上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 228

[–]MySubtleKnife 169ポイント170ポイント  (48子コメント)

This article is a libertarian wet dream. But it's real! It's like Christmas!

[–]king_texas 14ポイント15ポイント  (12子コメント)

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

[–]w0oter 21ポイント22ポイント  (11子コメント)

except there are events like this every single day. do you really think people call the cops to file a report when they warn someone they are armed and it de-escalates a situation?

even then, there are PLENTY of examples: /r/dgu (Defensive Gun Use)

[–]-StopRefresh- 10ポイント11ポイント  (9子コメント)

What gets me is that Uber just recently announced they wouldn't let drivers or passengers carry guns.

[–]ModusPwnins 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hence the re-posting of this article.

[–]firesquasher 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because your life isnt worth violating your employers/contractee's TOS?

[–]w0oter -5ポイント-4ポイント  (6子コメント)

worked so well for airplanes...

[–]Kinglink 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

A case could be made it did. A case also should be made that there was no danger to a repeat of 9/11 happening.

9/11 ONLY happened because up to that point almost every hijacking ended relatively well for passengers. The Hijackers rarely killed their captives, and they would fly to another country where the hijacked passengers tended to return to their country safely.

After 9/11 every single passenger of a plane will fight a hijacker and try to kill them if they think they are getting hijacked because up to that point no one turned a plane into a weapon. Now that it's been done, the passengers will fight down anyone who tries to even hijack them to a third world without endangering their lives.

[–]w0oter 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

and law-abiding citizens are forced to fight with forks and knives, rather than put a bullet in the fool. meanwhile, the TSA will let a criminal by with a weapon 95% of the time, by their own admission.

[–]PLZDNTH8 -5ポイント-4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Couldn't a civilian get in with a "weapon" 95% of the time? Also I don't think shooting a firearm on a plane is the greatest of ideas.

[–]Kinglink 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

A few things.

A civilian could but a civilian won't, they know they're not allowed to bring a weapon on the plane, they won't. Why risk jail time?

Shooting a firearm on a plane is "fine". Explosive decompression like you see on the movie is COMPLETE BS. example

[–]PLZDNTH8 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I wasn't referencing explosive decompression, I was thinking just sudden drop in a pressure could end up causing a crash.

[–]fuckyoubarry 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think informing someone you have a gun to deescalate a situation is a good idea.

[–]non4545 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

I get so excited when I see a headline like this high up on my front page. The tipping point! Public opinion is finally turning!! Oh, nevermind, it's in r/Libertarian.... Sigh.. : /

[–]whatwhat_in_thebutt 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Public opinion is pretty much in favor of concealed carry.

[–]cybercuzcoAnarcho Syndicallist Collectivite[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

With blackjack and hookers!

[–]verveinloveland -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

on second thought, forget the blackjack

[–]Carlsinoc -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

What people will not mention when telling us how guns save lives is that this guy had a concealed weapons permit and was trained in using his weapon. He doesn't sound like some random citizen with a gun. Takes skills to do what he did.

[–]real_cool_club -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

which is to say that there's probably no real evidence that concealed carry does more good than harm, but people will point to this anecdote in support of their crazy beliefs?

[–]joshTheGoods -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Vigilantism FTW, amirite?

[–]mammothleafblower 297ポイント298ポイント  (73子コメント)

Didn't Uber just ban it's drivers from carrying? They must support mass murder.

[–]TheGrim1 48ポイント49ポイント  (15子コメント)

The bigger irony is that this Chicago event was what caused Uber to begin a no gun policy.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 8ポイント9ポイント  (14子コメント)

Like typical liberal anti-gun zealots, they would have preferred more deaths instead of the minor tiny bit of positive press the lawful use of a firearm.

[–]ECGuiseppe 44ポイント45ポイント  (13子コメント)

Oh come on, Uber's move to ban guns is purely a business move to protect themselves from potential liability lawsuits. Not everything is politically driven.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 5ポイント6ポイント  (10子コメント)

Read their own press release - once this story hit there were calls on numerous sites to demand Uber change their policy to match Lyft's on armed drivers because it made people "uncomfortable" to think their driver may be armed.

"We seek to ensure that everyone using the Uber digital platform — both driver-partners and riders — feels safe and comfortable using the service," ... "During a ride arranged through the Uber platform, Uber and its affiliates therefore prohibit possessing firearms of any kind in a vehicle."

[–]Cronyx 20ポイント21ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm sick of pandering to people being "uncomfortable".

[–]princeps_fossor 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Especially when it's not based on reality. A hypothetical uber driver who wants to rape/abduct/rob a passenger doesn't need a gun. They can just fuck with their doors - do they still do the child lock thing on new cars' rear doors? - and they're set. Plus, there's the long time argument that someone who wants to harm you doesn't care about uber's rules about guns in the car.

The only thing this does is prevent accidental discharges of firearms from harming people while in or right next to uber vehicles. Not exactly a public safety issue, I'd say.

[–]ECGuiseppe 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

Okay so it was marketing related. They weren't trading off a little bit of good press for liberal zealot ways, they got bad consumer reactions nonetheless.

They weighed the pros and cons, realized they were getting a negative reaction with a positive story and would get an even worse reaction from a negative story. Add on top any potential liability risks and this is a no-brainer business move for Uber.

I just don't get why people so often jump on the political side of things. 99 out 100 times its going to be financially related.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

You might want to look at the public disclosures their major stakeholders have for donations to political campaigns.

[–]ECGuiseppe 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah? All pretty much towards lobbying groups that fight against State transportation agencies. Like I said, its all going to be finance related.

If their major stakeholders didn't want the drivers and passengers to have guns then they would have demanded that from the company from the beginning and not have waited for this story to come out. They don't need political muscle to make changes internally.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

All pretty much towards lobbying groups that fight against State transportation agencies.

Yeah, that's what all those DNC contributions were about - because those guys hate regulation.

[–]ECGuiseppe 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18ODOT0kio6W1XOnBeNvvByWPNGWaXwVN4dh0A1nVEQ4/pubhtml

There is a list of the lobbying groups and consulting companies working for Uber. Go look at the list of names and how its a mix of D and R.

And seriously, do you honestly believe that Uber which is facing legislation roadblock after roadblock would spend its money lobbying for gun control?

[–]I_HAVE_A_SEXY_BEARD -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not marketing, it's a legal CYA. Anytime Uber is even marginally related to a shooting, and the lawyers start circling, they can point to this policy.

[–]kx2w 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Funny you say that because, as you noted, most everything is financially motivated.

[–]ECGuiseppe 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly. I know politics is essentially the US's national pastime now but I don't get why we always are jumping to that conclusion about stuff when it usually always boils down to finances.

[–]SargonOfAkkad 107ポイント108ポイント  (36子コメント)

Why don't libertarians start an Uber competitor that allows drivers to carry guns? Compete in the marketplace of ideas!

[–]GTA_Stuff 61ポイント62ポイント  (31子コメント)

Because the taxi unions (and, I turn, legislators who get fat off those unions) have been out to destroy Über from the get-go.

It would be even harder to start a new company in the face of Uber's already dominant market share AND legislators who won't allow another "upstart" to enter the market.

Not to mention if your hook is that "we allow guns" you're facing even more establishment opposition that would exploit your hook extremely easily in the current media climate.

[–]Vik1ng 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

It would be even harder to start a new company in the face of Uber's already dominant market share AND legislators who won't allow another "upstart" to enter the market.

That seems to straight out contradict what libertarians say about competition. And Uber has to deal with the same legislators.

[–]GTA_Stuff 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's that legislators already have been trying to stamp out Uber and Lyft. They would try even harder to stamp out another new company. Not that it would be hard to compete with uber, per se.

[–]price1869govt is the opiate of the masses 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Correct. Uber got a head start and is big enough to fight regulations (for now). A smaller start up would have no chance.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The marketplace is not level with the State getting involved.

[–]elsagacious 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Try it. It seems based on Uber's response that that's not what most customers of the service want, but maybe Uber is wrong about that.

[–]AtmaJnana 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They already have a variety of competitors that allow guns. Taxis. Private vehicles. In some cases public transit.

[–]marx2k 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Does it involve more than waving hands and complaining?

[–]cybercuzcoAnarcho Syndicallist Collectivite[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Toter

[–]skw1dwardsic semper tyrannis 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is an old story and since then uber has banned drivers and customers from carrying guns. Uber must want mass shootings to happen. /s

[–]mammothleafblower -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

There's really no other logical explanation.

[–]_Ball_so_hard_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or you know, maybe there is?

[–]retitled 5ポイント6ポイント  (10子コメント)

I'm not really sure Uber can ban people from carrying drivers nor passengers. They don't own the cars so not sure what say they would have in it. I guess they could terminate what ever contract they have with the person but other than that I'm not sure.

[–]Kinglink 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

They also could update their contract to ban drivers from carrying weapons.

[–]retitled 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

They could, but some states have laws that allow people to store firearms in their own vehicles regardless of their employers rules.

[–]Kinglink 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Well that's a positive law, I imagine there's a bit of contention here, and Uber really should have the right to forbid guns. The state laws likely are there to avoid employers from banning firearms in vehicles that are parked on their personal property, but likely would ok a ban to have firearms in the work place.

However in Uber's case, the car is your office. The laws might protect the drivers, but at the same time I bet Uber can terminate those drivers if it wants to. I'd be interested in how it plays out.

[–]darkenfire 11ポイント12ポイント  (5子コメント)

Uber drivers aren't employees of Uber, they're "independent contractors." So it's not like your car is your office and Uber is your employer. It's more like a home owner telling their plumber they can't have a gun in their work van.

[–]elsagacious 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually, according to the most recent ruling, they are employees of Uber.

[–]SocialIssuesAhoy 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, it's closer to a homeowner telling the plumber he can't bring the gun into his home. Although in terms of law I think the two are hardly analogous.

Über can't "force" anyone not to carry because they aren't employees, they aren't on company property, or driving company vehicles. But every single one of those drivers signed a contract with Uber and I think it should be within the company's rights to put a no-carry clause in there.

[–]Mason-Bleft-libertarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it should be within the company's rights to put a no-carry clause in there.

I think the point being made is that the state (in question) is saying that clause is unenforceable (because they have a law saying it is). Likely because they believe some rights can't be signed away, "inalienable".

Which of course comes down to whether rights should be protected so strongly that they are inalienable, our declaration of independence says as much. In this case, against a powerful, exploitative, and monopolizing corporation. I'm more interested in these protections for other rights, like freedom of speech and association (re: unions) but I'm fine if they fold in gun rights.

[–]Salt_peanuts -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your analogy is a good one, however, if a customer doesn't feel comfortable with the plumber having a gun in his truck, they can choose to hire another plumber.

For better or for worse, uber has every right to simply refuse to contract with people who choose to carry a gun. So the result is the same.

[–]retitled 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would be as well. People who follow the law and get permits aren't the ones Uber should worry about IMO.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Specifically in response to this.

[–]falcon4287 -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes, and I'm still looking for a place to petition that.

[–]shit_dragon 35ポイント36ポイント  (15子コメント)

I'm confused this happened 2 months according to the time stamp on the story ago but it also happened two months ago in a different city.

(https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/30xe2i/concealed_carry_permit_holder_stops_gunman_during)

I thought this was a repost at first but now I'm just confused. Are Philadelphia and Chicago the same place? Is a deep dish pizza the same as a cheese steak?

[–]6NippleCharlie 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Philadelphia one didn't get much traction (even locally) after the defender was discovered to be a civilian.

[–]bonked_or_maybe_not 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep - the media will underreport the shit out of legal defensive use of a hand gun because it harms their agenda.

[–]shpxjvg 15ポイント16ポイント  (8子コメント)

You are confused because the mainstream media tries to suppress the stories about good guys with guns that prevent the mass killing tragedies that they choose to sensationalize pursuing the anti 2A agenda. Your expressed confusion is indicative of the tremendous success they have had with their campaign. They had you believing these instances were so rare that you were left to wonder if it was in fact two different stories in two different cities.

[–]CaulkusAurelis 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

Well, to be fair, if we add up the "mass shooting" stories vs. the "Legally Armed Hero Prevents Disaster" stories, there at least to me, appears to be an imbalance...

[–]Nowin 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because more people report on mass shootings?

[–]shpxjvg 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

I agree it is very lopsided. But the mass shootings do happen in rare instances, so they will keep getting talked about, and they should to an extent, and unfortunately they will continue to be exploited by politicians.

[–]CaulkusAurelis -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

as they should.

When other nations with similar values, can find ways to reduce these types of events, by orders of magnitude, as compared to us, then we should continue to seek the success our peers are accomplishing,.

[–]shpxjvg 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

This isn't actually happening though.

[–]CaulkusAurelis 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

No?

the death rates by guns isn't significantly lower in other developed nations?

I beg to differ...

[–]shpxjvg -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

I was using your own specific qualifier, the part about other nations with similar values. The gun culture in America is indeed a very real and rather unique value. Therfore, your comparisons are completely invalid.

[–]CaulkusAurelis 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

OK then, the United States cannot be compares to anything else, and any comparison in therefore invalid?

[–]Aiurar 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Its almost as if stories like this were more frequent than successful mass shootings...

But the media would have a public responsibility to report that fact during every gun control debate, wouldn't they?

[–]ashishduh1 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I read the Philadelphia story and found no similarities. There was no large crowd, no Uber driver. It was a barbershop fight.

What makes you think they're the same story?

[–]shit_dragon 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh nothing, just the timeframe and the headline

[–]cybercuzcoAnarcho Syndicallist Collectivite[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

how can deep dish be real if cheese steaks aren't real?

[–]Judg3Smails 110ポイント111ポイント  (18子コメント)

Things you won't see on /r/politics, Mother Jones, or Think Progress for $100 Alex.

[–]OswaldWasAFag 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

At least, not for long.

[–]lukeyq -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

10 mass shootings with legally bought guns 'blablabla excuses'

1 prevented mass shooting with a legally bought gun 'SEE WE ARE RIGHT'

100 children ending up killing someone with parents handgun 'blablabla blame parents'

1 child prevents a robbery with a gun 'OMG WE ARE RIGHT GIVE KIDS GUNS'

[–]CaptMoose 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Check out r/dgu. Defensive gun usage doesn't get the attention violet murders get, but it's plenty common.

[–]Try_Less -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

I like to think I'm pretty overwhelmingly anti-gun control but I can't seem to find fault with Uber's policy. Do you REALLY want to get into an armed stranger's car? I know I don't, especially after a drunken night on the town.

Not to mention from a liability standpoint. Uber is a private company after all, it's their choice.

[–]fofgrel 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

An armed driver with a CCP wouldn't bother me in the slightest. An armed driver without a CCP is probably going to be armed regardless of what Uber tells him to do.

[–]w0oter 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

exactly, does anyone really think that a driver that wants to murder his passengers is going to reconsider after signing in to uber? the only people who are going to reconsider are law-abiding citizens like the hero in the linked story.

[–]elsagacious 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That Uber driver that wants to murder his passengers doesn't exist, since every ride is tracked.

[–]mkmecon29Not an Anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's just such a blanket policy. Why no exceptions for cased firearms? Now if I fly with my guns I'll need alternative transportation. Do they have the right to decide that? Of course. But there are entirely legitimate reasons to allow people to carry.

[–]IAmAMansquito 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm sure this will get tons of coverage.

[–]Sythe64 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

It was in Chicago. So i doubt it does.

[–]gotamdfriedmanite 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

It did get coverage in the local Chicago media, but this happened a while ago.

[–]jadwy916 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I shared it on the FB. I figure, do we can.

[–]z-X0cindividual 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

I really don't see how Uber plays into this at all. The article mentions nothing about Uber except that this guy happened to be a driver. It's about as relevant to the actual content of the article if they told us that he owned a cat and his mother is an alcoholic.

[–]verveinloveland -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

this was in the news recently...I'm guessing that's why some would consider it relevant.

[–]JustZisGuyCthulhu 2016, why vote for the lesser evil? -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seeing as how I'm still not sure why the original post was relevant...

[–]mayormcsleaze 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

This sounds like a campaign slogan. Was he also gay-married and a marijuana grower?

[–]cybercuzcoAnarcho Syndicallist Collectivite[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Gay Married transgendered homosexer pothead takes libertarian uber cab to mass murder spree, shot by gun-toting patriot hero before he could convert local children to socialisms.

[–]Faerco -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reading that and reading your flair confused the shit out of me.

[–]CanadianHoserLeftLibertarian 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

as a show of hands, who wants the responsibility to carry firearms on their person at all times?

[–]bbrosen -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Quite a few people do

[–]CanadianHoserLeftLibertarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What if they accidentally shoot me, instead of shooting the suspect? A similar scenerio (referring to the article) could've gone a lot differently.

[–]michaelnc4444 11ポイント12ポイント  (6子コメント)

Good on him, these are the cases that make the point about "more guns save lives" stand out.

One question though, how the hell did this guy get a CC in IL? I thought that was like seeing a unicorn.

[–]jdepps113 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

You have to bring your unicorn pic down to the state Capitol and then they'll issue you the CCP

[–]theonlybluecow 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

IIRC chicago conceal carry ban was recently overturned.

EDIT: Downvotes? Really? I was right, heres the source: http://www.inquisitr.com/442530/illinois-concealed-carry-gun-ban-overturned/

[–]pewpewlasors 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

these are the cases that make the point about "more guns save lives" stand out.

That is retarded. These things happen in the first place, because of the US having so many guns.

Every other developed nation on Earth is proof of this.

[–]maverickps 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

yeah, I mean just look at France. Super strict gun laws, and no mass shootings in recent memory!

/s

[–]elsagacious 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

They have fewer gun deaths than the US by several orders of magnitude.

[–]fofgrel -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I promise that criminals can get guns in every other developed nation too. Here in the US, we have a lot more of the specially depressed/frustrated type of people who feel the need to shoot up crowd before taking their own lives.

[–]CaughtWarding 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd much rather read a story with the headline, "No more mass shootings as proper regulation of firearms and mental health awareness has had a fantastic impact on society!"

[–]HippyHell 7ポイント8ポイント  (9子コメント)

I was just thinking, "I wonder if the folks in r/libertarian have seen this yet. This is exactly the kind of isolated incident they'd like to put on a platter and talk about endlessly," but then low and behold here it was!

We could of course focus on how little concealed carrying has done for every other shooting and violent robbery in Chicago but that would be less sensational. Instead lets talk about that one time guns stopped gun violence in a city torn apart by gun violence.

[–]marx2k 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

2 month old blog posts from business insider written by cato about an isolated incident? How could libertarians not jump on this?

[–]pizzayarn 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Firearms are used an estimated 200,000 - 3 million times annually for self defense in the US. It's not exactly an isolated incident...

[–]chriskmee 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately, news stations are here to sell you news, and mass shootings with multiple dead sell much better than one guy getting shot by another guy.

[–]Subjugator -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Please, parade your studies out for us.

[–]HippyHell 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I could parade a series of Monday morning articles about kids murdered in front of their houses here in Chi if you'd like- how does that hold up against your studies? Maybe someone should come down here with that infamous Harvard report and let their mom's know how much of a difference armed citizens supposedly make.

[–]DrMrPresident 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

You just said that random anecdotal news stories are better than studies. Then you referred to a study. But also you have no links.

[–]Karmastocracy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah, so instead we'll just take you at your word... got it.

[–]bbrosen 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is very hard to get a ccw in Chicago

[–]Chemaphex 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

I wonder why this isn't in main stream media.

[–]pacman_johns 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is two months old so...

[–]theonlybluecow 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Media is pretty anti gun and anti 2nd amendment, pretty rare for things like this to make the news.

[–]VinylGuy420 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because it doesn't perpetuate the white people are racist, guns are bad, or we need more regulation not less agenda.

[–]Dilsnoofus -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Be careful what you wish for. Every time The People become relaxed and accepting of guns again the government sends out another pawn to kill some innocent folks.

[–]Connor4Wilson 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Woah look out, I think your tinfoil hat fell off.

[–]gibsonblues 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Of all the coverage over the policy announcement, almost none of the media cares to mention this hero. Fucking statist scumbags.

[–]PM_ME_MILKlibertarian party 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

A fucking hero, he should be praised. We need more like him.

[–]Fattswindstormlibertarian party 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

But i was told by /r/politics that law abiding citizens with concealed weapons would miss and shoot innocent children and not the perp. Is Bernie Sanders still the new Jesus? I don't know what to believe anymore.

[–]elsagacious 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Bernie Sanders has a consistent record of voting against gun control. He even voted against the Brady bill. Please educate yourself.

[–]Fattswindstormlibertarian party -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

My comment had more to do with the circle jerk in /r/politics and less about actual politics, but this is the first i am hearing on the gun control/ brady bill

[–]freedom_from_factism 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seems uber drivers have better aim than most police officers.

[–]iamnotfromtexas90 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This can't be. Chicago banned guns, so there's no mass shootings there. Unless he's the criminal!

/s

[–]djblaze666 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Chicago is the hardest place for a law abiding citizen to purchase a firearm, yet has the highest firearm murder rate. Thankfully, this hero went through all the Statist, bureaucratic red tape so he could conceal carry.

[–]SmegmaSundaeI voted Gary Johnson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

yet they want to ban drivers from carrying guns. yeah, not driving for them anymore on principle, lyft pays better anyway

[–]kensai01 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If everyone was able to carry guns except for when they were out with the intent of getting intoxicated, many things like this would happen. What the fuck do you do when the asshole pulls out an AK and you have a pretzel and a soda in your hands walking along in a mall.

[–]Deluxe78 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He should have called 911.. So a dispatcher could type what he says into a computer.. Then some one else could read it then raise a police unit. The police then could answer the radio and drive 15 minutes to the location and respond.. Only the police and military should have guns... See how nuts that sounds

[–]nutrientR46Aggressively-Isolationist -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times

What? Is there something I'm missing here?

[–]brznks 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

some of the shots missed...?

[–]l-jack 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's safe to say since there's a discrepancy between shots fired and hits.

[–]skyroket 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

So he didn't have 100% accuracy in a high tension high adrenaline scenario. I think I'm catching on!

[–]cybercuzcoAnarcho Syndicallist Collectivite[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The punk couldnt remember if he had been shot 6 times or only 5, so they used the term "several".

[–]jadwy916 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not as much as the shooter!

Badumching!

[–]RMaximus -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Where are the national headlines and non stop news coverage?

[–]Kinglink -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Something good about uber, and something good about concealed carry.. I'm sure the liberal media will jump on that one.

[–]carandfreedomgeek 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And in response to this Uber bans all driver and passengers from carrying guns? They'd better be aware that the day is coming when they will be held responsible when someone can't defend themselves or others due to their ban. They should be held fully liable when that happens to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

[–]o5kMazoku -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I did in fact come a little while reading this article. But the sad part is it was in Chicago so that driver will probably never see his gun again.

[–]tactlesswonderlicurious -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

First off, good for all of us and thank you very much, Mr uber driver.

Secondly, Chicago has the most draconian gun laws, and he had the proper permits and was able to be the hero all the same.

This an example of gun control as much as it gun freedom. Main stream gun control does not seek to remove all guns from all people. It seeks to remove them from irresponsible and unaccountable people.

[–]blacktalon47 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Chicago has the most draconian gun laws, and he had the proper permits and was able to be the hero all the same.

Had.

Chicago only allows guns now because their prior ban was found to be unconstitutional. If this was a few years ago the driver would not have had a firearm (legally).