Doesn’t happen here very often but on another forum I participate at any time you pull up the 10 newest threads at least five of them will be people asking legal questions.

Can I carry here?

Or “Is my permit valid in this state?”

One actually asked if his girlfriend who is a probation officer can carry off the clock. ('cause you know I always bet my career on the internet ramblings of some random stranger)

First I find it offensive because if you’re too lazy to do your own research why should I do it for you?

Secondly I have to ask why anyone would trust their freedom and future to the internet legal advice of some random stranger who isn’t going to be there when you’re trying to cite his post on the gunz-r-us forum to the cop that’s writing your ticket or arresting you

Who does that

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Possible answers:
1. They're lazy.
2. It's free.
3. There almost certain to find at least one person who agrees with them.

You going to the internet for psychology advice?

because anyone with a computer and the internet are experts, what other reason do you need.

If its on the internet, it must be true. Bonjour.

The question implies......YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

__________________
Wherever my mind isn't
Jim

Gee, I dunno. Maybe for the same reasons people ask for advice concerning reloading issues, holster recommendations, gun recommendations, gun problems, or just about any other firearms-related things?

Why would anyone ask why people ask for advice on the Internet?So? If it's happening mostly on another forum, why get all into it here?

The solution to this non-problem is simple. Just don't do any "research" for other people on forums. Don't read threads where people ask legal questions. Don't offer your suggestions and/or advice. Don't even bother to comment on their posts. Just ignore their comments and questions. No one's forcing you to look stuff up for them. No one really expects you to look something up for them.

Why complain about something over which you have absolutely zero control? Especially something as trivial as someone's post on an Internet forum?

I wish all I had to concern myself with was whether or not I get "offended" by something someone says on some Internet forum.

I ask but verify. Sometimes people point out things you didnt know. But lets just judge everyone here.

That commercial was a marketing masterpiece.

"They can't put anything that isn't true on the internet." "Where did you hear that?" "On the internet".
I agree it is a fine piece of advertising, but nowhere near the genius effort Geico put out for the humpday camel.

I think all three are correct, with perhaps No. 3 being the main one. In particular, answering the "I am looking for your opinion on..." posts is a waste of time; they either want a fight or affirmation of what they already believe and, either way, your opinion is totally irrelevant.

__________________
Pisgah

If you guys want to really entertain yourselves then try googling some of your health symptoms...



Oh and beachblaster....

Attached Images

sayhumpday.jpg (19.6 KB, 64 views)

I did that one time. Never again. Once I did it, I didn't even want to get up out of this chair. I felt like a soldier who puts one foot on a mine and hears the click. I was thinking I'd just drop dead if I moved or something.

Here's another tip: Don't even Google any of your medications and read about their possible side effects. Just don't.

Very true, the reason I think why the pharma companies make those little pamphlets listing side effects printing so small is so you won't be that tempted to read the dang thing, but as you said, Lord help you if you do.

For intelligent thoughtful people, it gives them something to discuss or get pointed in a direction to confirm at a source of authority. For others, it's something to run with.

I very much respect Mas Ayoob's experience, advice and words of wisdom. But just because he says something on the Net doesn't mean I fully understand it and will just go out and run with it. However, it gives me something to discuss and compare, and hopefully helps me better understand what I'm trying to get straight in my head. The way laws are written is not always black and white or easy to understand how it translates to the real world.

It's a good place to start but one should always back it up elsewhere. Preferably via print on case law, Federal, State, and local, laws and someone with the actual credentials to back up what they say. Not to say people on the internet don't have the credentials but how many times has a person said they were one thing but in real life were something else. As far as you all know, I could be an "Arm Chair Commando" talking out my hind end with no real knowledge to back up what I say.

This thread is kind of amusing. Everybody gets their information from the internet. Those who say to get it in "print" or "from the source" because that's where "they" get it are kidding themselves and you. Nearly everything, if not all of it, you can get "from the source" is on the internet. It's the actual source you have to watch. Revised Missouri Statutes (RSMO) are on the internet, in a database maintained by "the source." It's asking the question on a forum that can get you in trouble. In Missouri, the question about the probation officer is answered very clearly in the applicable RSMO (She can, in Missouri. Her agency may have a restriction on whether or not she can carry the agency firearm, but that is all). The internet is like asking a question of a random stranger in a public place. Ask it in a bar, good luck. Ask it in a library, all good . . . Just my humble opinion.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Bekeart

Here are the needed ten characters for the edit

That may be true, plus they're required by law to do it now. Course, they could put the book of Genesis on there and no one would probably know the difference. Consumers would think, oh, this is the stuff Adam and Eve took, it must be safe.

For good or bad, the internet is now the place to answer all questions. I recently read (on the internet) that Wikipedia, with all of its weaknesses, is the primary reference site for the majority of people. Like anywhere else, the internet needs to be viewed with a note of caution but can be a great source of real information. I participate on many, many forums related to guns, the 2nd Amendment, motorcycles, RV's, specific car models, etc. I understand that much of what is on these forums is nothing more than personal opinion, but sometimes those opinions can be of great value. Just use common sense and the internet can be the greatest resource ever devised; essentially if you have a computer or smart phone or tablet or any other connection to the internet you have access to virtually all of the knowledge that the human race has accumulated in its entire history, and in the palm of your hand (for a smart phone). Use it wisely but with skepticism.

Something to note, Vito. Internet search engines are biased. They control the order of output, and they mess with content. Wikipedia is the great reference because internet search engines give it preference.

For example, I did a random search using Yahoo. Picked a word out of the air to test. Cranes. I'm sure any word would do.

I got 1,380,000 results. Wikipedia was on the first page. It's always on the first page. Alphabetically, it could have been page 1,250,000.

We must always be vigilant when viewing internet search results.

I wish I could find a search engine that actually gives me what I'm asking for, and nothing else.

When I was in college I had a professor that would automatically give you a failing grade on any paper that quoted Wikipedia as a source

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

The internet is a great tool. Like any tool, it can be hazardous and have terrible repercussions if not handled properly.

I get legal advice here all the time. I always follow it up by reading the actual law. This way it speeds my research, but I still get it from the true source.


If I were a professor I would flunk you too. Wikipedia is a great source of information. However, strictly quoting Wikipedia isn't using a real source. The beauty of Wikipedia is that they always list the sources of where the info came from. So, just quoting Wiki is lazy and there's no reason for it. Take two more seconds and list the actual source at the bottom of the page.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

As a point of pride every paper I did in college was sourced from actual books, the only exception was a short paper I did on why your nose runs when it’s cold (long story short blood rushes to your sinuses to preheat the air before it hits your lungs, you veins distend and some of the blood plasma actually seeps through them causing your nose to run)

One of our assignments was a persuasive essay; everyone had to be prepared for questions from the audience. One of my classmates did a pro gun control piece and I questioned her to the point the professor invoked the mercy rule.

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Beats the heck out of the people who start a post ranting about people asking questions that they don't have to answer or even open the thread.

If thats all you have time to worry about you need more problems.

I had never seen that one, but I looked it up on...where else?...the Internet and watched it. Caleb the Camel in the office...how can you not love it?

Wikipedia is the Internet equivalent of Cliff's Notes.

I think discussion is worthwhile as long as nobody hinges a court case on it. Everybody might know or believe they know little bits and pieces. Sometimes I learn more about the laws in my own state and you have to constantly watch for revisions. They just got around to saying a gun can be in the console or rear compartment rather than just the glove box and the trunk. (I don't HAVE a trunk and nothing else is going to fit in my glove box).

It's also interesting to hear how the laws differ from state to state especially when traveling. The discussion on this forum leads me to research something that I may not have thought about.

In an actual defense situation I'm going to do whatever I need to do and will worry about the law later but I don't need to be breaking the law before I get into such a situation.

"You see, your honor, I have this friend on the internet, and since he's a member of the Smith and Wesson forum, he really knows a lot about gun laws....."

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Most people are too lazy or don't know how to phrase a question properly in Google and even more can't properly understand legal jargon. So they do need advice on legal updates and interpretations but basing your decision on forum legal advice is a fool's errand even if that person is a lawyer, it holds no credence in the real World.

I've had people come into my office with fill in the blank divorces, wills, trust documents, etc and ask me to review them to see if they're "legal". I politely show them the door and suggest that they ask the web site.

__________________
Forum consigliere

Ok, let's put Wikipedia to the test.

The OP is from Colorado. So.... is there anything in this article that would seriously lead someone astray, Smoke?

Gun laws in Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn’t speak against Wikipedia as such. I merely related that one of my professors stated that he would fail any paper turned in his class that quoted Wikipedia as a source. I’m almost positive that I’ve used Wikipedia as a source here.

That said my understanding is that anyone could log into Wikipedia and change the text so it is generally not considered a trustworthy source.

That said having read the Wiki on Colorado gun laws I didn’t see anything that far out there

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Sometimes when I'm bored I look at the wiki sites for various famous people of interest. A couple years ago, I hit Wendell Bailey's page. He was a former treasurer of Missouri and failed governor candidate who ran a used car lot in south central MO. At the moment I hit his page, it read: Bailey is also a no good car salesman cheater, or words to that effect. The next day, I got my username and password to edit wikipedia.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Yes, it's true that anyone can edit Wikipedia. However, when editing you must supply a source.

As an experiment I edited a Wiki entry. At the end of a sentence I appended the name "Bob" just to see if it would show up. Sure enough, there it was after I logged out and back in. However, within an hour it was gone. So, someone does some checking.

And, if you question anything on there, you can just look up the source. They are all listed at the bottom of every page.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.