING HELL!!! I personally experienced my exboyfriend getting run over by a car driven by two PSYCHOTIC "girls" who had just came from taking this poor man in front of a cops house, they pulled him on top of them on top of the hood (one of them) and started screaming "help!" The cop came outside, saw what was REALLY happening...argued with one of the "girls" for a minute...but later testified that he had attacked BOTH GIRLS IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT...ON THE HOOD OF THEIR CAR...(And my ex-boyfriend was MODEL material...the man was stunningly gorgeous!! If he wanted to mess around with a girl, he sure as hell didn't need to attack TWO of them, AT THE SAME TIME...(sorry, IMPOSSIBLE!!) The scenario just doesn't fit! Anyway, he started running for his LIFE at that point...(cop saw EVERYTHING) THEY FINALLY CHASED HIM DOWN AND RAN HIM OVER WITH THEIR CAR...SHATTERING HIS ANKLE!! In fact, they ran him over...didn't kill him so they KEPT running him over again and again!! COP SAW EVERYTHING...THEN LIED HIS ASS OFF IN COURT, AND MY EX ACTUALLY WAS FOUND GUILTY OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, (probably because a COP testified to that affect) and did 30 days in jail!!! Frankly, if it was a clear case...he SHOULD have done 5 years in jail!! But the jury was perplexed...their story just didn't make any sense...but BECAUSE A COP TESTIFIED TO THIS LITTLE OCCURANCE, THAT'S WHAT LOST HIM THE CASE!! ALL BECAUSE A COP ISN'T SUPPOSED TO LIE IN COURT....THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HONEST, HONORABLE AND ALWAYS PUTTING THE RULE OF LAW BEFORE ANYTHING!! My point is that cops can and will make your life a living hell if they're so inclined. Personally, I would give them a ride with the proper identification, even though they were carrying a weapon. Partly for fear of them, but mostly because MOST cops ARE actually honorable people. If it weren't for cops protecting us, this world would be a NIGHTMARE to live in!! It just wouldn't work!!


----------



## Retired Senior

Cocobird said:


> I can see you surrendered your man card a long time ago.


Cocobird, do you understand what you just said? You need a gun to feel like a man. All I ever needed was what I was packing from birth... but I guess you young guys have come to depend on chemical and mechanical aids... it's probably the result of all the estrogen like contaminants in the food and water supply... more and more males - of all species - are being rendered impotent by the crap they ingest.

And the rise of the transgendered humans (something that grosses me out in a BIG WAY) is another signifier of this global problem.
Yes, I am a liberal but biological sexual confusion is a cancer that we should be fighting to correct and prevent, not embrace it like the assholes in the media are doing. A decade ago a "TRANSPARENT" would have been jailed for being a deviant... now TV embraces it? What's next, people with cancerous tumors being told that they are "beautiful"? This PC crap has gone too far. There is a genetic and biological model of what a human being is, and this transgender crap is not it.

Retired Senior says: on the Planet Earth, Transgendered humans as well as biologically confused humans, are suffering the effects of a polluted environment. While they don't deserve to have their civil liberties taken away, their illness should not be heralded as the new norm. They are twisted humans and their afflictions should be warning signs and not a cause for human rights battles.

Here is just 1 of thousands of articles on the subject. I chose this one because the writer is a bit more fervent than others....

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...g-water-a-fertility-catastrophe-in-the-making

| Jun. 16, 2015

Birth Control in Drinking Water: A Fertility Catastrophe in the Making?

Fish struggle to fertilize eggs three generations after exposure to contraceptive hormone, raising questions about the effects on humans.
CELESTE MCGOVERN

WASHINGTON - A recent report from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found that birth-control hormones excreted by women, flushed into waterways and eventually into drinking water can also impact fish fertility up to three generations after exposure - raising questions about their effects on humans, who are consuming the drugs without even knowing it in each glass of water they drink.

The survey, published in March in the journal _Scientific Reports_, looked at the impact of the synthetic hormone 17α-ethinylestradiol (EE2), an ingredient of most contraceptive pills, in the water of Japanese medaka fish during the first week of their development.

While the exposed fish and their immediate offspring appeared unaffected, the second generation of fish struggled to fertilize eggs - with a 30% reduction in fertilization rates - and their embryos were less likely to survive. Even the third generation of fish had 20% impaired fertility and survival rates, though they were never directly exposed to the hormone.

*Widespread Contamination*

Scientists have known for more than 15 years that humans are excreting their prescription drugs into American sewers and that water-purification systems are not equipped to filter the chemical effluents from drugs, including anything from birth-control pills and painkillers to psychiatric medicines.

In a landmark 1999-2000 USGS survey, 80% of water samples from 139 American rivers and streams in 30 states were found to be contaminated with drugs, ranging from antibiotics and antidepressants to contraceptives and hormone replacements.
But scientists are particularly concerned about the contraceptive chemical EE2 because of its ability to "feminize" male fishes and its association with plummeting fish fertility. _ (edit... see full article)_

Numerous subsequent studies across the globe have linked birth-control hormones to impaired fertility, "transgender fish" and reduced fish populations. Minnesota pollution researchers looking for the endocrine disruptors found them even in remote lakes thought to be pristine; and when they lowered cages of male lab minnows into the lakes, most of them were feminized within three weeks.
_Edit: see orig article_
*Mammals Affected Too*

The impact of EE2 has been demonstrated experimentally in mammals as well. In one 2009 study, for example, newborn rats exposed to the hormone in the first days of life developed small and abnormal penises and lowered sperm counts, and they struggled to reproduce.

The researchers compared EE2's effects to those of diethylstilbestrol (DES) - a notorious endocrine-disrupting chemical given to pregnant women to prevent miscarriage. The women themselves had an elevated risk of breast cancer, but it was their children who developed rare vaginal and testicular cancers and other reproductive anomalies after they reached puberty; and those children were 40 times more likely to be sterile.

It's a comparison that the current _Scientific Reports_ study researchers make as well.

_Edit: see full article_

"
*Unabsorbed Contraceptives*

About 50 million women worldwide are taking contraceptive pills, and it is the leading form of birth control in the U.S., consumed by about 10.5 million women annually, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Up to 68% of the contraceptive drugs being consumed are not absorbed, but excreted into sewage systems, according to the USGS study.

And according to one 2009 study of loss of fertility in rats due to EE2, about 3%- to 4% of women continue to take birth control inadvertently in the first trimester of pregnancy, raising concerns about their babies' early exposure to endocrine disruptors, though it's impossible to say how many babies and children are inadvertently exposed through drinking water and to what doses or what impact the hormones are having on adults, if any.

*With unexplained soaring incidences of **testicular cancer**, **infertility**, childhood **"gender dysphoria"** in increasingly young children, who are confused about their sexual identity, and plummeting **sperm counts**, some scientists are asking if the fish in the study are like miners' canaries: They are warning of a problem that has not yet been fully realized.*

"Beyond the aquatic environment, the feminizing syndromes found in wildlife appeared to mirror reports of male infertility, genital abnormalities and testicular cancer observed in the human male population, collectively termed Testicular Dysgenesis Syndrome," recounted Susan Jobling, director of the Institute of Environment, Health and Societies at Brunel University, London, in a 2013 paper for the European Environment Agency.

But in the absence of public awareness and outcry, little has been done about the problem in the U.S. or elsewhere. _Edit: see original article at website_.

*Evidence Ignored*

The Catholic Church has always taught that pharmaceutical contraception to prevent pregnancy is "intrinsically evil" and "contrary to the good of the transmission of life" (_Vade Mecum for Confessors_ 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997), even without considering its effects on the environment or public health.

The effects of BPA from plastics are well recognized, but the impact of birth control on the environment and fertility has been downplayed and dismissed - a reaction vom Saal thinks is not based on science. "Clear evidence for equal potency is ignored by the industry," he said.

"It's strange how even the most ardent environmentalists suddenly go silent when confronted with evidence of how birth-control pills harm aquatic ecosystems. Instead of angry calls for the regulation of a pollutant that is causing a 'silent spring' of hermaphroditic fish unable to breed, we hear nothing," said Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute. "The barren left is so wedded to contracepted sex that they will brook no criticism of the means they use to ensure their sterility, even though, as the science shows, they sterilize other species in the process. Environmentalism meets the sexual revolution, and the sexual revolution wins."

_Celeste McGovern writes from Scotland._

If you really want to blow your mind, read this government article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685844/

I have to be honest... I had a very hard time trying to follow it.


----------



## canyon

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


 I know you're not supposed to insult people on this forum but you are my friend A little snowflake you are a clueless little shit who has absolutely no brains in his head at all I hope to God you need a cop one day and he doesn't show up


----------



## TheMilkyWay

Me_and_T_in_02 said:


> First of all, if you refused to give a cop a ride simply because he was carrying his gun, don't you think that would piss them off?? And no matter what ANYONE SAYS....I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE, THAT COPS, IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST YOU....OR HOLDING A GRUDGE...CAN MAKE YOUR LIFE A LIVING HELL!!! I personally experienced my exboyfriend getting run over by a car driven by two PSYCHOTIC "girls" who had just came from taking this poor man in front of a cops house, they pulled him on top of them on top of the hood (one of them) and started screaming "help!" The cop came outside, saw what was REALLY happening...argued with one of the "girls" for a minute...but later testified that he had attacked BOTH GIRLS IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT...ON THE HOOD OF THEIR CAR...(And my ex-boyfriend was MODEL material...the man was stunningly gorgeous!! If he wanted to mess around with a girl, he sure as hell didn't need to attack TWO of them, AT THE SAME TIME...(sorry, IMPOSSIBLE!!) The scenario just doesn't fit! Anyway, he started running for his LIFE at that point...(cop saw EVERYTHING) THEY FINALLY CHASED HIM DOWN AND RAN HIM OVER WITH THEIR CAR...SHATTERING HIS ANKLE!! In fact, they ran him over...didn't kill him so they KEPT running him over again and again!! COP SAW EVERYTHING...THEN LIED HIS ASS OFF IN COURT, AND MY EX ACTUALLY WAS FOUND GUILTY OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, (probably because a COP testified to that affect) and did 30 days in jail!!! Frankly, if it was a clear case...he SHOULD have done 5 years in jail!! But the jury was perplexed...their story just didn't make any sense...but BECAUSE A COP TESTIFIED TO THIS LITTLE OCCURANCE, THAT'S WHAT LOST HIM THE CASE!! ALL BECAUSE A COP ISN'T SUPPOSED TO LIE IN COURT....THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HONEST, HONORABLE AND ALWAYS PUTTING THE RULE OF LAW BEFORE ANYTHING!! My point is that cops can and will make your life a living hell if they're so inclined. Personally, I would give them a ride with the proper identification, even though they were carrying a weapon. Partly for fear of them, but mostly because MOST cops ARE actually honorable people. If it weren't for cops protecting us, this world would be a NIGHTMARE to live in!! It just wouldn't work!!


Will someone send me the short version of this note.


----------



## Older Chauffeur

TheMilkyWay said:


> Will someone send me the short version of this note.


Yeah, I gave up on it. Paragraphs and punctuation sure help with clarity and make for easier reading.


----------



## Cocobird

Retired Senior said:


> Cocobird, do you understand what you just said? You need a gun to feel like a man. All I ever needed was what I was packing from birth... but I guess you young guys have come to depend on chemical and mechanical aids... it's probably the result of all the estrogen like contaminants in the food and water supply... more and more males - of all species - are being rendered impotent by the crap they ingest.
> 
> And the rise of the transgendered humans (something that grosses me out in a BIG WAY) is another signifier of this global problem.
> Yes, I am a liberal but biological sexual confusion is a cancer that we should be fighting to correct and prevent, not embrace it like the assholes in the media are doing. A decade ago a "TRANSPARENT" would have been jailed for being a deviant... now TV embraces it? What's next, people with cancerous tumors being told that they are "beautiful"? This PC crap has gone too far. There is a genetic and biological model of what a human being is, and this transgender crap is not it.
> 
> Retired Senior says: on the Planet Earth, Transgendered humans as well as biologically confused humans, are suffering the effects of a polluted environment. While they don't deserve to have their civil liberties taken away, their illness should not be heralded as the new norm. They are twisted humans and their afflictions should be warning signs and not a cause for human rights battles.
> 
> Here is just 1 of thousands of articles on the subject. I chose this one because the writer is a bit more fervent than others....
> 
> http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...g-water-a-fertility-catastrophe-in-the-making
> Blah blah blah blah


No, I did not say you need a gun to feel like a man, I was saying that a man is not afraid of a gun. I'm really sick of manliness being defined as super weak and super scared of everything.

Now, as for the rest of your rant, I did not read it. It turned into blah blah blah


----------



## Retired Senior

Cocobird said:


> No, I did not say you need a gun to feel like a man, I was saying that a man is not afraid of a gun. I'm really sick of manliness being defined as super weak and super scared of everything.
> 
> Now, as for the rest of your rant, I did not read it. It turned into blah blah blah


It wasn't a rant, but I admit that it was probably out of place. It's just that many studies seem to indicate that humans are going to become extinct due to pollution messing up our reproductive ability, and every so often my horror of the concept overcomes my better judgment.

I suppose I agree with what I think you are saying.... a gun, by itself, is simply a tool. It is inert until acted upon by a person. To go spaz at the sight of a gun is no more logical that going spaz at the sight of a steak knife or a fish hook.

Still, as some-one who has never shot a gun, I find they make me very nervous, I prefer to NOT be around people who think they need them for everyday protection. I do NOT include cops in this group. Their jobs necessitate weapons of equal or greater force than the ones carried by the idiots they go after. But again, I hope to never be in the crossfire.


----------



## claysshotgunner

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


Wow.so much vitriol here.

I only read the first 7 pages, so this may have come up.

I read the OP first as saying he found out while driving that it was a cop. Then hit Do Not Charge. Free ride for the cop.

Hearing all the stuff from everyone makes me think I was wrong. But you will never change the minds of those with the opposite view.

PROUD SUPPORTER OF THE 2ND AMMENDMENT.


----------



## Cocobird

Retired Senior said:


> It wasn't a rant, but I admit that it was probably out of place. It's just that many studies seem to indicate that humans are going to become extinct due to pollution messing up our reproductive ability, and every so often my horror of the concept overcomes my better judgment.
> 
> I suppose I agree with what I think you are saying.... a gun, by itself, is simply a tool. It is inert until acted upon by a person. To go spaz at the sight of a gun is no more logical that going spaz at the sight of a steak knife or a fish hook.
> 
> Still, as some-one who has never shot a gun, I find they make me very nervous, I prefer to NOT be around people who think they need them for everyday protection. I do NOT include cops in this group. Their jobs necessitate weapons of equal or greater force than the ones carried by the idiots they go after. But again, I hope to never be in the crossfire.


Yes, the earth getting warmer is nerve wrecking. Imagine if the earth gets hot enough for England to grow grapes again. Temperature is too cold now, but earth was so hot that grapes grew in England. Just what we need, more drunk Englishmen.

You've never shot a gun? Ever? So if somebody breaks in to your home to do physical harm to you, what will you do?

Is it because you're afraid what will happen when you pull the trigger?


----------



## Retired Senior

Cocobird said:


> Yes, the earth getting warmer is nerve wrecking. Imagine if the earth gets hot enough for England to grow grapes again. Temperature is too cold now, but earth was so hot that grapes grew in England. Just what we need, more drunk Englishmen.
> 
> _You've never shot a gun? Ever? So if somebody breaks in to your home to do physical harm to you, what will you do?
> 
> Is it because you're afraid what will happen when you pull the trigger?_


Second question? Not really sure what you mean by that... I believe that I would be on solid legal ground if I simply defended myself. I am not afraid of blood - when my cousin OD on fentanyl laced heroin a year ago in our family owned real estate office the secretary called me and, 5 hours later, when the cops and coroner got thru and took the body away, I was the one who cleaned up the blood. My cousin had hemorrhaged to death and there was a large pool of congealing blood. I felt that my cousin's siblings and his father did not need to see that. It took me about 2 hours, on my hands and knees.

So, I am not afraid of blood, and I don't get off thinking about shedding it either.

From everything I have read on the subject, guns make great offensive weapons but are less effective in defense. The average person does not wear a gun 24/7. Even if he sleeps with one under his pillow, he will be at a disadvantage.
If some-one broke in while I was awake and in the kitchen, I have a great set of heavy duty cast iron cooking pans. In theory, if I was awake and alert, I could use the pans as both defensive and offensive weapons. But it would never come to that.

I live in a condo that I own and have modified over the years. There are no interior doors - including the bathroom. I've taken down walls and replaced them with weight bearing pedestal beams. The windows are barred in a decorative manner. The front and rear doors and door frames are virtually unbreakable. I can see the entire place with a second's glance. It is not the Batcave, but now that I have some disposable income again I may increase the electronic defenses.

As Simon and Garfunkel sang back in the 1960s...

I have my books
And my poetry to protect me
I am shielded in my armor
Hiding in my room
Safe within my womb
I touch no one and no one touches me
I am a rock
I am an island

Although the "hiding in my room" line no longer really applies since I got involved with Uber...


----------



## Lee239

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


Urine Idiot, I was reading about how so many cops let Uber drivers go instead of ticketing them. Cops are allowed to have and carry guns, Try learning how to use common sense next time better yet quit driving for Uber.


----------



## UberBastid

Retired Senior said:


> And the rise of the transgendered humans (something that grosses me out in a BIG WAY) is another signifier of this global problem.
> Yes, I am a liberal but biological sexual confusion is a cancer that we should be fighting to correct and prevent, not embrace it like the assholes in the media are doing. A decade ago a "TRANSPARENT" would have been jailed for being a deviant... now TV embraces it? What's next, people with cancerous tumors bw it.


I picked up a hooker once ... well, she was a 'massage therapist'. Good tipper too, as I remember. Firm handshake ... 
But, she told me that "you older guys got much bigger c0cks than younger guys."
I said, "Really?"
"Yea", she says. "You line up ten guys under 25, and ten guys over 50 and add up total inches, and I guarantee, you old dudes will measure up."
"I wonder why", says I.
"Dunno", she says. "But its true. Young guys don't have the length or girth."
And she was young too.


----------



## Retired Senior

UberBastid said:


> I picked up a hooker once ... well, she was a 'massage therapist'. Good tipper too, as I remember. Firm handshake ...
> But, she told me that "you older guys got much bigger c0cks than younger guys."
> I said, "Really?"
> "Yea", she says. "You line up ten guys under 25, and ten guys over 50 and add up total inches, and I guarantee, you old dudes will measure up."
> "I wonder why", says I.
> "Dunno", she says. "But its true. Young guys don't have the length or girth."
> 
> And she was young too.


----------



## Cocobird

UberBastid said:


> I picked up a hooker once ... well, she was a 'massage therapist'. Good tipper too, as I remember. Firm handshake ...
> But, she told me that "you older guys got much bigger c0cks than younger guys."
> I said, "Really?"
> "Yea", she says. "You line up ten guys under 25, and ten guys over 50 and add up total inches, and I guarantee, you old dudes will measure up."
> "I wonder why", says I.
> "Dunno", she says. "But its true. Young guys don't have the length or girth."
> And she was young too.


I prefer to call them "Sex therapists" since it seems much more professional and intellectual.


----------



## iUBERdc

I'd rather have an off duty LEO than 95% of the freaks that ride uber



Retired Senior said:


> View attachment 113184


Scientific fact, levels of testosterone is decreasing every generation. All the soy and all ghe feminism and all ghe plastic and all the flushed birthcontrol pills is turning men into wimps. Thank goodness I am on testosterone replacement. I couldn't take it anymore.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Karen Stein said:


> "Gun safe" policies are counter productive. Ever notice that mass shootings ALWAYS take place in gun free zones?
> 
> A sign won't affect a bad guy.
> 
> The good guys don't worry me.


That's a specious argument. Gun deaths go up with the abundance of guns, not down. a gun free zone does not 
affect the overall abundance of guns.

If their is no gun in the car, no one can shoot you with a bullet. 
If all guns were banned in America, deaths by guns would go down considerably since most gun deaths
are by non-criminals being irresponsible with their guns. But, 2nd Amendment will never allow it.

How many fully automatic weapon deaths are there? Not many, if any at all, and the reason is that,
not only is there a bunch of hoops one must hurdle to use them, they are very expensive. 
Gun regulations can work, if they are applied across all states. If they are applied in one state, then
anyone can go to the next state and obtain one, and bring it back.



iUBERdc said:


> I'd rather have an off duty LEO than 95% of the freaks that ride uber
> 
> Scientific fact, levels of testosterone is decreasing every generation. All the soy and all ghe feminism and all ghe plastic and all the flushed birthcontrol pills is turning men into wimps. Thank goodness I am on testosterone replacement. I couldn't take it anymore.


If dropping testosterone levels is the cause of homosexuality, then gays would have less testosterone than straights, so, what does science say about this?


----------



## UberBastid

Oscar Levant said:


> If dropping testosterone levels is the cause of homosexuality, then gays would have less testosterone than straights, so, what does science say about this?


You are the first to use the word "homosexuality". We are not talking about that.
Are you assuming that we are assuming that homosexual persons are 'whimpy'? I haven't noticed a correlation between 'whimpy' and gay. My dad told me about a guy he served with in the Army, at time of war, that was not whimpy in any way. In fact, he was not the kind of guy you did not want to mess with; and in combat or a bar room brawl you wanted him on your side. Because of the times, he remained in the closet ... but, he was not effeminate or weak in any way.


----------



## lesh11

Oscar Levant said:


> since most gun deaths are by non-criminals being irresponsible with their guns.


Facts:
Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010
Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010
In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.

Seems like less than 2% (606 of 31076) of gun deaths are caused by non-criminals being irresponsible with their guns, unless you want to place suicides in that category.


----------



## LA_Native

lesh11 said:


> Facts:
> Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010
> Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010
> In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.
> 
> Seems like less than 2% (606 of 31076) of gun deaths are caused by non-criminals being irresponsible with their guns, unless you want to place suicides in that category.


Do you consider using a fire arm to commit suicide a responsible use of a firearm?


----------



## lesh11

LA_Native said:


> Do you consider using a fire arm to commit suicide a responsible use of a firearm?


Suicide is a tragic thing, it break families. 
However I would say, those committing suicide suicide with a gun, did exactly what they were intending to do with the gun. As such I would not group it with being irresponsible, anymore than jumping off a tall building is irresponsible use of a tall building.


----------



## tohunt4me

lesh11 said:


> Suicide is a tragic thing, it break families.
> However I would say, those committing suicide suicide with a gun, did exactly what they were intending to do with the gun. As such I would not group it with being irresponsible, anymore than jumping off a tall building is irresponsible use of a tall building.


Had a buddy in high school,fascinated with death for some reason.( he had shot himself inches from his heart with a .22 in high school)
Threw a huge party at a hotel room.
Guy had a great job,was making over $400.00 a day back in the 80's.
Tugboat captain in New York harbor. Engaged to a beautiful young lady. Ran everyone out the hotel after midnight,and blew his head off with a shotgun. Weird.
No one knew it was a goodbye party.
He knew Exactly what he was doing.


----------



## LA_Native

lesh11 said:


> However I would say, those committing suicide suicide with a gun, did exactly what they were intending to do with the gun.


So, that's "yes"?


----------



## expoolman

CDC stats. Top causes for accidental deaths.
1. Vehicle accidents 42,000 approx per year
2. Poisoning 32,000
3. Falls 25,000
4. Fires 2,700
5. Choking 2,500

farther down the list:
Drowning 2,000 deaths

Accidental shooting 600 deaths.


----------



## tohunt4me

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


I think that's low.
I still won't spend a dime at Buffalo Wings because of what they did to a cop carrying a gun.
Screw Buffalo Wings.
They should be victem of Many armed robberies.


----------



## lesh11

LA_Native said:


> So, that's "yes"?


Feeling steered down a path here, but I would say it is not being irresponsible.
I don't know if I could say it is responsible. It falls in a completely different category.
I think most times it is driven by depression, which brings in many questions about mental health.
I believe that those committing suicide, as a rule, are not a danger to others.


----------



## LA_Native

lesh11 said:


> Feeling steered down a path here, but I would say it is not being irresponsible.
> I don't know if I could say it is responsible. It falls in a completely different category.


Fair enough, but I disagree.

It's clearly an irresponsible use of a firearm to commit suicide, but I do understand the political reasons for one to _say_ otherwise.


----------



## louvit

none of us know if some one is carrying or not, who the hell knows whats under the shirts in in the waste band of a pax. Why would a cop off duty even state that they are a cop and carrying. I do not understand this thread but then again I didn't read the 250 posts in it...lol

May as well say I'm not picking up a person that happens to be into martial arts or a boxer, etc.. What I'm getting to here is that any one, gun or not can be a threat.

I keep meaning to buy a key chain size pepper spray which I do believe is legal to carry...


----------



## lesh11

LA_Native said:


> Fair enough, but I disagree.
> 
> It's clearly an irresponsible use of a firearm to commit suicide, but I do understand the political reasons for one to _say_ otherwise.


Can you see suicide, by any means, as ever responsible.
Aaron Hernandez just killed himself with a sheet. He was going to spend the rest of his life, possibly 60 years or more, in prison. Was that a responsible decision? I don't fault him his decision.


----------



## iUBERdc

Oscar Levant said:


> That's a specious argument. Gun deaths go up with the abundance of guns, not down. a gun free zone does not
> affect the overall abundance of guns.
> 
> If their is no gun in the car, no one can shoot you with a bullet.
> If all guns were banned in America, deaths by guns would go down considerably since most gun deaths
> are by non-criminals being irresponsible with their guns. But, 2nd Amendment will never allow it.
> 
> How many fully automatic weapon deaths are there? Not many, if any at all, and the reason is that,
> not only is there a bunch of hoops one must hurdle to use them, they are very expensive.
> Gun regulations can work, if they are applied across all states. If they are applied in one state, then
> anyone can go to the next state and obtain one, and bring it back.
> 
> If dropping testosterone levels is the cause of homosexuality, then gays would have less testosterone than straights, so, what does science say about this?


I said nothing of testosterone correlated with being gay. Prob has no correlation what so ever. It is scientific fact that men today have half the levels of testosterone of men the same age almost 50 years ago.


----------



## louvit

iUBERdc said:


> I said nothing of testosterone correlated with being gay. Prob has no correlation what so ever. It is scientific fact that men today have half the levels of testosterone of men the same age almost 50 years ago.


I admit I am 62 yrs old and I get T shots every 2 weeks from myDr. Blood tests said I had very low T and D.


----------



## lesh11

I think we would find the the percentage of the population who is LBGT has not changed significantly since ancient Greece and before. It's just more socially accepted now, so you hear more about it.


----------



## iUBERdc

louvit said:


> I admit I am 62 yrs old and I get T shots every 2 weeks from myDr. Blood tests said I had very low T and D.


I am 30 and needed to go on TRT. I shot myself every other day and my levels went up 4x. Waiting for the symptoms to improve


----------



## louvit

I need something to boost metabolism Seems like everything I eat stays with me, Nothing burns off, I admit I am not very active But no matter what I do I can't lose a pound....


----------



## UberBastid

iUBERdc said:


> I am 30 and needed to go on TRT. I shot myself every other day and my levels went up 4x. Waiting for the symptoms to improve


What symptoms is that?
I'm thinking of talking to my doc about this (I am 64).
Low energy, low sex drive, tired ALL the time; hell I wake UP tired.


----------



## louvit

UberBastid said:


> What symptoms is that?
> I'm thinking of talking to my doc about this (I am 64).
> Low energy, low sex drive, tired ALL the time; hell I wake UP tired.


Yep, I just went for a blood test to check all stuff like that and they find the low numbers. Tell your Dr. to prescribe you a blood test and test everything...lol


----------



## Karen Stein

Oscar Levant said:


> That's a specious argument. Gun deaths go up with the abundance of guns, not down. a gun free zone does not
> affect the overall abundance of guns.
> 
> If their is no gun in the car, no one can shoot you with a bullet.
> If all guns were banned in America, deaths by guns would go down considerably since most gun deaths
> are by non-criminals being irresponsible with their guns. But, 2nd Amendment will never allow it.
> 
> How many fully automatic weapon deaths are there? Not many, if any at all, and the reason is that,
> not only is there a bunch of hoops one must hurdle to use them, they are very expensive.
> Gun regulations can work, if they are applied across all states. If they are applied in one state, then
> anyone can go to the next state and obtain one, and bring it back.
> 
> If dropping testosterone levels is the cause of homosexuality, then gays would have less testosterone than straights, so, what does science say about this?


Sorry, mate, but EVERY statement of yours is refuted by either facts or scholarship.

"More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott is the study he conducted working for his U of Chicago doctorate. The study proves the title. Mind you, Lott was doing his work at the same time and place Obama was doing his.

The Aurora theater shooter deliberately drove past three closer theaters premiering the same film, before attacking the only one that was posted 'no guns.'

Countries with the most stringent gun laws have had mass shootings. Consider the terrorist massacres in France- a country with draconian gun laws. Now contrast that with the experiences of Israel and Switzerland, both countries with nearly universal firearms ownership.

Guns are not the problem.

Nor is it really the topic of this thread. I suspect the OP has a more general issue with law enforcement. I also suspect he'll call 911 in his time of need, rather than rely upon his cop- hating buddies.


----------



## LA_Native

lesh11 said:


> Can you see suicide, by any means, as ever responsible.


No, not by _any _means, but in some cases, sure. 
But now that I have thought of it more, I think "irresponsible" was a poor choice; I think the better word(s) is (are) "reckless" and "negligence." 
And I wouldn't necessarily consider suicide, no matter the means, reckless or negligent.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Karen Stein said:


> Sorry, mate, but EVERY statement of yours is refuted by either facts or scholarship.
> 
> "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott is the study he conducted working for his U of Chicago doctorate. The study proves the title. Mind you, Lott was doing his work at the same time and place Obama was doing his.
> 
> The Aurora theater shooter deliberately drove past three closer theaters premiering the same film, before attacking the only one that was posted 'no guns.'
> 
> Countries with the most stringent gun laws have had mass shootings. Consider the terrorist massacres in France- a country with draconian gun laws. Now contrast that with the experiences of Israel and Switzerland, both countries with nearly universal firearms ownership.
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Nor is it really the topic of this thread. I suspect the OP has a more general issue with law enforcement. I also suspect he'll call 911 in his time of need, rather than rely upon his cop- hating buddies.


Every time I debate someone on an internet forum who writes:

_EVERY statement of yours is refuted by either facts or scholarship.
_
I know I'm dealing with someone who cannot frame a compelling argument.
The giveaway, is "EVERY" in caps, no less. Sheesh. Okay, moving on.

No one study proves anything. Lott is a FoxNews columnist, that ought to tell you right there, where his bias lies, so this study is the Tobacco Science equivalent of gun studies, no doubt.

Okay, let's reduce it even simpler.

If there were no bullets or guns with bullets anywhere in the world, i.e, they did not exist, then, there would be no injuries by guns.

though theoretical, hypothetical, I don't think you can argue that point. Let's move on from there:

From this, it would be reasonable to extrapolate that a lighter shade of the above would also hold true.

Now then, a word on "authority".

PHDs gave us Thalidomide, which passed CDC clinical trials, monitored by PHDs, so trusting pregnant women took the drug and gave birth to children who were deformed.

Check the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection kit, under the item 'trying to win an argument by appealing to authority.

Sure, authority is used in courts, but to merely suggest that appealing to authority gives your argument a home run is not true, either.

History is replete with authoritative disasters and wrongs. So, in the meantime, I'm just going to go with simple logic.

And yes, of course, aggregate temperament and cultural considerations, etc., of a population must be factored in, as well.

There are very few deaths by machine guns because regulation makes them expensive to obtain, and many hurdles to acquire proper licensing, etc.

Therefore, gun control will help. The libertarian arguments are not convincing.

Your argument: _The Aurora theater shooter deliberately drove past three closer theaters premiering the same film, before attacking the only one that was posted 'no guns.'_

So, if everyone had a gun in that theater, therefore, you suppose there would be fewer deaths with everyone shooting about in a dark theater? With so many people shooting, how in holy hell do you know who the bad guy is? Bad guys don't wear black hats or signs that say "hey, I'm the criminal" . You'll kill someone who is innocent, no doubt.

Methinks you are mad.

No one is arguing to do away with the 2nd amendment, it's embedded in our (American) society ( though I personally would not miss it if it were removed from the constitution ).

I've yet to see a convincing argument that gun control does not help. It's not going to do away with gun crimes, but it will help. Addressing cultural aspects which may cause more gun crimes, will help, too. Why limit any one attempt to help? Let's do it all.


----------



## Karen Stein

Again you fail to address facts that disagree with your faith.

Full- auto weapons are quite prevalent in both Switzerland and Israel, held by ordinary citizens. I am not aware of any abuse.

While there is no history in the USA if the misuse of LEGAL fully automatic weapons, there are many such instances involving illegally converted weapons. Remember the B of A robbery?

Here's a news flash: criminals break laws.

Einstein defined insanity as repeating an action and expecting a different result. How many more times will you try the same failed doctrine?


----------



## Oscar Levant

Karen Stein said:


> Again you fail to address facts that disagree with your faith.
> 
> Full- auto weapons are quite prevalent in both Switzerland and Israel, held by ordinary citizens. I am not aware of any abuse.
> 
> While there is no history in the USA if the misuse of LEGAL fully automatic weapons, there are many such instances involving illegally converted weapons. Remember the B of A robbery?
> 
> Here's a news flash: criminals break laws.
> 
> Einstein defined insanity as repeating an action and expecting a different result. How many more times will you try the same failed doctrine?


And your argument is, what? Put a gun in every one's hand with no gun control? Let 'em loose, do what thou wilt? anything goes?

Sorry, I'm not buying that argument.


----------



## Karen Stein

Oscar Levant said:


> And your argument is, what? Put a gun in every one's hand with no gun control? Let 'em loose, do what thou wilt? anything goes?
> 
> Sorry, I'm not buying that argument.


The argument is all yours. You are the one who claimed easy access = more abuse. I cited three facts that disprove your thesis.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

simpsonsverytall said:


> Guy identified as an off-duty LEO.
> 
> Cancel / Do Not Charge Rider
> 
> Felt great.


You can expect the police officer to be as much of a stickler with the rules as you were, should you enter his jurisdiction.

Pull over and check to make sure your headlights are all working before you cross his city line.

He'll "feel great" if he could inconvenience you as well.


----------



## Uber_Yota_916

The cops/police helped me out with my accident while driving an Uber pax. Stolen vehicle and the driver ran from the scene. I will gladly pick up LEO's. They have been there when I needed them.



simpsonsverytall said:


> Refused to take service dogs for a while and been fine. LEO not welcome if they have a firearm...


What kind of person refuses to help a person with a disability? Sorry PAX your blind and your dog is not welcome in my car. KARMA is a witch.


----------



## ratethis

I would give a cop a ride. I have driven a few off duty cops before. People are people, rides are rides, money is money.


----------



## Bpr2

Uber_Yota_916 said:


> The cops/police helped me out with my accident while driving an Uber pax. Stolen vehicle and the driver ran from the scene. I will gladly pick up LEO's. They have been there when I needed them.


They watch out for us too. Had a drop off last month in a not so good area. Cop was down the block watching me drop off the pax. after I rounded a corner he lit me up and when he came over he asked if I knew where I was and told me it's not the best area to be white in especially with my nice car.

Thanked him, went offline and high tailed it out of there. This was in the middle of the day too; couldn't imagine night time.


----------



## Trafficat

Oscar Levant said:


> That's a specious argument. Gun deaths go up with the abundance of guns, not down. a gun free zone does not
> affect the overall abundance of guns.
> 
> If their is no gun in the car, no one can shoot you with a bullet.
> If all guns were banned in America, deaths by guns would go down considerably since most gun deaths
> are by non-criminals being irresponsible with their guns. But, 2nd Amendment will never allow it.
> 
> How many fully automatic weapon deaths are there? Not many, if any at all, and the reason is that,
> not only is there a bunch of hoops one must hurdle to use them, they are very expensive.
> Gun regulations can work, if they are applied across all states. If they are applied in one state, then
> anyone can go to the next state and obtain one, and bring it back.


Why do we care about gun deaths? If I shoot someone in self-defense, that is a gun death. If I get stabbed to death by a criminal and I have no way to defend myself, that is not a gun death. I am not convinced that lessening gun deaths is in any way a good thing.

Having a gun in my car means someone is more likely to get shot in my car. And that is a GOOD thing.

Also, your logic is screwy. Gun bans don't mean guns go away. Most gun owners I know would not give up their guns if there was a gun ban. Most gun owners already disobey all sorts of gun laws. They probably don't admit as such to a person like you though. People trying to confiscate guns would get shot, increasing the number of deaths due to guns, just like people trying to confiscate marijuana get shot, increasing the number of deaths due to guns. Want to reduce criminal gun deaths? Legalize marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

And actually machineguns are very easy to get if you don't want to follow laws. I could fabricate a part to make one gun into a machinegun in about 15 minutes if I wanted to. In fact, it is actually easier if you are making your own gun to make it full auto than to make it semi-auto. That's why the Maxim machinegun came out before the Luger pistol.

Guns are actually stupid easy to make if you have some rudimentary machining skills. The Polish resistance were making submachineguns under the noses of Nazi occupiers. I think it is silly that you think you can stop people from getting guns in a country where police need warrants to do searches when even the Gestapo couldn't stop people from making machineguns. You know how hard it is for the government to stop illegal drug production? Well imagine drugs that have no particular odor, and do not need sunlight to grow. That's basically what it is like to try and stop illegal gun making.

There are more illegal machineguns in private hands than legal ones. People hardly ever get shot with them because full auto is mostly a waste of ammunition. If mass shooters used machineguns instead of guns that fire a single shot with each pull of the trigger, far less people would die in each shooting because the shooter would run out of ammo before he hit very many people.


----------



## LA_Native

Trafficat said:


> Most gun owners already disobey all sorts of gun laws.


Yeah, I bought a S&W 915 years ago, before the ban on "high capacity" mags; I still have my 15-round mags.


----------



## Bpr2

LA_Native said:


> Yeah, I bought a S&W 915 years ago, before the ban on "high capacity" mags; I still have my 15-round mags.


Sounds like you were grandfathered in


----------



## Caldufo11

<----I woulndt do that! theyre there to protect you!


----------



## LA_Native

Bpr2 said:


> Sounds like you were grandfathered in


Yeah, not sure if I'm be legally allowed to keep them. 
Just don't feel like _shelling _out more money for new 10-round mags. 
If Uber paid more, well then, maybe.


----------



## Caldufo11

<<-----You can get sued I feel like if you dont give him a ride


----------



## PepeLePiu

tohunt4me said:


> I'll give a cop a ride.
> They have given me rides before . . . .


Did you tipped them? 



Karen Stein said:


> "Gun safe" policies are counter productive. Ever notice that mass shootings ALWAYS take place in gun free zones?
> 
> A sign won't affect a bad guy.
> 
> The good guys don't worry me.


First time I agree with you 100% Karen. Now I like robots a lil more.


----------



## Caldufo11

lol

<<------ tip or tip off?


----------



## Oscar Levant

Karen Stein said:


> The argument is all yours. You are the one who claimed easy access = more abuse. I cited three facts that disprove your thesis.


"After a mass shooting at a school in 1996, the British government pursued legislative bans on assault rifles and handguns and tightened background checks for other types of firearms. As of 2013, a total of 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition were taken off British streets. Military-style weapons and most handguns were banned, the _Washington Post_ reported."

Gun ownership is far less in the UK than in the US, per capita, but gun deaths in America, per capita, is 160 times greater in America whose population is 6 times that of the UK. The only difference is that there are far more guns in peoples hands per capita in American than in the UK. I don't know what conclusion to draw from this other than more guns = more deaths.


----------



## Bpr2

More sticks are in woods than there are city so stick hitting crimes are higher in woods.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Trafficat said:


> Why do we care about gun deaths? If I shoot someone in self-defense, that is a gun death. If I get stabbed to death by a criminal and I have no way to defend myself, that is not a gun death. I am not convinced that lessening gun deaths is in any way a good thing.
> 
> Having a gun in my car means someone is more likely to get shot in my car. And that is a GOOD thing.
> 
> Also, your logic is screwy. Gun bans don't mean guns go away. Most gun owners I know would not give up their guns if there was a gun ban. Most gun owners already disobey all sorts of gun laws. They probably don't admit as such to a person like you though. People trying to confiscate guns would get shot, increasing the number of deaths due to guns, just like people trying to confiscate marijuana get shot, increasing the number of deaths due to guns. Want to reduce criminal gun deaths? Legalize marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine.
> 
> And actually machineguns are very easy to get if you don't want to follow laws. I could fabricate a part to make one gun into a machinegun in about 15 minutes if I wanted to. In fact, it is actually easier if you are making your own gun to make it full auto than to make it semi-auto. That's why the Maxim machinegun came out before the Luger pistol.
> 
> Guns are actually stupid easy to make if you have some rudimentary machining skills. The Polish resistance were making submachineguns under the noses of Nazi occupiers. I think it is silly that you think you can stop people from getting guns in a country where police need warrants to do searches when even the Gestapo couldn't stop people from making machineguns. You know how hard it is for the government to stop illegal drug production? Well imagine drugs that have no particular odor, and do not need sunlight to grow. That's basically what it is like to try and stop illegal gun making.
> 
> There are more illegal machineguns in private hands than legal ones. People hardly ever get shot with them because full auto is mostly a waste of ammunition. If mass shooters used machineguns instead of guns that fire a single shot with each pull of the trigger, far less people would die in each shooting because the shooter would run out of ammo before he hit very many people.


Very few people are going to make guns even if they were made difficult to own, I'm not seeing what the point of that was.

Okay, I was robbed at gun point. I was pushed into the backseat of a car and assaulted. Had i reached for a gun I would be dead. What saved my life was the fact that I'm extremely non-panicky and cool-headed and didn't own a gun. Guns are good when you can see them coming, which is in places like your home. For every pro argument, there is a counter argument, just as good. I'm not saying doing away with the second amendment, but those who say putting a gun in everyone's hands, putting guns in schools, in crowded places, and even bars ( yeah, one state wanted to legalize guns in bars ), isn't a good idea, either. More guns do not make us safer. I say guns, with education and regulation is better than the wild west, which is what many 2nd amendment types long for.


----------



## Trafficat

Tons of people will make guns. Ever watch the VICE episode on illegal gun making in the Philippines? No one makes guns like no one grows pot due to the federal pot restrictions. A handful of illegal gun makers and importers can easily keep black market supply full of quality firearms.

These days we also even have 3d printed guns. I personally own a 3D printer. I can literally download a file and press print.

As for bars... history has shown that bans on guns in bars is dumb policy.

Winemmuca Nevada, guns legal in bars... mass shooting stopped by bar patron. http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html

Orlando Florida, ban on guns in alcohol establishment... worst mass shooting in USA 50 dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

Texas, guns in bars is a felony. Good guy shoots bad guy and flees the scene. http://www.awwba.com/texas-bar-patron-opens-fire-armed-robbers-killing-two-leaves-video/

Those are real incidents that were big news items.

So ban guns in bars if you want people to flee the scene after self-defense, and want mass shootings with 50+ dead.

Your gun ban may put people in prison for saving lives and cause good guys with guns to stay away but that is all.

I never drink at all. Ban guns in bars and maybe you keep people like me out, which just means you get more DUI and a massive free fire zone by deterring responsible people from entering... Or you put good people in prison just for self defense if they decide not to follow your silly rules.

As for your Wild West Myth, not only are modern inner cities more violent than supposedly dangerous towns in the wild west... but you know why the shooting at OK Corral happened? Because they created a GUN BAN. And some folks didn't want to play by those rules. Just like people won't play by the rules of your future gun bans either. Practically by definition, a gun ban means you are sending government agents to shoot anyone who won't peacably give up their guns. Ordering people to go shoot other people tends to increase gun deaths, does it not?

People carry guns in schools and bars, both good people and bad people, no matter what your law says. It is only really a question of whether good people cooperate with or evade the law, and how many are willing to risk breaking the law. Bad people who are going to rob or kill do not care about a gun penalty on top of a murder charge.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Oscar Levant said:


> Gun ownership is far less in the UK than in the US, per capita, but gun deaths in America, per capita, is 160 times greater in America whose population is 6 times that of the UK. The only difference is that there are far more guns in peoples hands per capita in American than in the UK. I don't know what conclusion to draw from this other than more guns = more deaths.


'
Firearms aren't the only violent way that someone can die so "gun deaths" isn't the relevant statistic. If you get machete'ed or stabbed or immolated, you are just as dead. Mexico has a murder rate 5 times that of America, and the Union of South Africa's rate is nearly 10 times as much- both nations have draconian style gun control.

UK's rate of murder over all is less than America's- about 1/4 as many over all- but I don't think that gun control is the answer here. Our country is a lot different from the UK- or Mexico and South Africa for that matter.


----------



## Coffeekeepsmedriving

tohunt4me said:


> I'll give a cop a ride.
> They have given me rides before . . . .


funny


----------



## Oscar Levant

I_Like_Spam said:


> '
> Firearms aren't the only violent way that someone can die so "gun deaths" isn't the relevant statistic. If you get machete'ed or stabbed or immolated, you are just as dead. Mexico has a murder rate 5 times that of America, and the Union of South Africa's rate is nearly 10 times as much- both nations have draconian style gun control.
> 
> UK's rate of murder over all is less than America's- about 1/4 as many over all- but I don't think that gun control is the answer here. Our country is a lot different from the UK- or Mexico and South Africa for that matter.


You can run from a guy with a knife, but not a guy with a gun. Using Mexico to counter my example of UK is to compare apples and oranges. Mexico has a drug cartel who are as powerful as many governments, a drug cartel which would not exist but for American drug habits, which would not exist if drugs were legal. America the ultimate source of Mexico's high death by gun rate. Make drugs legal in America, dissolve the cartels, they move to other countries to ply their trade, and then, and only then, compare their death by gun rate to that of the USA.


----------



## tohunt4me

Oscar Levant said:


> You can run from a guy with a knife, but not a guy with a gun. Using Mexico to counter my example of UK is to compare apples and oranges. Mexico has a drug cartel who are as powerful as many governments, a drug cartel which would not exist but for American drug habits, which would not exist if drugs were legal. America the ultimate source of Mexico's high death by gun rate. Make drugs legal in America, dissolve the cartels, they move to other countries to ply their trade, and then, and only then, compare their death by gun rate to that of the USA.


I am good with throwing knives.
And explosives.
And primer cord.
And a crossbow.
Throwing stars.
Chinese darts.

A crossbow is lethal,can be fitted with infrared sight,makes hardly any noise,can fire rapid bolts repeatedly. Makes no muzzle flash or heat trace for detection.
I can take multiple shots with a crossbow into one area before the area realizes it is a target.

With a gun,they start running after the first shot.

Fire,electricity ,ice picks, a slingshot ,a snare,a garote,traps,gas,all can be lethal.
People worry about guns.
They Should worry about what would replace them.
You can make guns and black powder at home.
You can make many things.
Anyone with access to a machine shop,can make any type of gun they wish. Fully automatic with multiple barrels.

I can make a " potatoes gun" out of P.V.C. pipe,an ignition source,and fuel. I can make a rocket with same materials. Now imagine if I were launching exploding potatoes ?
Makes you feel safe ?

If the Navy can train Dolphins to kill port intruders,I can surely train Rotweilers to kill home intruders.
Ever see a grain elevator explosion ?
Anything can be explosive if atomized properly to the correct ratio of air.
Do you know the energy potential of household sugar ?

Guns are not scary.
People are.
Don't piss me off with access to a pound of sugar and a match.


----------



## phillipzx3

tohunt4me said:


> I am good with throwing knives.
> And explosives.
> And primer cord.
> And a crossbow.
> Throwing stars.
> Chinese darts.
> 
> A crossbow is lethal,can be fitted with infrared sight,makes hardly any noise,can fire rapid bolts repeatedly. Makes no muzzle flash or heat trace for detection.
> I can take multiple shots with a crossbow into one area before the area realizes it is a target.
> 
> With a gun,they start running after the first shot.
> 
> Fire,electricity ,ice picks, a slingshot ,a snare,a garote,traps,gas,all can be lethal.
> People worry about guns.
> They Should worry about what would replace them.
> You can make guns and black powder at home.
> You can make many things.
> Anyone with access to a machine shop,can make any type of gun they wish. Fully automatic with multiple barrels.
> 
> I can make a " potatoes gun" out of P.V.C. pipe,an ignition source,and fuel. I can make a rocket with same materials. Now imagine if I were launching exploding potatoes ?
> Makes you feel safe ?
> 
> If the Navy can train Dolphins to kill port intruders,I can surely train Rotweilers to kill home intruders.
> Ever see a grain elevator explosion ?
> Anything can be explosive if atomized properly to the correct ratio of air.
> Do you know the energy potential of household sugar ?
> 
> Guns are not scary.
> People are.
> Don't piss me off with access to a pound of sugar and a match.


Looks like we have an answer....outlaw people. ;-)


----------



## tohunt4me

Trafficat said:


> Tons of people will make guns. Ever watch the VICE episode on illegal gun making in the Philippines? No one makes guns like no one grows pot due to the federal pot restrictions. A handful of illegal gun makers and importers can easily keep black market supply full of quality firearms.
> 
> These days we also even have 3d printed guns. I personally own a 3D printer. I can literally download a file and press print.
> 
> As for bars... history has shown that bans on guns in bars is dumb policy.
> 
> Winemmuca Nevada, guns legal in bars... mass shooting stopped by bar patron. http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html
> 
> Orlando Florida, ban on guns in alcohol establishment... worst mass shooting in USA 50 dead.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting
> 
> Texas, guns in bars is a felony. Good guy shoots bad guy and flees the scene. http://www.awwba.com/texas-bar-patron-opens-fire-armed-robbers-killing-two-leaves-video/
> 
> Those are real incidents that were big news items.
> 
> So ban guns in bars if you want people to flee the scene after self-defense, and want mass shootings with 50+ dead.
> 
> Your gun ban may put people in prison for saving lives and cause good guys with guns to stay away but that is all.
> 
> I never drink at all. Ban guns in bars and maybe you keep people like me out, which just means you get more DUI and a massive free fire zone by deterring responsible people from entering... Or you put good people in prison just for self defense if they decide not to follow your silly rules.
> 
> As for your Wild West Myth, not only are modern inner cities more violent than supposedly dangerous towns in the wild west... but you know why the shooting at OK Corral happened? Because they created a GUN BAN. And some folks didn't want to play by those rules. Just like people won't play by the rules of your future gun bans either. Practically by definition, a gun ban means you are sending government agents to shoot anyone who won't peacably give up their guns. Ordering people to go shoot other people tends to increase gun deaths, does it not?
> 
> People carry guns in schools and bars, both good people and bad people, no matter what your law says. It is only really a question of whether good people cooperate with or evade the law, and how many are willing to risk breaking the law. Bad people who are going to rob or kill do not care about a gun penalty on top of a murder charge.


Side Hustle . . . Gun Smith



Trafficat said:


> Tons of people will make guns. Ever watch the VICE episode on illegal gun making in the Philippines? No one makes guns like no one grows pot due to the federal pot restrictions. A handful of illegal gun makers and importers can easily keep black market supply full of quality firearms.
> 
> These days we also even have 3d printed guns. I personally own a 3D printer. I can literally download a file and press print.
> 
> As for bars... history has shown that bans on guns in bars is dumb policy.
> 
> Winemmuca Nevada, guns legal in bars... mass shooting stopped by bar patron. http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html
> 
> Orlando Florida, ban on guns in alcohol establishment... worst mass shooting in USA 50 dead.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting
> 
> Texas, guns in bars is a felony. Good guy shoots bad guy and flees the scene. http://www.awwba.com/texas-bar-patron-opens-fire-armed-robbers-killing-two-leaves-video/
> 
> Those are real incidents that were big news items.
> 
> So ban guns in bars if you want people to flee the scene after self-defense, and want mass shootings with 50+ dead.
> 
> Your gun ban may put people in prison for saving lives and cause good guys with guns to stay away but that is all.
> 
> I never drink at all. Ban guns in bars and maybe you keep people like me out, which just means you get more DUI and a massive free fire zone by deterring responsible people from entering... Or you put good people in prison just for self defense if they decide not to follow your silly rules.
> 
> As for your Wild West Myth, not only are modern inner cities more violent than supposedly dangerous towns in the wild west... but you know why the shooting at OK Corral happened? Because they created a GUN BAN. And some folks didn't want to play by those rules. Just like people won't play by the rules of your future gun bans either. Practically by definition, a gun ban means you are sending government agents to shoot anyone who won't peacably give up their guns. Ordering people to go shoot other people tends to increase gun deaths, does it not?
> 
> People carry guns in schools and bars, both good people and bad people, no matter what your law says. It is only really a question of whether good people cooperate with or evade the law, and how many are willing to risk breaking the law. Bad people who are going to rob or kill do not care about a gun penalty on top of a murder charge.


----------



## Lee239

UberBastid said:


> I picked up a hooker once ... well, she was a 'massage therapist'. Good tipper too, as I remember. Firm handshake ...
> But, she told me that "you older guys got much bigger c0cks than younger guys."
> I said, "Really?"
> "Yea", she says. "You line up ten guys under 25, and ten guys over 50 and add up total inches, and I guarantee, you old dudes will measure up."
> "I wonder why", says I.
> "Dunno", she says. "But its true. Young guys don't have the length or girth."
> And she was young too.


Because young guys with big ones don't need to pay for hookers.


----------



## UberBastid

Never thought of that ...


----------



## Coffeekeepsmedriving

Lee239 said:


> Because young guys with big ones don't need to pay for hookers.


Oh hi Lee


----------



## FormerDriverAtl

This is only a concern if you're black. Police appear to have a mandate to shoot black motorists.


----------



## whitefalcon

Karen Stein said:


> "Gun safe" policies are counter productive. Ever notice that mass shootings ALWAYS take place in gun free zones?
> 
> A sign won't affect a bad guy.
> 
> The good guys don't worry me.


EXACTLTY! 


grams777 said:


> *Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy*
> Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app.*
> 
> Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber.
> 
> ** To the extent permitted by applicable law.*
> 
> https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/


 DAMN SON your GOOoood! Never noticed that and that is EXACTLY how they prefer it. Given that I already wrote this I will paste it here: 
It's my understanding that UBER and Lyft are legally just API's (application Programmer Interface) and NOT our employers. That is why we don't have to have commercial CDL or chauffeur licenses. If this IS the case, then they no business *what so ever* telling us whether we can or cannot possess ANY particular weapon in our vehicle. Just like the politicians in Chicago they think they can magically declare your Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights null and void because they want to use you to conduct their social engineering experiment which states "No one will carry weapons or have criminal intent so we can all make the World a safer place", which as you know is TOTAL BS. SOOooo given that every Cabbie, Chauffeur, and Hackney in the world wants to shut them down, where does one send an anonymous complaint about this that will make them back off and drop trying to regulate the conditions of my personnel self-defense?


----------



## Dback2004

All depends on the officer. I've met several who are on a power trip and it's gone to their head. In which case, "sorry, sir, uber policy forbids firearms in my vehicle. I have to cancel you." For the other 80%,


----------



## whitefalcon

Oscar Levant said:


> "After a mass shooting at a school in 1996, the British government pursued legislative bans on assault rifles and handguns and tightened background checks for other types of firearms. As of 2013, a total of 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition were taken off British streets. Military-style weapons and most handguns were banned, the _Washington Post_ reported."
> 
> Gun ownership is far less in the UK than in the US, per capita, but gun deaths in America, per capita, is 160 times greater in America whose population is 6 times that of the UK. The only difference is that there are far more guns in peoples hands per capita in American than in the UK. I don't know what conclusion to draw from this other than more guns = more deaths.


In addition to the report below it is well known that British police either ignore or manipulate crime statistics so the local COUNCIL members will look good come election time even though it is all B.S. and I'm not speaking as a Yank. I have been following how your government lies to thepeople for some time. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/7/17/how-the-uk-covers-up-murder-stats/ Please read both articles and get back to me.


----------



## Oscar Levant

tohunt4me said:


> I am good with throwing knives.
> And explosives.
> And primer cord.
> And a crossbow.
> Throwing stars.
> Chinese darts.
> 
> A crossbow is lethal,can be fitted with infrared sight,makes hardly any noise,can fire rapid bolts repeatedly. Makes no muzzle flash or heat trace for detection.
> I can take multiple shots with a crossbow into one area before the area realizes it is a target.
> 
> With a gun,they start running after the first shot.
> 
> Fire,electricity ,ice picks, a slingshot ,a snare,a garote,traps,gas,all can be lethal.
> People worry about guns.
> They Should worry about what would replace them.
> You can make guns and black powder at home.
> You can make many things.
> Anyone with access to a machine shop,can make any type of gun they wish. Fully automatic with multiple barrels.
> 
> I can make a " potatoes gun" out of P.V.C. pipe,an ignition source,and fuel. I can make a rocket with same materials. Now imagine if I were launching exploding potatoes ?
> Makes you feel safe ?
> 
> If the Navy can train Dolphins to kill port intruders,I can surely train Rotweilers to kill home intruders.
> Ever see a grain elevator explosion ?
> Anything can be explosive if atomized properly to the correct ratio of air.
> Do you know the energy potential of household sugar ?
> 
> Guns are not scary.
> People are.
> Don't piss me off with access to a pound of sugar and a match.


Such a strawman maker you are! 
Doesn't negate the following truth: 
Make drugs legal in America and then the gun deaths in Mexico will decline drastically.


----------



## TheMilkyWay

Listen, the easy answer is no uber employee has ever been outside my car when I got in and said " may I pat you down"


----------



## UberBastid

Do you think a cop would let YOU get in to HIS car and sit behind him if he knew you had a gun?


----------



## whitefalcon

UberBastid said:


> Do you think a cop would let YOU get in to HIS car and sit behind him if he knew you had a gun?


YES once he ran my CCW license number. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/ *Fact:* Crime rates involving gun owners with carry licenses have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida's right-to-carry law started in 1988. ( this is about the same in ALL states. It is not unique to FL.)


----------



## Roadrunner93

grams777 said:


> Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy
> Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app.*
> 
> Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber.
> 
> * To the extent permitted by applicable law. QUOTE]
> 
> Im saying "To the extent permitted by applicable law": It's a law saying any active or retired law enforcement can carry any where excluding certain places. After 911, George W. Bush signed a law saying any active or retired law enforcement car carry any where in the USA excluding some military and government places. simpsonsverytall, I would ask to see his agency issued ID & Badge. If he can't provide one then GTFO. If that was the case, I'm glad that it made you feel good that you refused to drive the "police officer".
> 
> "The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act(LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons-the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer"-to carry a concealed firearm or in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
> 
> LEOSA is often incorrectly referred to as "H.R. 218". The act was introduced during the 108th Congress as H.R. 218 and enacted as Public Law 108-277."
> 
> 
> grams777 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy
Click to expand...


----------



## whitefalcon

THANKS never heard of that law.


----------



## Roadrunner93

whitefalcon said:


> THANKS never heard of that law.


alot of people don't other than LEO. Thats why Uber put the *To the EXTENT permitted by applicable law*


----------



## UberBastid

whitefalcon said:


> YES once he ran my CCW license number. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/ *Fact:* Crime rates involving gun owners with carry licenses have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida's right-to-carry law started in 1988. ( this is about the same in ALL states. It is not unique to FL.)


Nope.
Not in California.


----------

