But, that point is lost on gunloons since they are not the responsible gun owner. I'll admit that I still do posts to irritate you lot and let you know that not only do I not find your arguments persuasive: I'm still around and speaking out.
Which more people need to do after this case where a man in Georgia openly intimidated people:
Parents at a Forysth County (GA.) park abruptly stopped a children's baseball game after growing suspicions of the behavior of a man carrying a gun in a waist holster Tuesday night.Nothing like stupid laws that allow loutish behaviour to turn people against you.
"He's just walking around [saying] 'See my gun? Look, I got a gun and there's nothing you can do about it.' He knew he was frightening people. He knew exactly what he was doing," said parent Karen Rabb.
Rabb told Channel 2’s Tom Regan the parents grew so alarmed that they brought the game to a halt when the man declined a request that he leave a parking lot overlooking the baseball field.
“He scared people to the point where we stopped the game, took the kids out of the dugout and behind the dugout, and kind of hunkered down,” Rabb said.
Park users flooded 911 with 22 calls about the man. Forysth County deputies questioned the man, and found that he had a permit for the handgun. Authorities said since the man made no verbal threats or gestures, they could neither arrest him nor ask him to leave the park.
And, no matter what you say, parading around with firearms is intimidation, which is why NRA officials in more sensible times said they did not approve of such conduct.
But, keep it up, it only helps the "pro-gun" side look like a bunch of idiots.
See also:
Man with gun causes scare during children’s baseball game
NRA President's Testimony During Congressional Debateof the National Firearms Act of 1934
This guy has the exact same effect on Second Amendment advocacy as a guy who goes to a park and begins a loud performance of the 7 words you can't say on tv has on First Amendment advocacy.
ReplyDeleteBoth drive away some reactionary people, but the bulk of society sees that these people are just assholes and that it's not appropriate to restrict what other people can do just because of what these assholes do.
The difference is the gun assholes get people killed. Many of them don't limit their acting-out to simply annoying people. On the other hand, using profanity to bother people never results in death.
DeleteAnother stupid comparison.
A stupid comparison? Of specific instances where nobody is hurt?
DeleteNice attempt to switch the conversation and all, throwing in people who "don't limit their acting-out to simpy annoying people." Such people aren't who I was talking about.
As soon as a person harms another, or even does something that qualifies as assault they aren't just mouthing off anymore--they're outside the mere asshole category I was talking about. Instead, they are in the camp of people who we should come down on with the full power of the law like the guy who is egging on a crowd that is assaulting or killing a person.
Of course, that doesn't fit with your straw man version of me or my argument.
Mikeb, the man just walked around the park with an openly carried handgun. No one was killed, and no one was injured. Simon's comparison was on point.
DeleteThe assholes who do more than annoy and actually hurt and kill people are on your "side", gun loons.
DeleteSince we're not mind readers, how are we supposed to know this guy is not dangerous? He appears exactly like the ones who are about to go off on people and do real harm. Plus, in this case, the eye witnesses said he was doing his open carry in a provoking manner, meaning to scare people. Remember this was not in New Jersey or California, this was in Georgia. So, I'd say if the regular folks in Georgia find the guy threatening, then he really was threatening.
DeleteIn a provoking manner? Why is it that you object to such a claim just about any time except when it's a gun owner supposedly doing it?
DeleteMike,
DeleteYou keep your eye on the potential threat and deal with it with common sense--try to de-escalate, and if the person seems genuinely threatening, call the cops and prepare for fight or flight.
As for the statement that people said he was doing it in a "provoking manner," it's not entirely clear what was happening since we have one witness' vague description that he was scaring people, but no suggestion he was brandishing the gun or doing anything that could be considered committing an assault, which is apparently why the police didn't arrest him.
If he was doing something overtly threatening then they dropped the ball and, as I said before, they should have come down on him.
These were Georgia folks who were alarmed enough to stop the game. They may have called the cops too, for all we know, but if people, not just one person who was quoted in the piece, but a bunch of people from one of the most gun-friendly places in the country, if they though he was threatening to the point that the kids' game had to be called, I would tend to believe them. How about you? Or is your defend gun guys no matter what button pushed?
DeleteThe article says that they did call the cops--22 times, so yes, they were alarmed. The question is whether they were alarmed by the gun itself or by something he was doing. As I said above, if it was just the gun, they overreacted, but if he was doing something that could qualify as assault, then he should have been charged with it.
DeleteYou keep making comments about that "defend gun guys no matter what button" while I keep saying if it was x, no charges, and if it was y, charge him/her/them.
Did he draw his gun? From what I've seen, it was holstered the whole time. That makes the case for a "threatening manner" much harder to believe.
DeleteThis asshole is like so many other gunsucks. He doesn't just want to carry his little buddies around to goose his libido. He wants and needs to cram his inadequate lack of manliness to all and sundry. He is there to say "Fuck you, I can kill you at any time, and you cannot stop me."
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, I hadn't heard of Meleanie Hain before coming to this site, but she was a much better human being than you, Laci.
ReplyDelete"And, no matter what you say, parading around with firearms is intimidation"
ReplyDeleteWill you be consistent and not carve out an exception for police and military?
Police and military are presumed to be properly trained and sanctioned to carry. Not so with civilians. But you knew that, you were just being a contentions ball-buster, right?
DeletePresumed is the key word there, Mikeb. We've talked before about the training standards of many police departments.
DeleteNo Mike. I am being quite serious. How does proper training make the open display of firearms not intimidation? And I do not presume that cops and soldiers are properly trained. I was in the AF and I know that many civilians can out shoot (and are safer) than cops and soldiers. AD's, domestic violence and suicides are all to common w/ those who have uniforms. Nothing is stopping them from flipping out and shooting when they are not supposed to (mai lai, anwar sadat, etc.) - like civilians sometimes do.
DeleteDave, you're really into the poor persecuted civilian gun owner thing, aren't you. Given the minimal requirements for gun ownership and even concealed carry, don't you think the average man in uniform is better trained?
DeleteI know I'm better trained than the average NYPD officer. Do you recall the RAND study we discussed on the subject?
DeleteAs far as military goes, the average man in uniform is not better trained. You only qualify on a simple static course once a year and with budgetary issues nowadays not even that much. Its much the same with law enforcement. The unfortunately reality now days is that the training that those in uniform is more or less the same as the evaluation done when getting a CCW. Youll find that the service members, and LEO's who are truly proficient with firearms get that way on their own time and on their own dime. In other words the same as a civillian shooter.
DeleteMikeZ
Mike seems to forget that your typical CCW person likes guns and shooting. They’re maniacal nuts about guns, but for some reason want to practice with their “fetish items” only up to the minimal requirement by law.
DeleteMr. Slick TS, I was talking about GUN OWNERS being less trained and qualified than cops and military. Among the permit holders I'd say it's probably half and half. Among the true gun-rights advocate, I'd say almost all are better than cops. But, don't forget the vast majority of you guys do not fit into either of the last two categories.
DeleteMike, Military guys ALL go through basic training. Cops have a similar initiation. These intense seeks or months of training are followed by yearly refresher courses.
DeleteThe average gun owner has nothing - NOTHING at all. Even concealed carry permit holders don't all avail themselves of that much training.
Im well aware of the basic training requirements, i have been through all of them. There is not the degree of Marksmanship training that you imply, Same situation with cops, the bulk of the academy is in regards to regulations liabilities and officer safety. The qualification course is little different that the shooting qualification that is required for a CA CCW. How many CCW holders to you interact with? how do you know what training they put themselves through? We are here, with you making assumptions that reinforce your bias.
DeleteMikeZ
The discussion started out comparing gun owners in general to cops and military. Then you slick boys switched it to CCW guys, who make up only a tiny fraction of the total group. So, no, I repeat, I don't accept that your average gun owner is better trained and qualified than your average cop or soldier.
DeleteWhy not ask cops and soldiers Mike? soldiers qualify once a year, typically for a day, cops qualify once a year typically for a day. So if your average gun owner practiced two days a year they have double the practice and training. Most soldiers and cops who shoot do so on the same time, just the same as a civilian gun owner. Unless your LE or Military and are going for SWAT or higher level operations in the military you simply don't get the level of training that you seem convinced they do. My illustration on the CCW was simply to show that the qualification and training that most LEOs get is not that significant. From a liability standpoint i would argue that gun owners would be more aware of the impact of their decisions as they have far more to lose in he event of a bad shoot.
DeleteMikeZ