What the hell, gun people!?!

[OreoRosies86]

Disgusting, and totally disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook.

In what ways was it disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook?

Because carrying guns to a gun safety advocacy meeting is meant to show intimidation, not respectful disagreement.

But, again, my question still stands - how is that disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook?

This group of gun safety advocates formed after the Sandy Hook shooting. These people were and are (presumably) looking for answers just like everyone else. Sandy Hook, where 20 terrified children and 6 adults were gunned down. So these people, their answer is to stand there with guns to what, make a point? Because it is their right?

You know honestly, when I read this I thought about when the NRA showed up after Columbine for a gun rally because they had the "right" to go wherever they wanted. So we're ok with intimidating fellow citizens who think differently than us because it is our right? It''s so respectful to the victims and their hurting families to show up at a gun safety advocacy meeting and wave your gun around?

Quite frankly I am amazed that I even have to explain this... but there you have it.

 

[soxfan]

Disgusting, and totally disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook.

In what ways was it disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook?

Because carrying guns to a gun safety advocacy meeting is meant to show intimidation, not respectful disagreement.

But, again, my question still stands - how is that disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook?

This group of gun safety advocates formed after the Sandy Hook shooting. These people were and are (presumably) looking for answers just like everyone else. Sandy Hook, where 20 terrified children and 6 adults were gunned down. So these people, their answer is to stand there with guns to what, make a point? Because it is their right?

You know honestly, when I read this I thought about when the NRA showed up after Columbine for a gun rally because they had the "right" to go wherever they wanted. So we're ok with intimidating fellow citizens who think differently than us because it is our right? It''s so respectful to the victims and their hurting families to show up at a gun safety advocacy meeting and wave your gun around?

Quite frankly I am amazed that I even have to explain this... but there you have it.

I know. Baffling. Wave around a freaking gun in front of people who lost their CHILDREN to one. Makes sense.

 

[momhappy]

hint they do have a website that has part of their agenda on it.
They avoid some of the more controversial things the leaders have said to make them sound less harmful.
But what is there is enough to brand them as grabbers.
But when it comes down to it they are Brady part5 backed by the same gun grabbin globalists trying to take advantage of a tragedy.

The real failing of the tragedy is the complete and utter failure of the mental health care system.
But that gets little discussion and no answers because the gun grabbers want to use it for their own gains.
Blame bits of plastic and metal to keep attention away from the real cause.

This - exactly this. This is not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue. If we're going to have discussions about gun safety, we need to have discussions about mental health, psychiatric drug use, etc.

 

[momhappy]

Disgusting, and totally disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook.

In what ways was it disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook?

Because carrying guns to a gun safety advocacy meeting is meant to show intimidation, not respectful disagreement.

But, again, my question still stands - how is that disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook?

This group of gun safety advocates formed after the Sandy Hook shooting. These people were and are (presumably) looking for answers just like everyone else. Sandy Hook, where 20 terrified children and 6 adults were gunned down. So these people, their answer is to stand there with guns to what, make a point? Because it is their right?

You know honestly, when I read this I thought about when the NRA showed up after Columbine for a gun rally because they had the "right" to go wherever they wanted. So we're ok with intimidating fellow citizens who think differently than us because it is our right? It''s so respectful to the victims and their hurting families to show up at a gun safety advocacy meeting and wave your gun around?

Quite frankly I am amazed that I even have to explain this... but there you have it.

I know. Baffling. Wave around a freaking gun in front of people who lost their CHILDREN to one. Makes sense.

Did I miss the part where the women at the meeting were actually the mothers of some of the victims of Sandy Hook? Unless they actually lost a child at Sandy Hook, I'm not sure how a bunch of random men with guns and a bunch of random women discussing gun safety, is disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook? It's not that baffling - I don't see the correlation there?

 

[OreoRosies86]

I don't know a thing about the women who were at the meeting.

 

[packrat]

And just like drunk driving...we don't expect responsibility out of our people. That's not one of our..responsibilities, I guess? We're not responsible for others, and we're certainly not responsible for ourselves b/c why? Because we don't *have* to be, and nobody can *make* us b/c we all have *rights*, and if we happen to get caught or in trouble well heck what're ya gonna do about it? oooo gimme a $500 fine oooo I'm shaking. You don't seriously think you're going to *punish* me, do you? That's our answer for *everything*. The ones that *are* responsible end up taking the fall for the ones that *aren't* b/c the ones that *aren't* have no culpability in an-y-thing. So rather than basically teach the ones who take their responsibilities seriously that they don't *have* to, we *should* change our ways and instead teach the ones that think these things are a joke or they don't apply to them, that they are not and they do. But..we won't. And seriously, how *can* we? An entire country nodding sagely and going "ohh yeah, totally I see what you're saying, I get it, I'll follow the laws and use common sense from now on." Sure, that would make law enforcement's job waaay easier but does anyone really see that happening?

 

[aljdewey]

This group of gun safety advocates formed after the Sandy Hook shooting. These people were and are (presumably) looking for answers just like everyone else. Sandy Hook, where 20 terrified children and 6 adults were gunned down. So these people, their answer is to stand there with guns to what, make a point? Because it is their right?

You know honestly, when I read this I thought about when the NRA showed up after Columbine for a gun rally because they had the "right" to go wherever they wanted. So we're ok with intimidating fellow citizens who think differently than us because it is our right? It''s so respectful to the victims and their hurting families to show up at a gun safety advocacy meeting and wave your gun around?

Quite frankly I am amazed that I even have to explain this... but there you have it.

Probably no more amazed than I am that it doesn't seem to cross your mind that the very point may have been to provide some of those answers you claim the group is looking for.

The OTC group stood outside a restaurant with their firearms in view. I don't see anything in the article that notes any aggression at all. They stood outside for two hours with their guns in view - that's it. No screaming, no threats made, no confrontation, no incendiary signs -- nothing. The photo of the group that accompanied the article shows guys standing in non-aggressive postures - heck, they could be waiting for a bus or watching a football game.

The only reason the advocates felt threatened was because of their OWN fears of guns. I could see the educational value in having the OTC group stand outside if only to illustrate that guns are not inherently aggressive when borne by responsible owners. Forty men, women and children stood outside in a group holding their guns, and no violence occurred. I'd think there's a lot to be learned in that from a group seeking answers as you say.

Fear is often bred by ignorance, and perhaps learning more about firearms would lead to more productive suggestions on how to increase gun safety for real (instead of demonizing an inanimate object that can be used peacefully in the right hands).

 

[OreoRosies86]

This group of gun safety advocates formed after the Sandy Hook shooting. These people were and are (presumably) looking for answers just like everyone else. Sandy Hook, where 20 terrified children and 6 adults were gunned down. So these people, their answer is to stand there with guns to what, make a point? Because it is their right?

You know honestly, when I read this I thought about when the NRA showed up after Columbine for a gun rally because they had the "right" to go wherever they wanted. So we're ok with intimidating fellow citizens who think differently than us because it is our right? It''s so respectful to the victims and their hurting families to show up at a gun safety advocacy meeting and wave your gun around?

Quite frankly I am amazed that I even have to explain this... but there you have it.

Probably no more amazed than I am that it doesn't seem to cross your mind that the very point may have been to provide some of those answers you claim the group is looking for.

The OTC group stood outside a restaurant with their firearms in view. I don't see anything in the article that notes any aggression at all. They stood outside for two hours with their guns in view - that's it. No screaming, no threats made, no confrontation, no incendiary signs -- nothing. The photo of the group that accompanied the article shows guys standing in non-aggressive postures - heck, they could be waiting for a bus or watching a football game.

The only reason the advocates felt threatened was because of their OWN fears of guns. I could see the educational value in having the OTC group stand outside if only to illustrate that guns are not inherently aggressive when borne by responsible owners. Forty men, women and children stood outside in a group holding their guns, and no violence occurred. I'd think there's a lot to be learned in that from a group seeking answers as you say.

Fear is often bred by ignorance, and perhaps learning more about firearms would lead to more productive suggestions on how to increase gun safety for real (instead of demonizing an inanimate object that can be used peacefully in the right hands).

Oh please don't make assumptions about what crosses my mind. Don't do that. I carefully considered my position before posting. I grew up around guns, and I respect guns. But I thought about it, and no matter which angle I have listened to I still find it quite disrespectful. Maybe at this point I am just going off of my inner right-and-wrong-O-meter.

 

[Maria D]

The focus on not driving while drunk is good!
Banning alcohol is not.
Banning cars is not.
Giving your friend a ride home is good!
Figuring it is his own problem and letting him drive is not.

Focusing on gun safety -- promoting classes, teaching that guns are not toys, safe storage, etc -- is good.
Banning guns in the home is not.
Banning the purchase of ammunition (or just making it too expensive to afford) is not.
Encouraging safe storage in the home is good.
Banning "large" magazines is not. (fwiw, I can't even buy a <10 round magazine for some of mine!)


The responsible thing to do is to learn safe handling and store guns (and knives for that matter) in a safe way.
The responsible thing to do is to notice when something seems "off" about a person and make sure that someone knows -- and this is a responsibility of every last person out there.
The responsible thing to put the responsibility on each and every person.

I don't see where the idea that these women are trying to ban guns in the home comes from. Read their website. It doesn't say any such thing. In fact it's all very reasonable stuff about taking collective responsibility, which you and aljdewey also espouse.

But - even if they were trying to get into every home in American and get rid of ALL the guns, do we really need a bunch of gun-toting people in parking lots to try and intimidate them? Me, I think not.

 

[aljdewey]

I know. Baffling. Wave around a freaking gun in front of people who lost their CHILDREN to one. Makes sense.

Lost their children? I'm sorry - where in the article does it confirm that *any* members of that gun safety advocacy group had lost children to guns? The named group defines itself as "a grassroots movement of American mothers demanding new and stronger solutions to lax gun laws, loopholes and policies." That does not in any way suggest that a single attendee of that event had lost his/her child to gun violence.

It's this lack of attention to facts/details that makes me bristle at supporting causes of groups like this. When supporters of these groups can overstate the most basic facts, I'm not wholly optimistic in believing the solutions proposed by them will be any more accurate or well thought out.

 

[Maria D]

The only reason the advocates felt threatened was because of their OWN fears of guns. I could see the educational value in having the OTC group stand outside if only to illustrate that guns are not inherently aggressive when borne by responsible owners. Forty men, women and children stood outside in a group holding their guns, and no violence occurred. I'd think there's a lot to be learned in that from a group seeking answers as you say.

Fear is often bred by ignorance, and perhaps learning more about firearms would lead to more productive suggestions on how to increase gun safety for real (instead of demonizing an inanimate object that can be used peacefully in the right hands).

Wait, but in another post you said it was up to all of us to notice things and for goodness sakes be brave and say something before something tragic happens. If I saw 40 armed people carrying guns in a parking lot, I would think something's more than a bit off. If I found out they were reacting to 4 women meeting about gun safety, I would be very concerned about their stability because what they are doing is a complete overreaction. Those women weren't the only ones intimidated. The article said the other patrons in the restaurant were afraid to leave until the gun toters left. I guess everyone but the gun carriers are irrational then?

Make up your mind, are we supposed to speak up and DO something before tragedy occurs or are we supposed to respect open-carry laws and just feel safe because anyone who would choose to exercise their right to open carry must be stable.

In Portland Maine last year we had a guy, an Afghanistan veteran, who went around carrying a loaded rifle similar to the one used at Sandy Hook 6 days after the shooting. More than 60 people called the police who could do nothing; he was not disobeying Maine's open-carry laws. So much for everyone being responsible - there's nothing you can do with the laws as they stand.

 

[aljdewey]

Again, I have to ask who confirmed that the intent of the OTC group was intimidation? Where was it reported that was the case?

If the same individuals all gathered outside with boxes of brownies, would they have still been intimidating, or was it only that they had guns in their possession?

Again, I can only go by the photo. Not a single gun is being pointed at the restaurant or its occupants. Not a single sign is displayed even protesting the gathering of the safety advocacy group. No camo. No sniper stances. No stances of aggression. Not a SINGLE aggressive posture. Not a menacing face in the bunch - they could be watching a golf tourmament judging from some of the relaxed poses.

The only reason people decided they were "trying to intimidate" is because they had guns in their possession.

I'll say that I've felt way more aggression from some advocacy groups - inflammatory language, vilifying those who don't agree with them, and literally assuming ill intent when they have no basis for such assumptions. And yet that's not intimidating just because they aren't holding guns?

Yep - still can't get on board.

 

[justginger]

This group of gun safety advocates formed after the Sandy Hook shooting. These people were and are (presumably) looking for answers just like everyone else. Sandy Hook, where 20 terrified children and 6 adults were gunned down. So these people, their answer is to stand there with guns to what, make a point? Because it is their right?

You know honestly, when I read this I thought about when the NRA showed up after Columbine for a gun rally because they had the "right" to go wherever they wanted. So we're ok with intimidating fellow citizens who think differently than us because it is our right? It''s so respectful to the victims and their hurting families to show up at a gun safety advocacy meeting and wave your gun around?

Quite frankly I am amazed that I even have to explain this... but there you have it.

Probably no more amazed than I am that it doesn't seem to cross your mind that the very point may have been to provide some of those answers you claim the group is looking for.

The OTC group stood outside a restaurant with their firearms in view. I don't see anything in the article that notes any aggression at all. They stood outside for two hours with their guns in view - that's it. No screaming, no threats made, no confrontation, no incendiary signs -- nothing. The photo of the group that accompanied the article shows guys standing in non-aggressive postures - heck, they could be waiting for a bus or watching a football game.

The only reason the advocates felt threatened was because of their OWN fears of guns. I could see the educational value in having the OTC group stand outside if only to illustrate that guns are not inherently aggressive when borne by responsible owners. Forty men, women and children stood outside in a group holding their guns, and no violence occurred. I'd think there's a lot to be learned in that from a group seeking answers as you say.

Fear is often bred by ignorance, and perhaps learning more about firearms would lead to more productive suggestions on how to increase gun safety for real (instead of demonizing an inanimate object that can be used peacefully in the right hands).

I'm looking at the same photo. The guy on the left, in red, is crouched to the ground with the firearm clearly in a position that could be raised to be used in a split second. That stance doesn't meet my criteria of 'non-aggressive.'

Personally, even if I hadn't been linked to this organization of four women, I wouldn't have left the restaurant either. In fact, I would have done one better and called the police myself, to escort me to my car. I don't understand a world in which someone doesn't feel threatened by what is no more than a mob of 40 armed men, shuffling their feet in a parking lot. It is well documented that people behave differently when gathered in this sort of crowd, and I wouldn't want to take my chances on it not happening to me.

 

[justginger]

Again, I have to ask who confirmed that the intent of the OTC group was intimidation? Where was it reported that was the case?

If the same individuals all gathered outside with boxes of brownies, would they have still been intimidating, or was it only that they had guns in their possession?

Again, I can only go by the photo. Not a single gun is being pointed at the restaurant or its occupants. Not a single sign is displayed even protesting the gathering of the safety advocacy group. No camo. No sniper stances. No stances of aggression. Not a SINGLE aggressive posture. Not a menacing face in the bunch - they could be watching a golf tourmament judging from some of the relaxed poses.

The only reason people decided they were "trying to intimidate" is because they had guns in their possession.

I'll say that I've felt way more aggression from some advocacy groups - inflammatory language, vilifying those who don't agree with them, and literally assuming ill intent when they have no basis for such assumptions. And yet that's not intimidating just because they aren't holding guns?

Yep - still can't get on board.

So it's normal for 30 men to huddle together in a parking lot, all clearly staring down the building in which these woman are sitting? There are at least 5 that are crouching, all likely holding weapons able to kill at long distances. I've never seen men 'gather' like this. They don't look relaxed, they look intent and focused. I wouldn't walk past them either, their body language is abnormal.

 

[packrat]

The ones in front are kneeling w/firearms in proper position, muzzle down. It's not meant to be an aggressive position. There are proper ways to hold your firearms when walking, sitting, standing, kneeling etc. That picture to me depicts people proud of their knowledge and safe handling practices of firearms, trying to show that not everyone who owns a firearm isn't to be trusted.

How many times have any of us stood next to someone w/a permit to carry, that was carrying, and nobody knew it? Probably a lot more than you think. It can be done, and it's done often. Another thing we learned in conceal carry class. These people obviously had their guns out in the open, but the sentiment is still there. Not all gun owners run around like Yosemite Sam hooting and hollering, shooting in the air "I'm the roughest toughest meanest hombre in the west"

 

[justginger]

The ones in front are kneeling w/firearms in proper position, muzzle down. It's not meant to be an aggressive position. There are proper ways to hold your firearms when walking, sitting, standing, kneeling etc. That picture to me depicts people proud of their knowledge and safe handling practices of firearms, trying to show that not everyone who owns a firearm isn't to be trusted.

How many times have any of us stood next to someone w/a permit to carry, that was carrying, and nobody knew it? Probably a lot more than you think. It can be done, and it's done often. Another thing we learned in conceal carry class. These people obviously had their guns out in the open, but the sentiment is still there. Not all gun owners run around like Yosemite Sam hooting and hollering, shooting in the air "I'm the roughest toughest meanest hombre in the west"

There is no reason five men holding firearms (correctly!) would be kneeled down, staring down a restaurant that four women (who clearly have differing opinions) are meeting. It is a very clear passive aggressive move. When was the last time you saw a group of 30 men gathered somewhere, kneeled down with (possibly loaded) firearms, staring down someone they disagree with? It's a threatening situation for those women, and those men would be extremely dense to have not realized that and exploited it.

 

[aljdewey]

quote]

Wait, but in another post you said it was up to all of us to notice things and for goodness sakes be brave and say something before something tragic happens. If I saw 40 armed people carrying guns in a parking lot, I would think something's more than a bit off. If I found out they were reacting to 4 women meeting about gun safety, I would be very concerned about their stability because what they are doing is a complete overreaction. Those women weren't the only ones intimidated. The article said the other patrons in the restaurant were afraid to leave until the gun toters left. I guess everyone but the gun carriers are irrational then?

Make up your mind, are we supposed to speak up and DO something before tragedy occurs or are we supposed to respect open-carry laws and just feel safe because anyone who would choose to exercise their right to open carry must be stable.

In Portland Maine last year we had a guy, an Afghanistan veteran, who went around carrying a loaded rifle similar to the one used at Sandy Hook 6 days after the shooting. More than 60 people called the police who could do nothing; he was not disobeying Maine's open-carry laws. So much for everyone being responsible - there's nothing you can do with the laws as they stand.

I said that - but please let's go back to the context in which I said it. My comments were about speaking up when you observe mentally unstable behavior, right? Does that group of 40 men, women and children look mentally unstable to you? Are there stances threatening? Is there any single thing about them that screams threat beyond them holding their lawful firearms?

Are they pointing them at anyone? Are they in aggressive stances? Nope.

Again, I don't see any quotes in the article where the reporter sought to verify the intent of the gun owner gathering, so it's purely speculative.

Re the other patrons being intimidated - I'd have to wonder if the 4 women freaking out inside might have at all contributed to others getting freaked out. I can tell you that if the fire department pulled up in the parking lot restaurant, I'd be curious.....but if three people in the restaurant started screaming FIRE, I'd go from 0-60 in about a half second......even if there was no real fire or no real threat. Fear breeds fear. I'd also argue that patrons would probably get equally freaked if 40 biker dudes pulled up into the parking lot - even if they didn't have a single gun among them.

It's interesting that you pointed to the Portland, Maine veteran story (my folks still live in Portland, so I know it well) because it kind of argues against your stance. That guy didn't hurt anyone, and I don't recall (and can't find even now) a single allegation that he was displaying any kind of unstable behavior. It's unstable or aggressive behavior that should ring alarms for us all., and not just "someone has a gun". The gun is not the danger, it's the unstable person behind it. When mentally balanced people are behind them (the Afghan veteran or the 40 men/women/children), they do not injure or kill.

Again, not a single one of those guys in the TX photo looks poised to kill to me in their relaxed stances....but then again, I'm not afraid of guns just because they're guns. People see what they want to see; if they want to believe guns are dangerous, then they'll feel fearful.

 

[justginger]

quote]

Wait, but in another post you said it was up to all of us to notice things and for goodness sakes be brave and say something before something tragic happens. If I saw 40 armed people carrying guns in a parking lot, I would think something's more than a bit off. If I found out they were reacting to 4 women meeting about gun safety, I would be very concerned about their stability because what they are doing is a complete overreaction. Those women weren't the only ones intimidated. The article said the other patrons in the restaurant were afraid to leave until the gun toters left. I guess everyone but the gun carriers are irrational then?

Make up your mind, are we supposed to speak up and DO something before tragedy occurs or are we supposed to respect open-carry laws and just feel safe because anyone who would choose to exercise their right to open carry must be stable.

In Portland Maine last year we had a guy, an Afghanistan veteran, who went around carrying a loaded rifle similar to the one used at Sandy Hook 6 days after the shooting. More than 60 people called the police who could do nothing; he was not disobeying Maine's open-carry laws. So much for everyone being responsible - there's nothing you can do with the laws as they stand.

I said that - but please let's go back to the context in which I said it. My comments were about speaking up when you observe mentally unstable behavior, right? Does that group of 40 men, women and children look mentally unstable to you? Are there stances threatening? Is there any single thing about them that screams threat beyond them holding their lawful firearms?

Are they pointing them at anyone? Are they in aggressive stances? Nope.

Again, I don't see any quotes in the article where the reporter sought to verify the intent of the gun owner gathering, so it's purely speculative.

Re the other patrons being intimidated - I'd have to wonder if the 4 women freaking out inside might have at all contributed to others getting freaked out. I can tell you that if the fire department pulled up in the parking lot restaurant, I'd be curious.....but if three people in the restaurant started screaming FIRE, I'd go from 0-60 in about a half second......even if there was no real fire or no real threat. Fear breeds fear. I'd also argue that patrons would probably get equally freaked if 40 biker dudes pulled up into the parking lot - even if they didn't have a single gun among them.

It's interesting that you pointed to the Portland, Maine veteran story (my folks still live in Portland, so I know it well) because it kind of argues against your stance. That guy didn't hurt anyone, and I don't recall (and can't find even now) a single allegation that he was displaying any kind of unstable behavior. It's unstable or aggressive behavior that should ring alarms for us all., and not just "someone has a gun". The gun is not the danger, it's the unstable person behind it. When mentally balanced people are behind them (the Afghan veteran or the 40 men/women/children), they do not injure or kill.

Again, not a single one of those guys in the TX photo looks poised to kill to me in their relaxed stances....but then again, I'm not afraid of guns just because they're guns. People see what they want to see; if they want to believe guns are dangerous, then they'll feel fearful.

Guns ARE dangerous. You have to be irrational to disagree. I saw this posted on FB today, it's very fitting: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...doing-bong-hits-GunFAIL-XLIII?detail=facebook Every person should feel safe traveling in public areas. If there are five men crouched with firearms, staring down the front door of the restaurant I'm wanting to leave, you'd better believe I'd feel threatened. This sounds an awful lot like victim blaming -- it's YOUR fault you feel scared of loaded weapons.

 

[aljdewey]

There is no reason five men holding firearms (correctly!) would be kneeled down, staring down a restaurant that four women (who clearly have differing opinions) are meeting. It is a very clear passive aggressive move. When was the last time you saw a group of 30 men gathered somewhere, kneeled down with (possibly loaded) firearms, staring down someone they disagree with? It's a threatening situation for those women, and those men would be extremely dense to have not realized that and exploited it.

Actually, there is. I can think of two readily:

1. To illustrate that a group can gather, all carrying firearms, and do so without a single one of those guns being used violently.
2. To exercise the same right that the MDA group did - to gather in view of those who don't share their views to represent their viewpoint.

If that's threatening, then I suppose you'll be demanding next that pro-choicers cannot gather anywhere pro-lifers have already gathered, or that no other two similarly opposing groups can gather in view of each other without it being 'intimidating'. I guess the Beer & Wine Distributors of America will be deemed dangerous and intimidating if they choose to gather in peaceful opposition at a MADD event, too.

 

[justginger]

There is no reason five men holding firearms (correctly!) would be kneeled down, staring down a restaurant that four women (who clearly have differing opinions) are meeting. It is a very clear passive aggressive move. When was the last time you saw a group of 30 men gathered somewhere, kneeled down with (possibly loaded) firearms, staring down someone they disagree with? It's a threatening situation for those women, and those men would be extremely dense to have not realized that and exploited it.

Actually, there is. I can think of two readily:

1. To illustrate that a group can gather, all carrying firearms, and do so without a single one of those guns being used violently.
2. To exercise the same right that the MDA group did - to gather in view of those who don't share their views to represent their viewpoint.

If that's threatening, then I suppose you'll be demanding next that pro-choicers cannot gather anywhere pro-lifers have already gathered, or that no other two similarly opposing groups can gather in view of each other without it being 'intimidating'. I guess the Beer & Wine Distributors of America will be deemed dangerous and intimidating if they choose to gather in peaceful opposition at a MADD event, too.

Ridiculous. It was a passive aggressive group stance, clear as day. If they wanted to appear non-aggressive or threatening, stop staring at the door, get up out of your crouching position, and lower your weapon completely (or better yet, holster it - the people in the back I'd have zero issue with). It's every person's right to secure their safety and those men had the ability to snuff out a life in a second, if they so chose. It's not irrational to figure that small fact into a decision of how to handle the situation (which for me would have certainly involved asking for authorities to provide protection for myself).

Name another gathering that includes weapons capable to ending my life in a split second, and you'd better believe I'd have an issue with it. None of your examples threaten my life, so no, I'd have no issues with any of them. Suggesting I would feel threatened by ANY place of dissension is quickly finding yourself in strawman territory.

 

[aljdewey]

I can absolutely assure you that I am not irrational, and apparently, we're still having a reading disconnect on your side. I'll repeat to clear the confusion. Guns are not dangerous in and of themselves. I do not own a gun myself, but I guarantee you that I could leave a fully loaded gun, safety off, on my front porch overnight and it would not shoot by itself. It would not shoot until someone picked it up and operated it.

Similarly, I can leave my car parked in the driveway with the keys in it. It will not run anyone over unless someone gets in it and operates it outside of normal operation (depresses the gas pedal until it reaches 90, strikes a building, etc.)

Guns and cars do not operate without users. They have the *potential* to be dangerous when an irresponsible or mentally unstable operator handles them.

 

[aljdewey]

[

Name another gathering that includes weapons capable to ending my life in a split second,

NASCAR event.
Biker's rally.
A drag race.
A party full of drunk people.
The local rock quarry.

A kitchen counter with butcher block knives on it.

Traffic-filled highways with texting drivers.

I could go on, but I'm already clear that it's pointless to bother. People see what they want to see, not necessarily what is.

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how the (hypothetical) loaded gun on my front porch is going to shoot itself.

 

[Maria D]

aljdewey, Adam Lanza never hurt anyone until he killed more than 20 people and then himself. Maybe Justin Dean wasn't acting aggressively and those more than 60 people (your parents probably know a few since they live here) should have minded their own business - or maybe Dean is a ticking time bomb and when he does blow we'll all say, for a week or so, we should have done something! In a sane world, he wouldn't be able to walk around with a loaded rifle unless he's in the woods with a hunting permit or at a shooting range. At least that's what law enforcement would like, but I guess cops are irrational in your world too. http://www.pressherald.com/news/Police-chiefs-taking-aim-at-Maines-open-carry-gun-law.html

edited to add:

Your false equivalencies are truly comical!

also edited to add:

Walking around in public with a loaded rifle just to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights is, in and of itself, unstable behavior.

 

[justginger]

[

Name another gathering that includes weapons capable to ending my life in a split second,

NASCAR event.
Biker's rally.
A drag race.
A party full of drunk people.
The local rock quarry.

A kitchen counter with butcher block knives on it.

Traffic-filled highways with texting drivers.

I could go on, but I'm already clear that it's pointless to bother. People see what they want to see, not necessarily what is.

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how the (hypothetical) loaded gun on my front porch is going to shoot itself.

Of course it's not dangerous on its own, I don't think anyone has ever suggested that guns grow trigger fingers and shoot themselves. What most gun-control enthusiasts want recognized is the fact that they are objects far MORE dangerous than any other potential weapon (short of explosives). It takes one moment of lapsed attention and you have a dead 4 year old. Cars can be considered similar, I suppose, but even then you have to be operating the vehicle for something to go wrong. Guns 'go wrong' exactly when you AREN'T operating them. Cars can't be touched and accidentally run over a child, you know?

Thankfully, none of the situations you have provided contain gatherings with weapons capable of ending my life. I never have to think twice about being shot, on accident or on purpose. My well-being is guaranteed when I am out of arm's reach of a perpetrator, or simply able to outrun him/her. It's a very blessed feeling - safety. I know a good number of my friends and family in the States envy it immensely.

 

[movie zombie]

personally, I find anti-abortion protestors to be quite scary and threatening.
yet they do so under protection of the First Amendment.

the supreme court ruled years ago that burning the stars and stripes is freedom of expression under the First Amendment....yet that too could be quite scary: fire [often in public] and the angry persons that want to stop it and try to beat the shell out of the one doing the burning.

while I do not think these particular people did themselves any favors in their method and manner of exercising their free speech rights, I also think that as long as they did not break any law they were free to exercise their free speech right in this manner.

saying that those in the building felt threatened is understandable.
but understand that those outside the building are also feeling threatened....and rightfully so.

 

[JaneSmith]

"Facts About Mental Illness and Violence

Fact 1: The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent.

Here is what researchers say about the link between mental illness and violence:

- "Although studies suggest a link between mental illnesses and violence, the contribution of people with mental illnesses to overall rates of violence is small, and further, the magnitude of the relationship is greatly exaggerated in the minds of the general population (Institute of Medicine, 2006)."

- "…the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)."

- "The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is very small. . . only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill (Mulvey, 1994)."

-"People with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime (Appleby, et al., 2001). People with severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or psychosis, are 2 ½ times more likely to be attacked, raped or mugged than the general population (Hiday, et al.,1999)."

Fact 2: The public is misinformed about the link between mental illness and violence.

A longitudinal study of American’s attitudes on mental health between 1950 and 1996 found, “the proportion of Americans who describe mental illness in terms consistent with violent or dangerous behavior nearly doubled.” Also, the vast majority of Americans believe that persons with mental illnesses pose a threat for violence towards others and themselves (Pescosolido, et al., 1996, Pescosolido et al., 1999).

Fact 3: Inaccurate beliefs about mental illness and violence lead to widespread stigma and discrimination:

The discrimination and stigma associated with mental illnesses stem in part, from the link between mental illness and violence in the minds of the general public (DHHS, 1999, Corrigan, et al., 2002).

The effects of stigma and discrimination are profound. The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health found that, “Stigma leads others to avoid living, socializing, or working with, renting to, or employing people with mental disorders - especially severe disorders, such as schizophrenia. It leads to low self-esteem, isolation, and hopelessness. It deters the public from seeking and wanting to pay for care. Responding to stigma, people with mental health problems internalize public attitudes and become so embarrassed or ashamed that they often conceal symptoms and fail to seek treatment (New Freedom Commission, 2003).”

Fact 4: The link between mental illness and violence is promoted by the entertainment and news media.

"Characters in prime time television portrayed as having a mental illness are depicted as the most dangerous of all demographic groups: 60 percent were shown to be involved in crime or violence" (Mental Health American, 1999).

"Most news accounts portray people with mental illness as dangerous" (Wahl, 1995).

"The vast majority of news stories on mental illness either focus on other negative characteristics related to people with the disorder (e.g., unpredictability and unsociability) or on medical treatments. Notably absent are positive stories that highlight recovery of many persons with even the most serious of mental illnesses" (Wahl, et al., 2002)."
http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php


'Othering' people is a way of coping intellectually with the knowledge that 'normal' people are capable of atrocities.


"Women in the U.S. are 11 times more likely to be murdered with guns than women in other high-income countries.
Women in the U.S. are killed at alarming rates by intimate partners, and firearms play a key role in turning domestic abuse into murder. Over the past 25 years, more intimate partner homicides in the U.S. have been committed with guns than with all other weapons combined."
http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/8d/3/1757/Gun_laws_and_violence_against_women.pdf


Are all these men crazy too? Or are they just angry and armed?

 

[aljdewey]

aljdewey, Adam Lanza never hurt anyone until he killed more than 20 people and then himself. Maybe Justin Dean wasn't acting aggressively and those more than 60 people (your parents probably know a few since they live here) should have minded their own business - or maybe Dean is a ticking time bomb and when he does blow we'll all say, for a week or so, we should have done something! In a sane world, he wouldn't be able to walk around with a loaded rifle unless he's in the woods with a hunting permit or at a shooting range. At least that's what law enforcement would like, but I guess cops are irrational in your world too. http://www.pressherald.com/news/Police-chiefs-taking-aim-at-Maines-open-carry-gun-law.html

Maria, that's not actually true. A year before Sandy Hook, Adam's mother confided to at least one friend that Adam was burning himself with a lighter (and was supposedly in the midst of taking steps to have him committed in the weeks prior to the shooting). But set that aside for a moment, because I think you still missed the essence of my suggestion.

I didn't say that there had to have been a prior instance of violence to speak up. I said that observing mentally unstable behavior was the red flag benchmark. Let me say it again, because it seems to keep being missed: My call to action is for those who witness mentally unstable behavior to speak up when/if they have reason to believe that someone is a danger to themselves or others.

There were several people who knew Adam was unstable (and not getting adequate help) before the shooting. The law didn't allow them to do anything. That is where I believe changes need to happen in the law. James Holmes talked about killing people a month before the theater shooting, and his psychiatrist reported it to law enforcement, but they couldn't do anything. (That's the kind of law change I'd fully support). Jared Loughner was observed as mentally unstable prior to the Gifford shooting; in a poetry class, he talked about strapping bombs to babies and killing people. Before the suicidal text sent by the LAX shooter to his brother hours before the shooting, he'd sent prior texts to his brother and father that alarmed them talking about his negative life outlook, disenchantment with life in LA, etc.

No matter what we do as a nation from here, we will not be able to fully eliminate these types of events despite all the measures we may try to adopt; we have to accept that random events may still happen where no one saw it coming. But I'm really distressed at how predictably common it is in each of these instances to read comments from several people who observed mental imbalance or depression and never said a word until the evening news soundbite post-event.

Justin Dean was walking around with a loaded rifle (lawfully), but wasn't exhibiting any single observable behavior to suggest he was mentally unstable. He wasn't incoherent; he wasn't mumbling to himself, harassing anyone, or aggressively approaching anyone. No one had seen him engaging in disturbing behavior (hurting animals, displaying obsessive tendencies, etc.). He didn't appear depressed. Other than (lawfully) having a rifle on his person, there was not a single thing to suggest he was unstable. AND.....he didn't shoot anyone, either. There's that.

 

[aljdewey]

[ Guns 'go wrong' exactly when you AREN'T operating them. Cars can't be touched and accidentally run over a child, you know?[/quote]

They can't? Perhaps you should tell the mom of this 18-month old that.....if she can hear you through her grief.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ak-parked-car-accident-cops-article-1.1511780

 

[JaneSmith]

"Q: Can I carry a firearm on my person?

A: Yes, with proper licensing (Concealed Handgun License) you may carry a pistol or revolver on your person so long as it remains concealed. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license."
http://www.texasgunlaws.org/

They were gathered in a large group directly outside a place four women were meeting. Forty individuals to four. The people inside were too scared to even call the police.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if they could argue mens rea, but the effect they had was clear.
Personally, I find their actions contemptable. There are better ways to protest.

 

[aljdewey]

Walking around in public with a loaded rifle just to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights is, in and of itself, unstable behavior.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't see anything mentally unstable about exercising a (lawful) right with absolutely no intent to harm anyone.

Since we're making comical observances, though, I'll share mine. It's quite comical that you really believe the law would knowingly grant citizens any right that would itself substantiate mentally instability.