A terrible precedent is being set with guns in public places...

[kentuck]

We read of people walking thru the malls with AR-15's slung over their shoulders. We hear of people going into Starbucks with automatic weapons. We read on DU about someone clearing a soccer field, where kids are playing, because somebody shows up with a gun in his holster, because he can.

This seems to be more and more commonplace. Some people feel the need to go into public places with their guns. Of course, all these people are law-abiding and stable individuals. Of course...

But I would argue that there is something wrong, something unstable, about individuals that would want to show off their guns in such a way. Who would not be intimidated or frightened for their children if a stranger walks into a public place with a gun?

There is no good ending to this story.

[obxhead]

1. yep

this will end with blood.

[AlbertCat]

143. No doubt

Especially since this display stems from some illusion of being persecuted.... by sensible gun laws.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Every case I've read about, including the Soccer game stunt, has been for publicity.

New article, additional details:

There is no law restricting the carrying of weapons onto school property by those who have concealed pistol licenses. However, the weapon has to be visible and not, in fact, "concealed." Because WMC is a private school, VandenBrand was within his rights to tell the man to get rid of his gun or leave. If the game was played at a public school field, however, there would be no such right.

Legislation introduced in January by Rep. Andy Schurz, D-Lansing, would close the loophole that allows those with a concealed pistol license to take a gun into schools.

VandenBrand said a friend of the gun-toting man videotaped as an officer with the Muskegon Police Department warned him about not violating trespassing laws. VandenBrand said the officer told him it's not unusual for those concerned about protecting gun owners rights to post such videos on the Internet.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/09/opposing_fan_hesitant_to_get_r.html

When you go to a game with a gun AND a friend with a video camera to record what happens, it's a stunt!

Same for the Starbucks and Walmart stunts. These assholes are deliberately stirring up fear where there has traditionally been no reason for people to be fearful.

Isn't that Terrorism, by definition?

[kentuck]

3. It is domestic terrorism.

In my opinion.

Masquerading as 2nd Amendment rights.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Yup.

And quite counter-productive to legitimate gun rights and second amendment supporters.

[pintobean]

11. Which raises more questions

about who these people are and why they do this. I think it's quite possible that the stupid Starbucks stunt gave some gun control advocates some ideas.

[NYC_SKP]

34. Watch out or you'll be accused of being an Infowars addict.

Happened to me yesterday.

But I think you might be onto something.

[coldmountain]

55. Ironic that RBKAers have to worry that excersing their "rights" might look like terrorism

Isn't that proof it is terrorism?

[truebluegreen]

122. Oh yes, gun control advocates spend a lot of time

engaging in false flag activities to make responsible gun owners look bad...oh, wait....if I were you I'd ask myself, "why would gun control advocates bother?" since 30,000 gun deaths a year already do that.

[inch4progress]

164. Sadly true.

Guns kill! They have no other use. Support a ban or we will see more kids killed in the future.

[NutmegYankee]

13. It's not terrorism, just a stupid method of protest that works against them

Terrorism requires violence or the direct threat of violence, neither of which open carry protesters engage in. You should be careful with labeling the mere legal carrying of objects as terrorism, lest it get used against us with anti-wall street protests. There will always be at least one person who reacts with fear to even a peaceful protest. Charges of terrorism have been classically used by governments to silence opposition groups.

Wall street would love to see Occupy arrested if we set this precedent.

[kentuck]

19. Terrorism doesn"t require violence...

Necessarily.

[NutmegYankee]

25. There has to at least be a direct threat of violence.

That is lacking here. If they were threatening to shoot people, that would count. But they aren't.

It's stupid, but it's hardly terrorism.

[kentuck]

29. These assassins seldom give a warning.

People are fearful of guns in public places. They see what happened in the mall in Kenya. Only a fool would feel safer if they see a stranger with a gun. Instead, they feel fear. It is a form of terror.

[Dragonfli]

40. I think they are using the legal definition rather than a definition based on the effects of the act

I imagine you are both "right" but one of you more than the other in a practical sense.

The act of displaying weapons openly in a crowd that are known to kill and maim rather than to bake bread may be legal in some crazy countries, like Somalia and the US, but they still cause fear and terror among those that are smart enough to know what those objects are used for in a crowd setting (designed for in fact), just as walking around a supermarket with a few machetes and a sword strapped across ones back would cause those near you to fear for their safety, so too will weapons designed to cause even more damage to one's body.

It is common sense to realize that causing fear and terror among a crowd of people in order to further a political or religious goal is terrorism. To be charged for the crime is a thing that lawyers discuss as if common sense were meaningless (often laws have nothing to do with common sense). The law does not apparently recognize such acts of terrorism, even if most people do.

You are both right, one of you is right in the legal sense and the other is right according to common sense.

Personally I believe the act of causing terror to further a political goal is to act as a terrorist even if it doesn't meet the legal requirements to be charged with the act committed, but I admit that others see objects of death and destruction as beautiful artful things they covet and so feel desire and longing rather than fear resulting in a differing view than mine.

[JoeyT]

33. There is a threat of violence.

Given how many mass murders have been happening, and how much press they've gotten, walking into a crowded place with a rifle is like walking into an airport with a big box covered in wires labeled "BOMB!".

Threats of violence don't have to be verbal, implied threats work just as well or even better, because you have plausible deniability.

[NutmegYankee]

38. This same logic has justified countless crackdowns on peaceful oppositions.

Every gathering is a "mob" or riot about to start. Every sign against the opposing movement an implied threat of violence.

You should remember I don't support open carry. I oppose the overuse of the term "terrorism" to describe things we dislike.

[JoeyT]

45. Fair enough.

I'm kind of up in the air over open carry. I definitely oppose it for long arms, I'm not sure about handguns, but lean toward opposing.

I agree about the use of the word "terrorism", too. I don't think it quite meets the standard for terrorism....menacing sure, brandishing, certainly. It's definitely not harmless, whatever we call it.

[NutmegYankee]

73. Open carry is stupid. It convinces no one to support it.

It's more of an obnoxious "haha, look what I can do and you can't stop me". And it will be banned soon given the asshattery of it's supporters.

[Dragonfli]

49. Your comparison is silly, unless the demonstrators are carrying machetes or guns or other objects

that are often used to kill, maim, or otherwise harm people.

Most people fear weapons designed to kill them, few people fear unarmed citizens peacefully demonstrating.

That you try to lump weapons often used in mass killings with the expression of ideas as equivalent says a great deal about the desperation of such an argument.

[NutmegYankee]

75. History proves you are wrong.

It is filled with violent crackdowns on peaceful protests, often justified by considering peaceful protest a threat. Tiananmen Square for instance.

[Dragonfli]

149. I didn't deny there are fascists governments attacking protesters.

I merely pointed out that protesters are not usually causing fear and terror by the act of lawful and peaceful assembly (some do, usually CIA plants pretending to be anarchists, but not as a rule).

That thugs attack peaceful protesters is a very different issue that you are trying to equate to crazy people walking around armed near children. If the protesters were strapped, they would be terrorizing people like the assholes running around with weapons scaring kids and parents and your comparison would make at least some sense. But they aren't doing that now are they?

You are being silly by trying to claim protesters brandishing words are the same as armed gunmen scaring children, not just silly, but dishonest and manipulative.

Just own it, they are not exhibiting the same behavior, causing fear to advance the right to cause more fear with weapons around children is terrorist activity, perhaps not by the legal standards of an insane country with laws that protect their right to use fear and intimidation for their political goals, but terrorist tactics nonetheless.

Peaceful protester brandishing words = armed gunmen intimidating children is a false equivalency that reeks of dishonesty and desperation.

[NutmegYankee]

150. Disagree.

Words can easily inflict fear and terror in their victims. Just look at those from the Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM).
Open carry is stupid and is just an obnoxious method of "rubbing salt in the wounds" of people around them. I'm sure the people engaging in it want to make it seem normal, or use it to change laws, but in nearly all instances it is done in a peaceful manner. Since we will never agree on this point, I leave with this - Why are they not arrested under federal terrorism charges? Simple. The feds don't consider it terrorism.

[Dragonfli]

152. I am sorry, I can't even take you seriously, armed gunman doesn't equal peaceful protester.

There is no way in hell you believe they are equally dangerous.

Dishonesty is not a virtue my friend, and dishonesty will not win your arguments.
Change tactics or people will just ignore you as a liar, just as I will from now on.

[NutmegYankee]

158. Adios.

If it's terrorism, where is the FBI?

[kcr]

59. Ridiculous.

Cracking down on people with weapons vs people without. There's no way you don't see the difference. Your claim that the logic is the same is spurious.

[Tumbulu]

64. Nope, I do not agree nt

[calimary]

119. DEFINITELY! How could it not be viewed as a threat?

I know absolutely that if I saw somebody swaggering into a store wearing a gun in a holster, I would get the hell OUT OF THERE as soon as possible. That doesn't make me feel SAFE!!! Are you frickin' KIDDING ME?????? I want NO part of that! And I'd complain to the manager also. Probably after I'd left and made it safely home and out of range. Because the last thing I'd want to do is provoke some sort of confrontation with somebody like that. It would NOT end well. I would not trust any of these folks who got their dander up because they thought somebody was trying to "take their guns." I shudder to think how one of these hot-heads settles THAT one! If they're deliberately armed like that in public, face it: They're already looking for trouble, kinda like a bunch of unindicted Zimmermans or something. I would feel threatened without a doubt. I feel threatened by the very IDEA of seeing that in some store or restaurant where I'd be trying to shop or eat in peace.

It's not a gun so much as a chip on their shoulder - as though they're strutting around just HOPING something will go wrong so they can play Wyatt Earp or something and forcibly show you who's boss. Yeah, just what I want - to be present for a possible shootout! What do they want? The OK Corral? Seems to me someone like that is, pardon the pun, just gunning for something to happen so they can prove what tough stuff they are. And they're nothing but carnage waiting to happen (and I'd expect that one of the wounded will likely be them). It's ego and chip-on-shoulder. NONE of which results in anything good, in my experience.

[pitbullgirl1965]

138. Bingo!

It's not a gun so much as a chip on their shoulder - as though they're strutting around just HOPING something will go wrong so they can play Wyatt Earp or something and forcibly show you who's boss.

And I'm sure they get off on the negative attention too. The dirty looks, the fearful glances, give them a sense of power. Look what I'm doing and there isn't a thing you can do about it. Don't like it? Either suck it down or leave"

[kestrel91316]

133. There is the implied threat of violence, IMHO.

And how are people supposed to know that these OC nuts aren't actually planning to kill somebody??

I mean, that's what I would assume. But if people become desensitized to the presence of guns everywhere, no one will be on the alert, and the next mass shooting will be that much easier to pull off.

[NutmegYankee]

142. I understand. Open carry is stupid.

It upsets people and achieves nothing but more hate.

I just said I oppose the overuse of the word terrorism. Terrorism is a very serious crime. In this case, there is no Direct threat, so there is no legal terror. All these posters who went nuts on me missed the point. If we labeled everything that causes fear in a person (rational or not) terror, there would be a lot of terrorists in this world.

[AlbertCat]

145. There has to at least be a direct threat of violence.

I dunno about that either.

Blackmail? Like the Congress is now engaged in with the USA.

A threat of harm.... not necessarily violence.

[NutmegYankee]

147. Thye word I'm leaning toward is Sedition. nt

[Flatulo]

79. Wouldn't terrorism require a law to be broken?

There are lots of intimidating acts, like stalking, or issuing verbal or written threats, that are clearly illegal by statute, yet are seldom labeled as terrorist acts. Why should carrying a legal object in a legal manner be considered as such?

Many people are afraid of intimidating dogs like pit bulls or Rottweilers. If I walk my pit bull down the street, am I a terrorist because some people *might* be afraid?

[jberryhill]

92. Are you walking your dog to make a point?

Are you going out of your way to walk your dog in places where you KNOW a substantial number of people are likely to be afraid?

Intent is quite often the dividing line which distinguishes the consequences between what are indistinguishable physical actions.

[Flatulo]

97. Does it matter? Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder. Me, I'm terrified of kittens.

In the nearest big city to me, young men with bulging muscles walk terrifying-looking pits up and down Main Street every day. These dogs look at you like they want to tear you to shreds, pulling so hard on the leash that their handlers can barely control them. If one of them got loose I'd run in front of a bus to get away.

[jberryhill]

104. Yes, intent matters

It matters in many contexts, and is often inferred from the circumstances.

The element of intent is often what distinguishes whether two objectively indistinguishable sets of physical actions are, or are not, unlawful.

Let's say that you are standing on a streetcorner. I run up from behind you, grab you, and pull you backwards onto the sidewalk. Have I done something illegal?

[Flatulo]

112. In your example, it would depend on why you undertook that action. If I was about to be hit

by a bus, then your action would have saved my life. If I was in no danger, then your action could be construed as assault.

I understand the difference in your example. But in my example of walking what some consider to be an aggressive breed of dog (put aside for a moment the veracity of this claim), it's not so clear-cut.

Many municipalities around the country are debating bans on 'aggressive' breeds of dog. Dog owners, particularly owners of the breeds in question, find this to be absurd, despite the documented cases of injury caused by these breeds (which may, in fact, have no greater incidence rate than 'friendly' breeds).

I think my doggie analogy is more pertinent to the 'open carry' question. For what it's worth, I think open carry is a bad idea, for more reasons than I can count here. And I personally wouldn't want to assume the potential liability of a powerful dog maiming someone. But would I prohibit these behaviors? I think it's best to leave it to the discretion of the local authorities.

[jberryhill]

127. "it would depend on why you undertook that action"

Yes, that's the point.

As a general proposition, many acts are lawful or unlawful depending on intent.

Now, let's say that I claim "He was about to be run over by a bus".

Okay, that may or may not be a defense. But let's say that I did this on five other streetcorners that day.

Intent can often be inferred from relevant circumstances.

I have a dog, and live on a street with a lot of children. Most of the children like my dog, I know their parents, and when I take her out she loves the attention she gets from them as they come over and pet her and talk to her. There is one girl who is skittish about dogs, and she keeps her distance. Now, if I made a point of regularly charging at her with my dog, I believe it would be fair to say that I was intentionally meaning to cause alarm.

[Flatulo]

129. I can honestly say that I've never heard of walking a dog 'with intent'.

I think that as a practical matter, it's more difficult to prove intent than your example indicates. I see tough guys walking their pits on busy streets, with their wife-beater tee shirts and chrome plated chain leashes, just daring you to even look at them. They're projecting power through that dog. Yet they never get hassled by the police, unless and until the dog charges at or bites someone.

I'm not suggesting that people should be allowed to openly carry pistols, but like with the fearsome dogs, it's not clear to me exactly where the line is that would merit a strong response from law enforcement. I'm sure it depends in large part on the circumstances and venue, i.e, walking a trail in Wyoming versus attending a concert in downtown Boston. That's why I advocate letting local authorities make the call, consistent with local laws and culture.

Disclaimer: I'm not a pit-hater, and I know several sweet pits whom I trust completely.

[jberryhill]

130. "I'm sure it depends in large part on the circumstances and venue"

Which, again, is the point.

As I said above, intent is often inferred from circumstances.

But you can't draft a law that says "depending on the circumstances and venue".

What you can to is draft a law that says "with the intent to cause alarm".

Then, the "circumstances and venue" collapses down to what one might reasonably expect in those circumstances and that venue, and a jury can make a decision.

This is done with a LOT of laws.

[Flatulo]

131. How can the law determine the intent, other than after the fact?

Guy walks into a store or restaurant carrying openly in a jurisdiction where it's legal to do so; say Arizona.

Unless or until he brandishes or otherwise handles the weapon in a threatening or dangerous manner, is there legal cause for action from the authorities based on the fears of other clientele?

Put aside the question of taste and sense for the moment.

[jberryhill]

139. There can be

One of the problem with limiting hypotheticals when we are discussing "totality of the circumstances" situations, is that real life is much more factually rich than a single sentence.

"Intent" shows up all of the time in laws. In the area in which I work, it is a pivotal element of the type of cases which I regularly handle. I'm constantly asked, "Well how do they know intent if they can't read minds?"

In the situation you describe, I'd want to know a lot more about that guy. In real life, people aren't stick figures. Was he wearing a t-shirt that said "I like to kill people?" What did he say to people before he went to that restaurant? What did he say to anyone in the restaurant? What other aspects of his behavior and demeanor might suggest one thing or another? What kind of a restaurant is it? Was it the "Happy Vegan Peace & Love Cafe" or was it the "Dead End Rootin' Tootin' Roadhouse"?

In real life, it's not "a guy" and "a restaurant".

So, what do you think?

1. Are the customers at the "Happy Vegan Peace & Love Cafe" objectively more likely to be alarmed by someone carrying a gun than at the "Dead End Rootin' Tootin' Roadhouse"?

That's a simple objective question, and the character of the restaurant is one of a zillion facts on which we can begin to make inferences about intent. Was the guy doing it because he normally does it, and it is normal in that setting, or was he specifically doing it to piss people off?

What is odd here, is that you seem to agree that "it depends on the circumstances" is what matters. We both agree on that. However, one of the facts of our society is that criminal statutes can't just say "it depends on the circumstances", and that's where intent comes in.

And you hear this from lawyers all of the time - you ask them a question and they say "it depends", which can be weird when you consider that all of the statutes are written in plain black and white. But there is statutory language which, while definite, can boil down to the same thing.

So, let's take it a step further. The guy goes into the restaurant, and he notices that people look afraid. A waiter says, "Hey, could you take the gun out of here, it is scaring people."

And the guy says, "Fuck 'em, let 'em be scared then. I have my rights to carry a gun."

Well, you didn't know his intent when he walked in, but now you have some additional facts:

1. He knows people are scared, and
2. He intends to continue displaying his weapon.

At this point, the circumstances have changed from when he walked in. Maybe the guy has walked into ten different restaurants without a problem, and nobody was upset. But now he is in a different situation. Facts 1 and 2 add up to, yes, an intent to continue in a course of behavior which he knows is causing alarm. The offense - under our entirely hypothetical statute - starts then, not when he walked in.

That's very much the way we treat something as simple as trespassing. You'd like to hang out in my yard. But you don't know whether or not I would let you. Now, I never let people hang out in my yard, but you don't know that. So, you pull into my driveway, get out of the car, walk over to my door and say, "Hey, can I hang out in your yard."

I tell you, "No, and please leave and get your car out of my driveway."

Up to that point, you haven't begun to trespass on my property. However, AFTER that point, now that you KNOW I don't want you there or your car in my driveway, you still aren't trespassing.

You WILL be trespassing, however, if you don't reasonably proceed to get off of my porch, into your car, and get out of my driveway. You aren't even trespassing during the period of time that you are leaving, since you are trying to get off of my property.

But, instead, if you then proceed to hang out in my yard, your knowledge - objectively known from what I told you - changes things.

This is, incidentally, one of the reasons why we have juries. Whether someone possessed relevant intent is what we call a "question of fact", which a jury determines, and not a "question of law", which a court determines.

The legal question is "can you make it illegal to do something otherwise legal on the basis of a particular intent". The answer is "yes, we do that ALL OF THE TIME."

What remains in any particular case is for a jury to sort out, based on the totality of circumstances and inferences that can be made from them, whether a particular defendant, in a particular fact-rich environment, had the relevant intent.

So the simple answer to your question of "how does the law determine intent" is that the law does not determine intent. Juries determine intent.

[Flatulo]

153. Great explanation, John. Thanks for taking the time.

You've precisely answered the challenge that I was kind of trying to throw out there.

What it boils down to for me, is - don't be a dick. If you're taking pleasure in the discomfort of others, then you've got some issues to work through.

On edit: It's a bit amusing to me that we have so many lawyers to convince juries of intent, solely because so damn many people choose to be dicks. If people would just show a little common courtesy and sense, John might still be an engineer. In the case of this yahoo in the OP, strapped where children and their parents are present, it's inconceivable to me that he was unaware that he'd be regarded as a threat.

[jberryhill]

156. Lol

"If people would just show a little common courtesy and sense, John might still be an engineer."

Sounds like you know something about why I went in a different direction.

[yourmovemonkey]

162. jberryhill, that is one of the best responses I have ever read on this board.

Articulate, clear and informative. Thank you.

[Stryder]

140. Thank you

And Jberry too. That was an interesting, thought provoking discussion that I'm am glad to have read. All too often lately, debates on this subject devolve into poo slinging contests.
As for my 2 cents. I grew up pretty rural and learned to shoot around 10 years. Gun fire in my neighborhood is a near daily event that doesn't turn a head. Most of my gun owning friends are pretty NRAish. But I don't see any of them thinking open carry of a fire arm in a potentially victim heavy locale is a good idea. I understand they have the right. But people also have the right to feel fairly safe in their day to day doings. (Especially when their children are present.) So yes I'm getting splinters in my ass straddling this particular fence.

[Flatulo]

154. Jberryhill and I go back a few years. I've always been impressed with his wit and humor and

ironclad logic. Being trained as both an engineer and an attorney makes for a formidable package. Alas, I'm merely an engineer, but my son is studying law now, so there's no escaping it.

[kentuck]

135. But if you pick up the dog...

and start shooting bullets out of his ass until his nose gets so hot it burns your chest, then we would call that "intent"?

[Art_from_Ark]

168. Making verbal or written threats can sometimes be construed

as a "terroristic threat", which is defined as "a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/

[pediatricmedic]

87. Please be careful with this definition, any protest or movement could fall under terrorism charges

[kentuck]

107. No it couldn't.

Think.

[Flatulo]

118. Some peaceful protests get pretty angry, what with bullhorns and many people shouting slogans

and possibly even blocking traffic. If it's your contention that no one could ever be placed in fear in such circumstances, I would have to strongly disagree.

Personally, and I want to emphasize that I am speaking only for myself here, I would not be fearful of a holstered and secured weapon in plain sight. I can understand that others might be terrified, and I would not open carry even if it were legal in my state (it's not), but I grew up in a gun culture/neighborhood/household. Everyone had a .22 rifle by their eighteenth birthday, and got their CCW at the same time. Guns were not, and are not, a big deal for me.

Having said that, there are too many people who are carrying guns who've obtained them for some personal projection of power that I don't quite understand. I wish I knew a way to filter out these individuals. In my state, the local police chief has discretion over who may or may not carry a pistol, the idea being that the local cops have a pretty good idea of who the troublemakers are. It works very well for us, as we have among the lowest gun crime rates in the country.

[AgingAmerican]

56. Terrorism requires terrorizing people

Intimidation can also be terrorism and this is definitely intimidation.

[Tumbulu]

60. No it does not, just walking into a public place

with a weapon is terrorizing to large numbers of people, It should be made illegal, period. And these stunt people need jail time for these stunts. Or at least made to pay for the medical bills of those who have terrible reactions from this. Maybe people need to file civil suits against them until the laws are passed.

[Flatulo]

80. I'd be very interested in seeing how many people sought medical attention after this stunt.

[Flatulo]

93. Should the same rules you propose apply to people who walk through busy streets with

intimidating dogs? I'm scared to death of pit bulls. They give me nightmares. Many people are injured by them each year.

[Niceguy1]

126. injured and killed.

[Tumbulu]

160. There are rules about these dogs in most cities

and they must be on a leash. And people are charged with crimes when they hurt or bite people. I really don't know what you are trying to say here, but entire schools get put on lockdown in our town, when kids go by a school with even BB guns. It is not a joke and it causes terrible suffering and anxiety, and many people go into panic attacks. I also think that some other gun people might feel the need to be "brave" and shoot these people thinking they are saving others.

The whole thing is insane.

[Flatulo]

173. I think a large part of the 'terrible suffering and anxiety' that the presence of a BB gun causes is

due to the ridiculous over-reaction of the authorities. A SWAT team and a full evacuation is a hell of a lot scarier than a BB gun.

Sometimes the adults in this world act like idiots. There was an incident over a 7 y/o boy eating a pop tart in the shape of an 'L'. There have been a few incidents where the authorities were summoned over a kid drawing something that may have looked like a gun. On a piece of paper. That's just insane.

The adults need to be able to differentiate a real threat from a nothing. If they can't, then we need to replace them with smarter adults.

On edit: In case you didn't read my other posts in this thread, I do not think its OK to openly carry a firearm anywhere, most especially onto school grounds. I brought up the issue of aggressive dogs because they, too cause a lot of injuries and deaths, even when leashed. Have you ever tried to resist the force of a strong dog pulling on the leash? Unless you're a bodybuilder, any dog over 60 lbs or so can surprise you and drag you anywhere he wants to go. We can't completely eliminate risk from our lives, so we try to manage it as best as we can. Part of that management strategy includes prohibiting the presence of firearms on school property (a policy that has been violated in exactly 100% of school shootings, I would point out), so it seems to me that the policy doesn't in fact prevent any violence, but instead merely prevents panic.

[Flatulo]

174. By the way, can you provide me with links to the news of the lockdowns your town has endured

over the threat from BB guns? Assuming they made the news? I'd like to understand the circumstances.

Thanks.

[Tumbulu]

189. No links, just calls from the Superintendent

Explaining why the schools are on lockdown. It happened twice last year at my daughter's elementary school. My goodness the poor teaches and staff....I sent them flowers, my heart just goes out to the educational community. The city police freak out too. Really disturbing to me that ANYONE would fool around about any weapons near any schools. Teachers and staff really are traumatized by these past events. Parents are as well.

Maybe it made the papers, but I just delete the messages and shake and pray for all the people for whom this creates PTSD reactions.

It really saddens me that people can be so cruel. And is just more evidence that all of these sorts of weapons need to be made illegal. I am not for ANY gun rights, to me it is preposterous. There is no place for firearms in a civilized society. Which is what I hope that we are evolving towards.

[Flatulo]

192. I'm truly sorry that these events have caused you and your community so much anxiety.

The reality is that gun violence is at an all-time low, but the randomness and magnitude of the recent mass killings are truly disturbing. The Newtown massacre put me into a deep depression for over a month. Most sane people would find the presence of a gunman in their midst disturbing.

But the whole BB gun thing seems a bit over the top for me. Yes, they can be dangerous and can cause injury, but it's extremely rare for someone to be accidently killed by one. I can guarantee you that many, many more kids are injured and killed while playing school sports. And I think it serves no useful purpose to put an entire school, staff and students and parents, into an absolute panic over what is a mostly harmless device.

I think if the teaching staff were to get a small amount of training with the goal of being to tell a real firearm from a toy, it would go a long way towards reducing these false alarms that cause unneeded trauma in the arrival of armoured SWAT units with real assault rifles.

It simply defies common sense for teaching staff to alert the authorities over incidents like children drawing stick figures of guns, or eating a pastry into the shape of one. And a kid walking by the school with a BB gun, which is not even considered a firearm, on his way to the woods to plink, is absolutely no danger to anyone. To cause an all-out panic over it with armed response and frightened children and does far more harm.

[Tumbulu]

193. I have no idea why

they thought the bb guns were real guns (when they had the lockdown, they thought they were real guns and later found them to be bb's), but a kid (a nephew of a man who sometimes who care takes my animals when I am gone) out at my farm was walking around with what I thought was a rifle. He explained that it was a bb rifle. It looked like a real rifle to me from far away. But what do I know? I bought a sniper paintball rifle to scare coyotes away, and it looks like a real rifle to me, again, for people not familiar with firearms, they all look alike. I am clearly one of these people, and am clearly not alone.

In the case of the school, it was not the school personnel, but neighbors seeing these guys walking toward the school who called the police (at least this is what I heard from another parent). I think that the schools must have adopted the better safe than sorry system of any police calls in the area with possible firearms begins the lockdown process. I don't know, just my guess.

Thanks for the sympathy. I send you mine. The trouble is when we are fearful, it is easy to overreact.

[Flatulo]

194. Ah, thanks for the clarification. I'm of the opinion that if our 24/7 blood and guts news media

didn't go into overdrive so much, there might be less temptation for other sick individuals to try to beat the current high score. Because as sick as it sounds, that's what it seems like to me. These mass shooters want nothing more than notoriety, and we happily oblige them.

I certainly don't know what the answer to these mass killings are, but after Newtown, I changed my position on gun control and now feel that these high capacity ammo clips are just too dangerous for civilian use. They need to not only go out of production, but all the ones out there need to be collected.

Good chatting with you.

[Tumbulu]

198. Yes, I agree with you that the feeding frenzy

Of the media somehow seems to glorifies it all, in a sad/ sick way.

Nice chatting with you as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

170. Two points

Terrorism does not need violence.

The goal is to change how people live.

Both have been met, so far. And since it is political in nature it even meets the federal definition, alas, thankfully, no violence yet.

[Bandit]

175. So you think shoving a gun in your face is not a direct threat of violence.

When I go out to do my shopping I do not expect to encounter anyone carrying a gun and if I do encounter such a person I immediately question their motives and since I know of none that wouldn't cause me concern I would then start to believe I was being terrorized.. I do not want to fear for my life just because I want to go shopping. That is a terrifiing thought.

[NutmegYankee]

178. Now I'm getting tired of the unhinged responses.

Someone with a gun holstered on their hip is not "shoving a gun in your face". Actually doing that (pointing gun in face) would be a direct threat, and is called brandishing. They are not brandishing the gun if the jurisdiction allows open carry. Now I think open carry is stupid and unnecessary. But the ridiculous responses with over the top emotion actually hurts our side. If we just made the case that open carry causes alarm for many people and shouldn't be allowed outside of hunting and so on, that would be a perfectly reasonable approach. And one I support. Calling these idiots terrorists as if they were members of al Qaeda just makes the general population discount the argument and think we are the nuts.

[Tumbulu]

191. If you think that the general population has not been

Traumatized and terrorized by these mass shootings, you are mistaken. We are all effected by these terrible events. Some more than others.

Yes, it is an act of terror to walk around in public places with a firearm visible. At least to me it is and clearly I am not alone.

[lastlib]

37. and Penile Inadequacy Compensation.

[Tippy]

47. Your right on about this.

[Tumbulu]

62. Yes, but not really a good masquerade

sickening, really.

[Warpy]

177. That's exactly what it is, these swaggering lunatics spoiling for a fight

and no one has any way of knowing which are the strutting peacocks and which are the men who have already snapped and are about to open fire.

I know I will flee any area where any gunny with a bug up his ass and a gun slung on his body goes. Eventually merchants will get sick of the loss in business and when merchants complain, the government finally listens.

[BlueJazz]

90. I (almost) wish that all gun nuts would do the "Open carry in stores and public places thing"...

...all the time.
After about a week or two of 90% of the public scared to death to even go down to Sears, shit would start hitting the fan.

I could just hear it now:

Sears and/or any Large consumer store: I understand Senator but also understand this, our sales have dropped 47 percent because people are afraid to go anywhere....and keep this in mind. Our fat campaign checks can always go to your opponent.
Maybe HE/SHE can get this shit straightened out.

Actually...we should get even the Gun Control people in on this! Let's carry guns around ALL the time. I'd do it in a heartbeat. Make yourself so obnoxious that people would DREAD to see a Gun Nut in public. I'd love to see the Gun Nuts start shitting themselves because they would know their little "Show my Dick" thing is coming to an end.

[davidpdx]

165. You may get your wish on that one

I think this is only going to get worse. The gun nuts have been frothing at the mouth to get an opportunity to be seen in public with their guns AND tape them and put them on Youtube. I don't think it will come to an end though. The gun lobby will pull a "over my dead body" type campaign at any attempt to repeal open carry laws as a 2nd amendment violation. Granted you and I know this is bullshit, but they will justify it as they will with their limited brain capacity.

Awhile back I had a conversation with someone and the person (I don't remember who) pointed out that in a situation where someone is open carrying a firearm could come across someone with PTSD and it could end up causing a confrontation. With all the vets coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan it's possible. Hell it could be someone who was a victim of a shooting, especially given how common they are these days.

[G_j]

5. Anyone who would do that

scares the hell out of me.

[rdharma]

6. It's "ass hattery" in the first degree! n/t

[warrior1]

7. I would call the police

let them sort it out with the gun nut

[rdharma]

24. Calling the police is the best solution.

ANY TIME you see some nut carrying openly in an inappropriate public area!

[hlthe2b]

8. It is public intimidation, pure and simple...

and yes, these flagrant assholes ARE brandishing. Perhaps the ridiculous "stand your ground" laws will actually defeat some of this, when someone carrying concealed, feels threatened enough to take one of these AR15-slinging cretins out. The perfect irony...

[elehhhhna]

9. there is a reason we aren't seeing this in TX

If any of my excop neighbors, who I know are always packing, saw someone headed for a school or mall with a long gun, they would detain them, by force if necessary, and disarm them while waiting for leos to show up. Grat footage of a pisspantsed 2A idiot would then flood the news.

[Ohio Joe]

50. ummm... It is happening in Texas

http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/open-carry-group-carries-rifles-downtown

These fools are pretty much everywhere now.

[pasto76]

81. if they were ex cops they know they would be breaking the law themselves

said idiot with 'long gun' would have a very viable and winnable lawsuit.

'by force is necessary' just adds assault to unlawful restraint.

[elehhhhna]

128. yeah? shit is different around here.

[tblue37]

10. Here in the US we always end up ceding control of public space

to the loudest, most obnoxious, most uncivil and most threatening actors. Civil people tend to retreat to private space, because any attempt to claim public space for the community as a whole to enjoy in peace and with a reasonable sense of safety is interpreted as an assault on individual rights, as though no rights are available to be enjoyed by anyone too polite or nonthreatening to take them aggressively, and even by force.

[kentuck]

12. Most of all, it is just stupid.

How would people know if it was a real nut with a gun?

[Baitball Blogger]

14. It is the stupid policy yet.

We have laws that do not allow people to wear masks in certain places. Why would we allow them to walk around in places where there are children?

I hate to say it, but we are such slow learners that it will take incidents where people say, "Yes, officer, we saw him walk in with the assault rifle, but how could we tell he was going to blast the place up?", before we realize how stupid this policy is.

[Snarkoleptic]

15. I believe the video linked below is a major underlying cause of such "displays".

It' s a link to a Funny or Die clip that starts off slowly, but is well worth the watch.

www.smallpenisgunclub.com

clickable link...

[rrneck]

16. They always seem to make these "statements"

at ball games and shopping malls and parks. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it at Wall Street.

Hmmmmm.

[SunSeeker]

67. Good point. Nor in a bank, LOL. nt

[Glassunion]

99. Well... Open carry is illegal at Wall St.

[rrneck]

109. Yep.

The more conspiratorial minded could make something of that.

[Bandit]

176. Or a bank or airport.....

They are smart enough to KNOW their guns cause concern and in certain places could get them in serious trouble, so they pick on the places where people are most vulnerable.

[DLevine]

17. It's absolutely insane. nt

[libdem4life]

18. After all the school shootings, if I were a parent and some nutjob came on to a Public Field

with a gun, which is in itself an aggressive act, I would talk to the coach and the other parents and I'm pretty sure most of them would do what I would do...take my child and walk off the field.

These exhibitionists are already mental cases. Short trip to someone pissing them off and ... Pow. Public or private...home, school or public...children and guns are just No. Noway. Nohow.

Sadly, it's another safety conversation parents have to have with their kids. They must be vigilant, because our society sure as hell isn't.

[hack89]

20. Outlaw open carry and mandate concealed carry.

best solution.

[Hoyt]

52. Better solution -- outlaw both.

[hack89]

57. Too late for that.

will never happen.

[Hoyt]

65. Could if people who worship gunz actually started acting responsibly.

I agree there are a lot of yahoos out there who can't venture out of their house without a gun, but there were 10 times that many who smoked everywhere at one time.

At some point, we'll tire of yahoos packing among us; the Zimmerman types; gun toters shooting each other; toting bigots; intimidators; paranoid people toting; etc.

[hack89]

68. That's nice

please keep us updated.

[Hoyt]

72. OK. Please let us know when you and your buddies act responsibly and leave your gunz at home.

[hack89]

76. You will be the first to know. Pinkie promise. nt

[ananda]

21. Reverting to Deadwood.

There really is no good ending until the penchant
for guns and violence stops.

[99Forever]

22. The term antisocial applies to..

... these jerks and all other gun-humping psychos. They are unfit to be part of civilized society.

Fuck the NRA.

[etherealtruth]

23. They are clearly self indulgent imbeciles (until they cross "that line" and become psychos)

...but, there may well be an upside to this idiocy. It is really angering people.

Folk are not becoming dulled by this, they are not becoming desensitized ... they are becoming angry.

Every time a sports field is cleared ... every time a school is locked down ... every time patrons leave a commercial business citing a gun carrying yahoo ... every call to police about some jack ass strutting around with a gun ... every disruption of a civil society ... people are sending a message that THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

If social stigmas associated with this idiotic (and potentially dangerous) exercise don't work ... laws will be enacted (of this I am sure).
Allowing an idiotic (potentially deranged) few disrupt civil society, institutions and commerce will not be tolerated for long.

As I typically post at the end of my responses on this topic ... why do these idiots choose safe largely suburban low crime areas to pull these stunts/ If they truly wanted to make a larger point about :guns" and the public safety and their personal rights ... wouldn't the point be better made in high crime areas within Detroit, Chicago, DC (or any other high crime/ "unsafe" area)?

The only point made in these very safe low crime areas is that you are an ass trying to intimidate people.

[samsingh]

26. you're completely right

there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says people should bring guns to public places.

people can have their arms, but nothing is stated about where they can be taken or even whether they should be loaded.

[madrchsod]

27. remember kentuck.......

"...happiness is a warm gun..."

[Electric Monk]

141. ...

[kentuck]

157. Yep!

[kentuck]

28. The right to swing your fist...

stops at the end of my nose.

[libdem4life]

85. Another version...my Dad's saying: Your freedom ends where my nose begins

[world wide wally]

30. We all need to start making public comments (loudly enough for them to hear)

about the diminuitive size of their penises.

Disclaimer: Most of them probably won't shoot you in front of witnesses for that. (Hopefully)

[The Straight Story]

31. I simply cannot agree with all of that

Yeah, some people open carry like that to be dicks.

Others, as I have noted before, are on the way to or back from hunting or even buying a gun and stop off at the store.

Leave the gun in the car - du folks yell because it could be stolen and used and crime and such people should be punished for leaving the gun alone in a car on a hot day.

Take it in with you, you are trying to intimidate people and scare them, you become like some boogeyman from a horror movie.

Let's face it - some people have a hate and bias against anyone who owns a gun and no matter how they use it they are seen as complicit in crimes they did not commit.

I don't fret over someone open carrying because if they were planning on shooting up the place they would have a) already started or b) hidden the gun on the way in (whether they had a conceal carry or not, people intent on breaking one law have no problem with the other).

Now, we could just make ccw legal without classes and permits (have seen some folk say if they don't see the gun they are not afraid of people, so if we hide things it will make people feel safer).

So far I have not seen these open carry advocates shooting up places - maybe the message some are trying to send is "Hey, we are not all wild killers like the stereotype of us people pimp." and, like other groups, they want to be seen as normal citizens like the rest of us but who also own guns (lord knows we press the bias here of anyone owning a gun, damned shame on a liberal board we have not learned that such blatant bias and peddling of hate/fear against a group is wrong).

[GeorgeGist]

46. I hope it backfires ...

Otherwise the terrorists won't have to rent space in the mall.

[EX500rider]

101. I agree seems like a tempest in a teapot to me...

.....or anyone else who has lived in a long time open carry state like Az. (which i did in the '80's)
After the 1st few times you see a .45 on some ones hip it's no big deal.

And why should it be, you trust strangers everyday not to run you over in their 4,000lbs "killing machines" while walking through a parking lot or on a sidewalk, or stray the 2 feet over into your oncoming lane with a closing speed of over 100mph...

[The Straight Story]

113. Indeed, it should not be, but some peddle fear on this topic

The person they trust to drive/fly/etc they don't with something else.

Do we do background checks on people who drive? For school buses they do in Ohio, but Ariel castro was clean at the time of his check.

It seems now so many of us liberals of late want to add marks of shame to people - smoke? Shamed. Own a gun? Shamed and we tell others to fear you. Eat fast food, etc? Shamed. And to fix it all we want to be able to tell others how to live their life.

Now I am sure some will jump up and down and yell "Well, look at that one guy who did this, or that one who did that!" and those few still add up to less than 1% of the group. And I agree, let's point out those who commit crimes and harm others - convict them, examine why they have done what they have done.

But let's not peddle fear or be merchants of hate against people that are not like us. It is like when the right points out a few people who take advantage of welfare/etc and jump around shouting that we need to destroy the whole system because of the few. We find such things silly and wrong. But it appears we only think that way on certain topics, and embrace the whole method when it suits us.

[Gormy Cuss]

115. The message they're trying to send seems to be "2nd amendment rights. Get over it."

If the message were that open carry advocates are normal people, it's failing. Badly. The majority of Americans don't own guns, don't see the need to parade around in shopping areas with guns nor do they think it's normal for others to do so. An open display of a gun by a civilian, outside of venues where weapons are expected like a sporting goods store, firing range, or hunting area, is considered aberrant behavior by a great many Americans.

[truebluegreen]

124. Did you forget the sarcasm thingie?

"Leave the gun in the car - du folks yell because it could be stolen and used and crime and such people should be punished for leaving the gun alone in a car on a hot day."

'Cause I don't ever remember DU folks being that silly.

[kentuck]

125. :-)__~~%

[Logical]

32. Then could easily ban Open Carry and still not infringe on any gun rights. n-t

[hack89]

44. With concealed carry there is no need for OC.

all the states have concealed carry now.

[lpbk2713]

35. I've felt for some time that the other side has a never-ending contest going.

... to see who can out stupid whom.

Seems like every day there's a new contender for first place.

[PsychGrad]

134. Truth.

True. And true gun owners, those who are responsible and really do hunt for food with their guns and aren't trying to make up for some sort of Napoleon complex or small penis issue - do NOT carry their guns and wave them around at inappropriate places. It's like my mom used to say "honest people don't have to tell you they are honest - if someone is insisting that they are honest, don't believe them". Same for gun owners - my StepDad being one who taught me how to use a gun when I was still in the single digits of age. We had gun cases in our car because we hunted for our food (never went hungry in his house!) - but we didn't spend all of our time talking about guns, fantasizing about guns - they were tools for our survival - just like anything else we owned or knew about. We didn't tote them around (and yes, we had hand guns too for protection as our home was out in the middle of the woods) and insist that others look at them - and fawn over us and how cool we are.

The only gun humpers I know are short, fat, have small penises (so I hear from women who have been with them, ew), inferiority complexes, and do nothing but brag about how many they own, how powerful the ones that they own are - always carrying them around in their trunk, showing them off - wanting attention for them, wanting others to be impressed by them. It's so gross.

[Turbineguy]

36. One thing people understand, even republicans

who don't give a shit how many people get shot, is their wallets.

[madinmaryland]

39. There is no difference between these douchebags and the ones who go around flashing their genitals.

[KT2000]

43. my thought exactly n/t

[lpbk2713]

51. It's just a substitute allowed by the law.

And they get as much mileage out of it as they can.

[AlbertCat]

148. ones who go around flashing their genitals.

Except genitals are not weapons.

And you could hardly go anywhere without them, concealed or not.


Pretty stupid comparison.


But you are right in the exhibition and attention grabbing notions. Still I doubt sexual exhibitionists want you to be afraid. Shocked, more like.

[GeorgeGist]

41. Hopefully it will backfire.

[LiberalEsto]

42. Some people also want to go into public places and flash at people

I suspect it's the same kind of exhibitionist mentality

[pasto76]

84. i disagree

the only reason to brandish a weapon is to cause fear or to intimidate.

maybe all flashers want people to be scared(?) my money is on the shocked reaction.

I used to reprimand soldiers when we were in iraq for pointing their weapons unduly. yeah sure that person approaching but is still 100m away _could_ be wearing a bomb vest, but in the meantime you are sweeping the heads of a lot of people. The message they sent when they did that was 'we're about to open fire and lay waste to anyone unlucky enough to get caught in it'

[billh58]

48. Because

Second Amendment

My Rights

Freedom

NRA

[KG]

53. !

[AgingAmerican]

54. It's all about intimidation

As a tool for advocating guns, it's horrible and turns people off of guns.

[mountain grammy]

58. Every nut carrying in public is a "bad guy with a gun" in my opinion.

[Ohio Joe]

61. These fools are everywhere... We have people here on DU that support this non-sense

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172132686

I am certain everyone is shocked.

[Solly Mack]

63. K&R

I think it a very bad idea.

[gopiscrap]

66. I agree

[Robb]

69. I get it. You'd have to be crazy to carry a gun around, and sane if you didn't.

Of course if you're sane, you're clear to get the gun you'd be crazy to carry, but if you get one to carry around you shouldn't have the gun because you're crazy.

I'm pretty sure I read this book.

[krispos42]

70. Then outlaw open carry, and make concealed-carry permits...

fast and cheap to get. I'm not necessarily saying easy to get, but for God's sake, hundreds of dollars in fees and months of waiting for paperwork to get processed is quite unreasonable. As is "may carry" issuance policies.

[rdharma]

86. It's too easy to get a concealed carry permit already......

Last edited Sat Sep 28, 2013, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Too many unqualified nut jobs are slipping through the hodgepodge of the current concealed weapons permit processes.

I would like to see all concealed carry permits go through a uniform and thorough Federal check similar to the vetting background check needed to obtain an NFA weapon.

[krispos42]

103. It's state-by-state...

...so Federal uniformity is unlikely. You know that Mayor Bloomberg and Mayor Daley will absolutely FREAK OUT if they are forced to give permits to anybody that qualifies for one, anyway. God forbid. And reciprocity between other states? They'd stroke out in seconds.

I would suggest that, instead of tilting away at getting laws passed that, even if put into effect, won't save a single life, you instead work on getting concealed-carry permits with reasonable standards. Some states have fairly lax standards; when I got my South Dakota permit a decade ago, the process was such that I could have used a vending machine to get it.


Of course, that really won't help much either; despite the moral panic about people legally carrying guns in public (concealed or open; cue the "what about the children" line), it's not the legal carriers one needs to worry about.


The "nut jobs" are not the ones piling up bodies on the public streets of Chicago or DC or LA or NY or Miami or Phoenix or Philly or Boston or Houston or Dallas or St. Louis.

That would career criminals illegally carrying illegally obtained guns.




Really, it's about cultural war. Every hour, somebody is murdered with a gun in this country, and that gives one more thump to the war-drum of people that want them gone from society as much as possible. This makes gun-owners feel under constant attack, and thus makes them defensive. Which then makes the gun-control side point and say "Look! Look at how obsessed they are with guns!"

The pro-control advocates are just as much obsessed with guns as the pro-gun advocates, in the same way that the anti-gay haters have same-gender sex on the brain as much as gays do.

[rdharma]

106. Should be handled at the Federal level.

The hodgepodge of various laws from state to state are a contributing factor in the system's ineffectiveness.

A form of registration should be implemented. You buy the gun.... you have to register it. It shows up in a crime because you were a stray purchaser..... you go to jail. Simple as that.

And universal background checks for ALL firearms transfers. No "gifting" or "inheritance" exceptions. Remember..... Mrs. Lanza was going to buy her mass murderer son a handgun for Christmas.

[krispos42]

114. Registration won't fly

You see how upset people are about the NSA? Even though nobody can point to anybody actually arrested or jailed or harassed or assassinated by the information the NSA collected?

Yeah, and now you want gun owners to trust the ATF?

I posted a universal background check/anti-trafficking idea in the Gungeon; take a look.


Still, again, CCW permittees are not making the streets run red with blood. Focusing on this distracts from useful things that can be done.

[rdharma]

120. Registration will pass sooner or later.

Folks with common sense no longer believe the paranoid ideas that the NRA is selling about black helicopters and "Obama coming to get your guns".

Of course the UN "Blue Helmets" might, eh?

The comment above was just my little poke at those who feared the recent signing by the US of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.

[Robb]

144. I'll make you a deal.

I'll help you outlaw open carry, you help us get meaningful background check legislation passed.

[cynzke]

71. Look What Happened

in that park in Chicago last week where innocent bystanders got shot while two rival gangs got into a shoot out. What can we expect when some gun toting yahoo interjects himself into the "good guy with a gun vs. a bad guy with a gun scenario. Some of these nuts are just itching to show what big hero/tough guys they are. Because, I think this is exactly what these nuts are hoping for....alla Robert DeNiro cab driver vs. the punks.

[DonP]

180. Try actual facts for some credibility

There weren't "two rival gangs" in the Chicago park shootings. My brother in law is a senior Chicago Cop and was part of the investigation, one car with 4 guys from a gang, and two of them shot up the park.

Nobody shot back, good or bad guy, perhaps you could find another crime where the good guys shot back and wounded an innocent bystander? Besides there are no "good guys" with guns in Chicago, remember we have that gun ban thing going on until next year.

With over 12 million concealed carriers out there it must happen almost every day, every week, once a month, right?

Or just go ahead and make shit up that sounds scary anyway.

[Chuuku Davis]

74. Just one small correction

There have not been automatic weapons in Starbucks
Semiautomatic is the correct term
And I don't like it either
Open carry is stupid

[rdharma]

88. Don't you just hate it when folks use improper gun terminology!

You think they should know better. Right?

[heaven05]

77. Wild West mentality

never left. Now it's back with a vengeance. Good luck americans, wherever you may reside. Only stupid, afraid people(adults ) have this need to show their private parts in public.

[Humanist_Activist]

96. Actually, in the "Wild" West, you had to leave your guns at home if you wanted to go to town...

they outright banned guns in many places.

Even they weren't as stupid as people seem to be today about guns.

[heaven05]

146. I wholeheartedly agree with the stupid analysis.

Can't seem to shake it since a man called Reagan started the RW insanity project based on racism, ignorance and downright backwardness. Culminating with some Amurikkkans worst nightmare, a man of color in the white house. Oh god, it gave them the excuse they needed to act like total fools since 2008. Remember first inaugural they promised obstruction as long as BO was in office only because he was a man of color in the white house. This country has, with this gun rights bullshit, shown it's true fear of the man of color in the white house. And while in some places what you say was true about the gun toting 'old west', it's not based on the stories handed down in my family from those days of lore. Violence, bloodshed, racism and ignorance marked that time. Just the modern stupid is fresher in minds of today. Historical stupid has always been the rule instead of the exception.

[kentuck]

78. You can't fix stupid.

And this is stupid squared.

[Hekate]

82. The GOP: Soft on domestic terrorism -- of which this is an example.

[mbperrin]

83. I do not spend my money in any place that welcomes folks with guns.

I let them know on my way out and never return.

[rdharma]

89. That's the way to do it!

[kentuck]

110. Ask the business owner if he allows guns in his business?

If he does, stick up a notice outside his store so others will know? Do you think his business would drop off or improve??

[mbperrin]

116. I don't ask - I leave when I see a gun. Happens fairly frequently out here in

Tea-land.

I'm sure, based on the reaction to a man carrying an AK-47 across his back into Target here (the store emptied in minutes and the police came) that business would drop off.

After all, I go to the movies to see a movie, not a gun.
I go to restaurants to eat, not to sit with guns.
And so on. They are an impediment to what I'm trying to do.

The same would go if someone had a dozen screaming children running around under control. (True story-6 kids running and screaming in a nice restaurant, I finally left after one of the kids actually reached up into my plate and scooped mashed potatoes off my plate.) I didn't pay, and I have never gone back.

I work for my money, and I want value, not a lot of annoyance.

[Flatulo]

181. Are there actually establishments that post 'Guns Welcome' or some such? I've only heard

of gun prohibitions being posted.

[mbperrin]

182. Haven't see any signs. But I have seen people with open carry guns

at Target and at a local restaurant. I won't go either place anymore.

[Flatulo]

183. Wow. What state are you in? We don't have open carry in Massachusetts.

[mbperrin]

186. We don't have it here in Texas, either.

But it still happens, and apparently, about half the time law enforcement will show up to do something about it.

[Flatulo]

190. Yikes, that takes some chutzpah to walk around openly strapped illegally.

I'd be afraid of getting shot by some CCW who might overreact.

[mbperrin]

196. There DO seem to be plenty of people with no imagination

walking around, all right.

[spanone]

91. agreed.

[Throd]

94. I support the 2nd amendment, but there is just something wrong with the open carry people.

They know it makes the majority of people very uncomfortable and it gives them some type of thrill to do so.

They aren't helping their cause.

[cyberswede]

123. Hmm

Do you have data to support this statement?

Outside of a city, it is common and most people don't give it a second thought

I don't live in a city, and I assure you people around here would be very weirded out by others walking around armed.

[kiva]

95. I wish - knowing that it will never happen -

that when people show up with guns, everyone else would just leave. Leave the ballpark, leave the mall, leave the department store, leave the coffee shop. Deprive these idiots of their audience.

[Taitertots]

98. If anything, the precedent is that people carrying guns hasn't lead to increasing crime

[SecularMotion]

100. The precedent being set is public rejection of open carry.

That's not a terrible result of these stunts.

[Glassunion]

102. There is a time and place for open carry. Most of these

idiots are making a statement.

Open carrying a shotgun at a soccer game = dickhead.
Open carrying an AR at the mall = super dickhead.
Open carrying pistols in a group at Starbucks = gaggle of asshats

Open carry a rifle on Main Street in Jackson WY during elk season = going hunting

There is a difference. There is a time and place.

[DirkGently]

105. "Open carry for all" is a marketing campaign turned into religious zealotry.

I saw T-shirt once, in a TSA security line no less, that said something like "An armed man is a CITIZEN. An unarmed man is a SUBJECT."

What a profound fantasy that is. That someone having a pistol or a rifle is the difference between an empowered "citizen" and a subservient "subject." Not the vote. Not equal rights. Not public activism. FIREPOWER.

It's utter bullshit, of course. But it's a powerful fantasy for the disempowered. Don't have money? Don't have influence? Don't have options? Well, at least you can imagine that you can, as an individual, hold off government overreach with a bullet.

It's a marketing ploy. Even if you're a hunter, even if you want to defend against home invasions, you only need so many guns and so many "gun rights."

But if you're defending the homeland from tyranny -- my gosh -- how can you ever have enough? Enough magazines, enough bullets, enough dickish T-shirts?

And it's worked. There are now people who fervently believe that not just the right to own weapons, but the right to be prepared to kill anyone, anywhere, any time, is intrinsic to their core philosophy of personal freedom. If you can't walk around a school or a park holding a weapon capable of killing 10 or 20 people in a few seconds, you might as well live in North Nazi Russia, amirite?

So the true believers now want to "normalize" the idea they're going to walk around with long guns on their backs, prepared to unleash their idea of freedom on a moment's notice. They make sure to be clear, too, that they have some special ideas about what "self-defense" means while they're at it. Their discomfort might mean your death. Better not get too testy if they want to stop you and demand to know why you're walking around their neighborhood at night -- "Get used to it, buddy!"

No one's going to get used to AR-15s in the shopping mall, guys. Not going to happen. Maybe we'll need another tragedy to underline the point. A misunderstanding over an undercooked S'barro pizza that leaves the food court drenched in blood. Bad timing between two estranged Milita Groups both trying to enjoy an art festival and the Second Amendment at the same time.

Or maybe a quick re-think when the Muslim Gun Rights Initiative or the Armed Latinos for Immigration Reform start strolling around equally strapped under the same premise?

We may find the "guns for everyone, all the time, because freedom." isn't really an honest sentiment after all.

Nobody thinks that.

[Buns_of_Fire]

108. And that's part of it, right there -- to try to get everyone used to it. nt

[PsychGrad]

136. Stupid.

This is one of those things that always makes me lol. That there are really people who believe that they are going to be able to hold the govt off with their little semi automatic 22 rifle. I mean, have they seen the bomber jets? Those things are badass, fast as shit, and will have you dead before you and all your buddies shoot some tiny ass 22 bullets up at it! Or, what about drones? Or tanks? It's like seeing the Natives throwing arrows or sticks at machinery - it really is that ineffective. Here is the truth - our govt is so powerful that if they want you dead? You will be dead, period. Even if we had an uprising - we would not win. This isn't 1776 - it's not muskets against muskets. We don't own the same type of stuff that the govt has, and even if some of us do, it's not enough, nor will it ever be. That doesn't bother me in the least - I like our govt powerful personally. But, I'm under no delusion that if they wanted me dead and gone that I have any chance of defending myself with an AR15 or a Glock... seriously, lol.

[kentuck]

137. Whaddya mean?!

"tiny ass 22 bullets" ??

[Doctor_J]

111. Just another symptom of our 3rd world status

it goes together with the environmental destruction, income disparity, unpunished corporate crime, and so on. You expect to see these sorts of things in banana republics, and now we are one.

[mbperrin]

117. Well said.

Thank you.

[Pakid]

132. What happens when one nut job with a gun out showing of

runs into another nut job out playing with his little toy and he thinks the other nut job is there to kill people so he pulls out his little toy and shoots him ? With luck we have one less nut in the gene pool and no one else get hurt!!

[Egalitarian Thug]

151. K&R&Trashing. You're right. I'll get interested when someone propose something effective.

Good luck.

[otohara]

155. I Would Not Recommend Visiting The US

today I was getting a massage and the gun thing came up...well my masseuse said, if it's your time to go, it's your time.

WHAT THE FUCK - only in this so called civilized country would someone say that death by gun is just part of living. Not in Japan or Australia is it.

[MichiganVote]

159. Couldn't agrees more.

[lunasun]

161. Total scary, unstable freakazoids IMO

No way to mingle with people or make friends !

[Kablooie]

163. Your title confused me for a moment.

I thought it said:

A terrible president is being set with guns in public places...

[davidpdx]

166. It is a terrible precedent

and I don't see it getting any better, in fact I would guess is will get worse. The gun humpers are going to get more and more aggressive with open carry and any attempt to stop someone from doing so. I haven't been the US in a little over 2 years and I plan on going back next year with my wife. Here in Korea the only types of people that have guns are police and military and I'm just fine with that.

[B Calm]

167. NRA = Nuts

[valerief]

169. If only the law allowed them to walk around with their dicks hanging out, they wouldn't feel

the need to walk around with their guns hanging out.

[RoccoR5955]

171. They only do it

because they can't go out in public and show off their micro-penis.

[mantis49]

172. The best word I can come up with to describe this trend is...

barbaric. We are going backwards.

[Vashta Nerada]

179. If I saw an idiot walking around with an AR-15 slung over his/her shoulder, I would not hesitate to

call the cops.

Seeing that would make me feel intimidated and threatened and it would make me fear for my safety in public.

[GreenStormCloud]

184. Where has someone brought a machine gun to Starbucks? N/T

[mbperrin]

187. Here's a large pistol strapped to the chest of a man in black.

http://www.cbs7.com/news/details.asp?ID=41296

Midland Man Arrested For Carrying Gun in HEB 1/29/13

Felicia Bolton
[email protected]
CBS 7 News Reporter
January 29, 2013

MIDLAND, TX – On Monday afternoon, many HEB shoppers feared for their lives when 28-year-old Michael Tyson entered the grocery store with his gun exposed on his chest holster.

"It caused a lot of alarm with all the shooting with we had nationally,” said Midland Police Sgt. Richard Faulkenberry.
Several shoppers and an off duty officer responded by calling 911 in fear of a possible shooting.
Sergeant Richard Faulkenberry acted quickly to contain the situation.

"The man was all dressed in black…[He had] a black motorcycle vest on that was open and he had a shoulder holster underneath the vest with his big semi automatic pistol hanging ... dangling out," said Faulkenberry.
Tyson did have a concealed handgun license but police say he still broke the law when the weapon was displayed openly in public. Now he's charged with unlawful carry of a weapon.

" There's really no big secret…. it can't be exposed in the public," stated Faulkenberry.

[GreenStormCloud]

188. Large pistol is NOT a machine gun.

The OP claimed that someone brought a machinegun into Starbucks, so I am asking where it happened, and when.

[mbperrin]

195. I'm not the OP, don't know about the other, but a large pistol is not a toy and will kill you quite

as dead as any other gun.

Or perhaps only machine guns kill? That your point?

[GreenStormCloud]

197. My point is that the OP is false.

They are claiming someone brought a machine gun to Starbucks. It didn't happen.

[mbperrin]

199. That was one thing that was mentioned. There were others, and the one I documented.

The point is true - idiots are open carrying weapons in public.

[GreenStormCloud]

200. And he was arrested - in tht state.

In other states it is legal and not a cause for alarm.

[KoKo]

185. Indeed...it's hard to get through the Crap from RW about Gun Displays...

but those strutting around with their "thingy in the holster" has to make one wonder what this is REALLY ABOUT!

K&R!

[gollygee]

201. I saw a guy in the park swinging his daughter in a swing with a holstered gun

Freaked me out.