Painting your gun with a 6mm - 2" blaze orange stripe on the end

[Marco]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

The statement "I painted my gun because I don't want to get shot by LEO's" - now that requires a little critical thinking and analysis into the cause and effect of carrying a gun, and why a LEO would want to shoot you.

A very specific sequence of events has to take place for a LEO to shoot you. LEO's don't shoot you for carrying a gun, in a holster. LEO's don't shoot you for carrying a gun slung across your back. LEO's don't shoot you for having a gun in a shoulder harness.

If I said, "I painted my gun because it is an AK47 handgun, which is an unusual handgun style and I am afraid I might get shot because a LEO may not know the difference between this and a rifle, and I am afraid that carrying it might get me shot" -- That sir, is a completely different statement. Words matter.

People don't OC because of fear/harassment.
People don't buy guns from stores for fear of harassment.

People without weapons have been shoot by LEO, not cop bashing just stating facts.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Sonora - don't read this thread if you don't like what's being discussed, and don't comment if you can't provide any value add. All the Kwik threads have been shut down about his incident.

Agent - Yes, people have been shot by LEO's for not having weapons. Last year or a little longer, maybe two, a young man in DC was shot by LEO's after a wedding who was unarmed. I forget all the details but the reason why they fired was they thought he had a gun. Turned out to be a brush or a cell phone.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Does anyone want to see new laws stating that any toy guns without glow in the dark neon green tips are illegal?

I don't, and I don't see how it would prevent a criminal from making a real gun look like a toy gun and used in a crime, or used to shoot a LEO.

Do I want to see new laws stating what that real guns can only have a certain type of finish to identify them as a real gun? No, because that doesn't prevent criminals from using it in a crime or shooting LEO's either.

NOTE - I am not advocating shooting LEOs...

That really puts our law enforcement folks and our citizens in a bind doesn't it?

An OCer shouldn't have to worry about being considered a criminal for doing nothing wrong. A LEO shouldn't have to worry that someone OCing is going to shoot them either.

Since painting or not painting a gun is no real indication of what a person with a gun is going to do, how is a LEO supposed to identify a good guy from a bad guy? Do they draw down on everyone and ask for papers every time? Or do they wait until someone grabs the handle?

Words matter.

If you do not have your hand on the weapon, there is no reason to fear that you will be shot by a LEO. That doesn't mean the LEO can't sneeze and accidentally squeeze one off. It means reasonable, law abidingfolks have no reason to be shot be LEOs.

 

[les_aker]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

A very specific sequence of events has to take place for a LEO to shoot you. LEO's don't shoot you for carrying a gun, in a holster. LEO's don't shoot you for carrying a gun slung across your back. LEO's don't shoot you for having a gun in a shoulder harness.

Actually, there are no specific sequence of events that have to take place. Here's one example that violates all your assumptions:

http://www.justiceforsal.com/

History has shown that the police shoot people for a wide variety of reasons, and whether or not many of them are appropriate can be debated. Here's another great example:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/18412851/detail.html

Until members of the supposedly "pro gun" community stop attempting to qualify other people's rights, there are sure to be a lot of "Jim Zumbo" awards in the making.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

les_aker wrote:

bohdi wrote:

A very specific sequence of events has to take place for a LEO to shoot you. LEO's don't shoot you for carrying a gun, in a holster. LEO's don't shoot you for carrying a gun slung across your back. LEO's don't shoot you for having a gun in a shoulder harness.

Actually, there are no specific sequence of events that have to take place. Here's one example that violates all your assumptions:

http://www.justiceforsal.com/

History has shown that the police shoot people for a wide variety of reasons, and whether or not many of them are appropriate can be debated. Here's another great example:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/18412851/detail.html

Until members of the supposedly "pro gun" community stop attempting to qualify other people's rights, there are sure to be a lot of "Jim Zumbo" awards in the making.

A sequence of events DOES have to happen before you get shot. LEO's don't just show up at your house from the donought shop on a whim. Someone has to tell them where to go, and there has to be a reason why they are there.

Sure, accidents happen. Sure, a bad seed on the force with a chiparen'tunheard of. Sure, people have been shot for a whole heck of a lot of reasons by LEO's, legally or not. Just the same as alot of armedcitizens have shot alot of unarmed citizens for alot of reasons, legal and otherwise. Twist it however you see fit. I'm not saying it DOESN'T happen. It does, we all know it does.

Statistically speaking, you should not expect to be shot by a LEO just for the mere fact of carrying a gun in a legal manner in public.

Statistically speaking, you should notexpect to be shot by a LEO at all for being in public if you aren't doing anything illegal.


If I have a fear that the gun of choice I am going to carry might get me shot for just having it on my person, maybe I ought to leave it at home until I talk to the local LEOs first and let them know what I am about to do.

Should I have to do that? No. Does it mean I have less of a chance of getting shot for carrying that weapon? Maybe. I'd rather stack the deck with maybe than not at all.

If I know that carrying a weapon could get me killed in a legal manner, why do it?

If I know that not carrying a weapon could get me killed as well, I guess I may as well carry a weapon.

If I know that answering my door might get me killed, I may as well not answer the door.

If I know that not answering my door might get me killed, I guess I am just screwed.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Sonora - don't read this thread if you don't like what's being discussed, and don't comment if you can't provide any value add. All the Kwik threads have been shut down about his incident.

If you don't like the responses Bohdi... dont read them! And...don't ever presume to tell me what to comment on or not. I put uypu in the same class as 'kwiknut'... how's that for value added?

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

bohdi wrote:

Sonora - don't read this thread if you don't like what's being discussed, and don't comment if you can't provide any value add. All the Kwik threads have been shut down about his incident.

If you don't like the responses Bohdi... dont read them! And...don't ever presume to tell me what to comment on or not. I put uypu in the same class as 'kwiknut'... how's that for value added?

I am glad to see you excercising your right :lol:Excercise on brother.

 

[les_aker]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

A sequence of events DOES have to happen before you get shot. LEO's don't just show up at your house from the donought shop on a whim. Someone has to tell them where to go, and there has to be a reason why they are there.

Sure, accidents happen. Sure, a bad seed on the force with a chiparen'tunheard of. Sure, people have been shot for a whole heck of a lot of reasons by LEO's, legally or not. Just the same as alot of armedcitizens have shot alot of unarmed citizens for alot of reasons, legal and otherwise. Twist it however you see fit. I'm not saying it DOESN'T happen. It does, we all know it does.

Statistically speaking, you should not expect to be shot by a LEO just for the mere fact of carrying a gun in a legal manner in public.

Statistically speaking, you should notexpect to be shot by a LEO at all for being in public if you aren't doing anything illegal.

Obviously, no one wants to be a statistic, but when you are one you aren't any less dead.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10374909/detail.html

 

[bohdi]

imported post

les_aker wrote:

bohdi wrote:

A sequence of events DOES have to happen before you get shot. LEO's don't just show up at your house from the donought shop on a whim. Someone has to tell them where to go, and there has to be a reason why they are there.

Sure, accidents happen. Sure, a bad seed on the force with a chiparen'tunheard of. Sure, people have been shot for a whole heck of a lot of reasons by LEO's, legally or not. Just the same as alot of armedcitizens have shot alot of unarmed citizens for alot of reasons, legal and otherwise. Twist it however you see fit. I'm not saying it DOESN'T happen. It does, we all know it does.

Statistically speaking, you should not expect to be shot by a LEO just for the mere fact of carrying a gun in a legal manner in public.

Statistically speaking, you should notexpect to be shot by a LEO at all for being in public if you aren't doing anything illegal.

Obviously, no one wants to be a statistic, but when you are one you aren't any less dead.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10374909/detail.html

I don't wan't to be a statistic either. Which is why I stated an alternative course on how to deal with my fear of being shot by LEOs prior to doing an activity - carrying a gun in public. There are no absolutes except death and taxes. The best you can hope for is to mitigate the risk.

I am of the opinion that it is less risky to inform local LEO's ahead of time that I have a fear that they will harm me for excercising a right in public, than if I just do it. Doesn't mean I won't get shot. Just means I am less likely to get shot.

I would go as far as to say I am less likely to get shot if I talk to the local LEO's about what I am carrying, than painting it a color and believing that color will provide me better protection.


Edit - PS - wrap your head around this one. You will ALWAYS be a statistic, and you will never have a say about that. Ever. Think about that.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Oh for chriszsakes cut the internet rhetorical crap! This kwikfool clown with the Draco AK is 3 fries short of a Happy Meal with this nonsense. None of his 'explainations' make sense w/o a serious stretch that can only be falsely attained. C'mon people... use your'common sense' if you have any left. This asshat is a goof with a gun. No more, no less. YES... Some people with guns really ARE crazy. Some that post on this forum really are crazy. No benefit of the doubt... You nutakes know deep down in your mental morass who you are.

Nutcakes find each other... and form groups. OCOAKDO will be next. Bumper stickers within' a year.

This has little to do with the 2A... and much to do about an attention whore douchebag who needsmental healththerapy.

Sonora.....when I get back to AZ, you and I have got to get together for a beer.

Nuff said.

 

[les_aker]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

I am of the opinion that it is less risky to inform local LEO's ahead of time that I have a fear that they will harm me for excercising a right in public, than if I just do it. Doesn't mean I won't get shot. Just means I am less likely to get shot.

Whenever I hear something like that, I can't help but think of the altercation that Danbus had with the police when he was sitting on the steps outside a building waiting for someone and reading a newspaper.

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

drkarrow wrote:

ODA 226 wrote

This asshat painted the barrel of his weapon orange in order to make a police officer hesitate if the asshat covered the officer with the muzzle of his AK. Bangers have done this in the past and officers have been injured as a result.

Kwikrnu is an ASSHAT and has done more damage to our cause than the Brady Bunch has ever done. Maybe he and most of his supporters (most of whom have registered on OCDO around the same time and have less than 50 posts and most of those posts are in support of said asshat) ARE the Brady Bunch...

Putting words into kwikrnu's mouth, accusing him of intending to point an AK at the police when he has said no such thing is completely uncalled for. This just as bad as what the nutjob anti's say about us OC'ers. In my boat you are no better than them.

If you would read more than the first and last sentence of a paragraph, you would clearly see that I never put words in his mouth.HE HAS IMPLIED IT by his posts here and on other boards.

If you would take the time to exersize "Due Diligence" and read ALL threads regarding this topic and research kwikrnu's posts from other websites that resulted in him being BANNED from those sites and gun stores refusing to sell weapons and ammunition to him because of his bizzare behavior, then you would have every right to accuse me of being "no better than them" (the Brady Bunch).

Being that you obviously HAVEN'T, get fully educated about this situation and then hopefully we can speak with an educated discourse.

 

[Bikenut]

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

I fully support his right to carry whatever legal weapon he wants to carry. However, painting the tip to lead a LEO to believe he was carrying a NON-LETHAL airsoft gun while CONCEALING FROM COMMON OBSERVATION, that he was actually carrying a LETHAL weapon leadsa reasonable and prudent manto believe that he was carrying the weapon with malicious intent, the degree of which is only known to said asshat.

In Virginia, he would have committed a crime by doing this. (Yeah, I know he's in Tennessee...)

"Concealing from common observation" leads a reasonable and prudent man to believe the weapon is being carried with malicious intent? Could that also be said of everyone who carries concealed (concealed from common observation) with a legal carry permit issued by the State?

What exactly makes the difference for that "concealed" argument? The orange tip vs ... say a pocket holster? Or are we arguing about degrees of concealment? Or degrees of deception?

So.. it is ok to completely hide a gun so I don't know you have one but it is not ok to have the gun where I can see it because it looks like it might be a toy? Either way I've been deceived.

It wasn't so long ago.. historically speaking.. that anyone who concealed his weapon was considered to have evil intent and those who carried openly were considered honest and upright folk who didn't have anything to hide.

bohdi wrote:

Does anyone want to see new laws stating that any toy guns without glow in the dark neon green tips are illegal?

I thought it was bad enough when concealed carriers screamed open carriers were going to cause new laws restricting guns but now we are worried about an orange tip causing new laws restricting toy guns?:shock:

I don't, and I don't see how it would prevent a criminal from making a real gun look like a toy gun and used in a crime, or used to shoot a LEO.

Do I want to see new laws stating what that real guns can only have a certain type of finish to identify them as a real gun? No, because that doesn't prevent criminals from using it in a crime or shooting LEO's either.

And the concealed carry only crowd said, and still do say, dire predictions about open carriers causing all sorts of terrible things to happen. Sounds just like more of the same to me.

NOTE - I am not advocating shooting LEOs...

As far as I can tell no one, including kwikrnu, is advocating harming LEO's or anyone else. Or did I miss that memo too?

That really puts our law enforcement folks and our citizens in a bind doesn't it?

An OCer shouldn't have to worry about being considered a criminal for doing nothing wrong. A LEO shouldn't have to worry that someone OCing is going to shoot them either.

Since painting or not painting a gun is no real indication of what a person with a gun is going to do, how is a LEO supposed to identify a good guy from a bad guy? Do they draw down on everyone and ask for papers every time? Or do they wait until someone grabs the handle?

If the activity involved is a legal activity then the LEO has no reason to do anything... not one thing... regardless of what attitudes that LEO may have concerning that legal activity. Same thing goes for a citizen... no illegal activity should result in no 911 call. Legal activity already equals "good guy". All legal activities... including an orange tip... regardless of the attitudes anyone might have about that... should result in nothing at all happening from anyone.

Words matter.

If you do not have your hand on the weapon, there is no reason to fear that you will be shot by a LEO. That doesn't mean the LEO can't sneeze and accidentally squeeze one off. It means reasonable, law abidingfolks have no reason to be shot be LEOs.

I've heard concealed carry only folks say that reasonable law abiding folks have no reason to open carry and scare everyone.

You are absolutely correct... words matter. And getting all fired up about an orange tipped gun causing all manner of disaster to befall the entire spectrum of guns, including toy guns, while helping disaster to occur by equating someone who is taking a path that you don't agree with as having a "phobia"... is inviting those words to cause much more damage than just an orange tip ever could.

I, and others, have tried many times to explain that the arguments against that orange tip are the same arguments (even the mental health one) that are used against open carry. And the tactic of attacking the individual by casting aspersions about his mental health is straight out of Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals".

Did the New Years "Twilight Zone" marathon already start? Must have.... and I think I fell into my TV set...................

 

[Bikenut]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

-snip-

how to deal with my fear of being shot by LEOs

-snip-

I am of the opinion that it is less risky to inform local LEO's ahead of time that I have a fear that they will harm me for excercising a right in public, than if I just do it. Doesn't mean I won't get shot. Just means I am less likely to get shot.

I would go as far as to say I am less likely to get shot if I talk to the local LEO's about what I am carrying, than painting it a color and believing that color will provide me better protection.


Edit - PS - wrap your head around this one. You will ALWAYS be a statistic, and you will never have a say about that. Ever. Think about that.

So now we know that you have a fear of being shot by an LEO...

Is that a "phobia"?

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

I fully support his right to carry whatever legal weapon he wants to carry. However, painting the tip to lead a LEO to believe he was carrying a NON-LETHAL airsoft gun while CONCEALING FROM COMMON OBSERVATION, that he was actually carrying a LETHAL weapon leadsa reasonable and prudent manto believe that he was carrying the weapon with malicious intent, the degree of which is only known to said asshat.

In Virginia, he would have committed a crime by doing this. (Yeah, I know he's in Tennessee...)

"Concealing from common observation" leads a reasonable and prudent man to believe the weapon is being carried with malicious intent? Could that also be said of everyone who carries concealed (concealed from common observation) with a legal carry permit issued by the State?

Quit picking out pieces of complete sentences to support your failed argument. The FULL SENTENCE WAS:

However, painting the tip to lead a LEO to believe he was carrying a NON-LETHAL airsoft gun while CONCEALING FROM COMMON OBSERVATION, that he was actually carrying a LETHAL weapon leadsa reasonable and prudent manto believe that he was carrying the weapon with malicious intent, the degree of which is only known to said asshat.


The important part of the sentence is in bold underlined and in italics. And YES this would be a crime in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

bohdi wrote:

-snip-

how to deal with my fear of being shot by LEOs

-snip-

I am of the opinion that it is less risky to inform local LEO's ahead of time that I have a fear that they will harm me for excercising a right in public, than if I just do it. Doesn't mean I won't get shot. Just means I am less likely to get shot.

I would go as far as to say I am less likely to get shot if I talk to the local LEO's about what I am carrying, than painting it a color and believing that color will provide me better protection.


Edit - PS - wrap your head around this one. You will ALWAYS be a statistic, and you will never have a say about that. Ever. Think about that.

So now we know that you have a fear of being shot by an LEO...

Is that a "phobia"?

Nice avoidance tactic. You can't accept it when it is stated regarding a real life incident. You can't accept it when I place myself into the scenario instead of the original actor. You are either chosing to ignore the message or you don't understand it no matter how many different ways it is stated.

The statement, arguement, view point, position, how ever you wish to term it, that coloring a gun any color, so that you won't get shot, is false.

Thank you Les for validating that for me. :lol:

 

[Bikenut]

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

I fully support his right to carry whatever legal weapon he wants to carry. However, painting the tip to lead a LEO to believe he was carrying a NON-LETHAL airsoft gun while CONCEALING FROM COMMON OBSERVATION, that he was actually carrying a LETHAL weapon leadsa reasonable and prudent manto believe that he was carrying the weapon with malicious intent, the degree of which is only known to said asshat.

In Virginia, he would have committed a crime by doing this. (Yeah, I know he's in Tennessee...)

"Concealing from common observation" leads a reasonable and prudent man to believe the weapon is being carried with malicious intent? Could that also be said of everyone who carries concealed (concealed from common observation) with a legal carry permit issued by the State?

Quit picking out pieces of complete sentences to support your failed argument. The FULL SENTENCE WAS:

However, painting the tip to lead a LEO to believe he was carrying a NON-LETHAL airsoft gun while CONCEALING FROM COMMON OBSERVATION, that he was actually carrying a LETHAL weapon leadsa reasonable and prudent manto believe that he was carrying the weapon with malicious intent, the degree of which is only known to said asshat.


The important part of the sentence is in bold underlined and in italics. And YES this would be a crime in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Legally concealing a gun in my pocket would lead the officer (and everyone else) to believe I am not armed is still concealing from the officer that I have a lethal weapon.

Painting the tip orange might cause the officer to consider my weapon to be not lethal but the orange tip "conceals" that it really is lethal.

The important part is that the officer still doesn't know if I have a lethal weapon either way... until he/she investigates if there is a legal reason to investigate.

What part of "concealing" of itself (regardless of the method) does not equate to malicious intent fails as an argument?

And not everyone lives in Virginia. Those who do abide by the laws of Virginia... those who live elsewhere abide by the laws where they abide.

Now, since Virginia would consider that orange tip as "concealment" then, unless the fellow has a permit to carry concealed, the law has been broken. But in other States that have different laws the law may not have been broken at all.

 

[les_aker]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Thank you Les for validating that for me. :lol:

I know I'm good, but I'm not Bikenut <g>.

 

[Bikenut]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Nice avoidance tactic. You can't accept it when it is stated regarding a real life incident. You can't accept it when I place myself into the scenario instead of the original actor. You are either chosing to ignore the message or you don't understand it no matter how many different ways it is stated.

The statement, arguement, view point, position, how ever you wish to term it, that coloring a gun any color, so that you won't get shot, is false.

Thank you Les for validating that for me. :lol:

Not an avoidance tactic by me.... a simple exercise in pointing out the ridiculous.

The message is what again? That you, and others, disagree with the method kwikrnu is using to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights?

Edited for spmelling errors.....

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

I fully support his right to carry whatever legal weapon he wants to carry. However, painting the tip to lead a LEO to believe he was carrying a NON-LETHAL airsoft gun while CONCEALING FROM COMMON OBSERVATION, that he was actually carrying a LETHAL weapon leadsa reasonable and prudent manto believe that he was carrying the weapon with malicious intent, the degree of which is only known to said asshat.

In Virginia, he would have committed a crime by doing this. (Yeah, I know he's in Tennessee...)

"Concealing from common observation" leads a reasonable and prudent man to believe the weapon is being carried with malicious intent? Could that also be said of everyone who carries concealed (concealed from common observation) with a legal carry permit issued by the State?

Quit picking out pieces of complete sentences to support your failed argument. The FULL SENTENCE WAS:

However, painting the tip to lead a LEO to believe he was carrying a NON-LETHAL airsoft gun while CONCEALING FROM COMMON OBSERVATION, that he was actually carrying a LETHAL weapon leadsa reasonable and prudent manto believe that he was carrying the weapon with malicious intent, the degree of which is only known to said asshat.


The important part of the sentence is in bold underlined and in italics. And YES this would be a crime in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Legally concealing a gun in my pocket would lead the officer (and everyone else) to believe I am not armed is still concealing from the officer that I have a lethal weapon.

Painting the tip orange might cause the officer to consider my weapon to be not lethal but the orange tip "conceals" that it really is lethal.

The important part is that the officer still doesn't know if I have a lethal weapon either way... until he/she investigates if there is a legal reason to investigate.

What part of "concealing" of itself (regardless of the method) does not equate to malicious intent fails as an argument?

And not everyone lives in Virginia. Those who do abide by the laws of Virginia... those who live elsewhere abide by the laws where they abide.

Now, since Virginia would consider that orange tip as "concealment" then, unless the fellow has a permit to carry concealed, the law has been broken. But in other States that have different laws the law may not have been broken at all.

I'm done arguing about this. I stated clearly that I don't give a shit about the weapon he was carrying. It was the manner and the intent that is the problem. You know exactly what the real argument is here and refuse to acknowledge it. And with that sir, I'm outta here.

When this guy ends up on the national news, I'll say I told you so.