What the hell, gun people!?!

[justginger]

[ 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

This is terribly sad. When it starts happening in the US at a rate of multiple times each day, perhaps it would be worth considering installing further protective devices on cars.

 

[perry]

I don't have time to fully state my various thoughts; but here are the 1st several:

Protesters routinely intimidate people - intentionally in many cases. Protesters for all kinds of causes. So, I do not see anything special here. In fact, they seem to be rather mild mannered compared to some of the protest groups I have had to go through who physically interfered with your walking through them - and you had to walk through them to get where you wanted to go. Here the ladies in the restaurant could have walked out of the door and gotten into their cars without any hindrance.

The bigger issue and cause is mental illness.

Next, the concept that people are no longer responsible (and in many cases the law now punishes us if we try to be responsible).


Anyway - its been a long day and tomorrow will be the same. So its off to bed for me.

Best wishes to all, and may you all have a great day,

Perry

 

[aljdewey]

Jane, I do agree that 1) not all mentally ill people are violent, and 2) not all violent people are mentally ill.

However, I've yet to see a news report detailing a mass shooting where the shooter didn't exhibit some kind of mentally unstable behavior (depression, suicidal tendencies, talking prior to the act about killing people, etc.), commonly well in advance of the tragic event.

There are some activities that dictate demonstrated fitness to engage in. You cannot fly a plane if you are color-blind. You cannot operate a motor vehicle if you are blind. There are just some activities that require proof of a certain level of fitness, be it physical or mental, and I do think that owning or handling firearms is one of them.

Again, there is no one thing that's going to be the magic answer, but it feels closer to getting there by giving law enforcement more avenues to get help for people who demonstrably need it before something serious happens. I'm as much for that type of legislative change, perhaps even moreso than gun control.

Sane AND law-abiding people do not engage in mass casualty events. By a wide margin, multiple or mass casualty events are perpetrated either by mentally unstable people or by criminals. You aren't going to slow down criminals by passing laws that only law-abiding citizens will follow, so that's out. But you can slow down mentally unstable people by empowering law enforcement to be proactive instead of only reactive in keeping them from harming themselves or others.

 

[aljdewey]

I should have also cited this earlier (when noting that drunk driving deaths have dropped by half since 1980).....gun deaths have dropped by half in the last 20 years as well.

Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Again, I will opine that efforts to legislate around this issue should involve measures to empower society so we can help those who are too unwell to seek help themselves.

PS: still waiting for someone to tell me how the (hypothetical) loaded gun on my proverbial porch is going to shoot itself.

 

[justginger]

I should have also cited this earlier (when noting that drunk driving deaths have dropped by half since 1980).....gun deaths have dropped by half in the last 20 years as well.

Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Again, I will opine that efforts to legislate around this issue should involve measures to empower society so we can help those who are too unwell to seek help themselves.

PS: still waiting for someone to tell me how the (hypothetical) loaded gun on my proverbial porch is going to shoot itself.

You're like a dog with a bone, lol.

The gun will not shoot itself. We all know that. We're upset with less restrictive gun ownership and less restricted types of firearms because a) guns are made to kill things, easily. Other things gun-lovers bring up have innocent primarily functions: phones, cars, knives. They aren't made for murder. And b) there isn't a zombie apocalypse coming. Disappointing, I know.

Things that bring about swift mortality should be strictly regulated without protest. For example, at work my culture of XDRTB isn't going to open itself, but that doesn't mean the government of Australia doesn't require a retina scanner to get into its storage facility. When things easily snuff out life, they should be hard as hell to get ahold of.

 

[kenny]

I haven't posted anything here except one dumb joke … but quoting all of justginger's posts and adding a +1 pretty much nails it for me.

Thanks justginger for doing my work for me. :apple:
Great minds stink alike, or something like that.

 

[Karl_K]

If you go back and read the article update you will see the photo was staged and the majority of the time they just stood around and talked.
Sounds like peaceful assembly to me!

 

[TooPatient]

I should have also cited this earlier (when noting that drunk driving deaths have dropped by half since 1980).....gun deaths have dropped by half in the last 20 years as well.

Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Again, I will opine that efforts to legislate around this issue should involve measures to empower society so we can help those who are too unwell to seek help themselves.

PS: still waiting for someone to tell me how the (hypothetical) loaded gun on my proverbial porch is going to shoot itself.

You're like a dog with a bone, lol.

The gun will not shoot itself. We all know that. We're upset with less restrictive gun ownership and less restricted types of firearms because a) guns are made to kill things, easily. Other things gun-lovers bring up have innocent primarily functions: phones, cars, knives. They aren't made for murder. And b) there isn't a zombie apocalypse coming. Disappointing, I know.

Things that bring about swift mortality should be strictly regulated without protest. For example, at work my culture of XDRTB isn't going to open itself, but that doesn't mean the government of Australia doesn't require a retina scanner to get into its storage facility. When things easily snuff out life, they should be hard as hell to get ahold of.

But if there is, we're all stocked up with zombiemax

JG -- Have you ever shot a gun? It is super fun to challenge yourself to get closer and closer to that little dot in the center of your target paper! There is also something super satisfying showing up at the range and having a bunch of men grin and comment about "helping" if you can't hit your target.... and then using your "cheap" gun to hit a 2" circle at 150 yards.


FWIW, guns are a serious matter. Gun ownership carries a big responsibility. I am responsible for every last gun I have purchased and every last round of ammunition. Period.

I hope to NEVER have to fire a gun at anything other than my paper target at the range. Ever. But you can bet I'm open carry when we go camping and would not hesitate to protect myself or my family if there was no alternative.

 

[Karl_K]

"Facts About Mental Illness and Violence

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

That is true.
Most that do violence just kill themselves not others.
However with everyone of these mass killers there was a stop point where they could have been stopped but there is no system in place to get them help that actually works!
I have talked to parents who were sure there son was going to take himself and someone out and fought hard to get him help but the system did not work. The were told he is over 18 there is nothing you can do.
He ended up killing himself. I cried for them and for him.

There is a 6 week wait for a mental health bed in my area and many of the severely mentally ill are ending up in jail where they are often victims of violence and come out even more messed up.

 

[justginger]

I should have also cited this earlier (when noting that drunk driving deaths have dropped by half since 1980).....gun deaths have dropped by half in the last 20 years as well.

Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Again, I will opine that efforts to legislate around this issue should involve measures to empower society so we can help those who are too unwell to seek help themselves.

PS: still waiting for someone to tell me how the (hypothetical) loaded gun on my proverbial porch is going to shoot itself.

You're like a dog with a bone, lol.

The gun will not shoot itself. We all know that. We're upset with less restrictive gun ownership and less restricted types of firearms because a) guns are made to kill things, easily. Other things gun-lovers bring up have innocent primarily functions: phones, cars, knives. They aren't made for murder. And b) there isn't a zombie apocalypse coming. Disappointing, I know.

Things that bring about swift mortality should be strictly regulated without protest. For example, at work my culture of XDRTB isn't going to open itself, but that doesn't mean the government of Australia doesn't require a retina scanner to get into its storage facility. When things easily snuff out life, they should be hard as hell to get ahold of.

But if there is, we're all stocked up with zombiemax

JG -- Have you ever shot a gun? It is super fun to challenge yourself to get closer and closer to that little dot in the center of your target paper! There is also something super satisfying showing up at the range and having a bunch of men grin and comment about "helping" if you can't hit your target.... and then using your "cheap" gun to hit a 2" circle at 150 yards.


FWIW, guns are a serious matter. Gun ownership carries a big responsibility. I am responsible for every last gun I have purchased and every last round of ammunition. Period.

I hope to NEVER have to fire a gun at anything other than my paper target at the range. Ever. But you can bet I'm open carry when we go camping and would not hesitate to protect myself or my family if there was no alternative.

TP - I have no doubt you do an excellent job of being a responsible gun owner. Goodness knows there are LOTS of people like you. They will jump through every hoop and ensure their weapons and ammunition are secured and inaccessible to intruders.

And camping? I can get on board with keeping a firearm for that occasion. Going to Staples? Not so much. It's all about calculated risks, and I think camping falls into the category of being risky enough for a gun to be a reasonable safety precaution.

I've never shot a gun. I don't know if I ever will. I can pay to go to a firing range here and do so, and perhaps I will one day for the novelty factor. I did grow up in the midwest though, where 75% of the boys (and a good number of the girls) were missing around this time of the year for hunting season traditions. My own father owns guns, but I never saw them during my childhood. If he hadn't actually stated that he had them when I was an adult, I wouldn't have ever known. I suspect he's the type that has them because goshdarnnit I can, and ain't no one tells me I can't.

 

[TooPatient]

I should have also cited this earlier (when noting that drunk driving deaths have dropped by half since 1980).....gun deaths have dropped by half in the last 20 years as well.

Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Again, I will opine that efforts to legislate around this issue should involve measures to empower society so we can help those who are too unwell to seek help themselves.

PS: still waiting for someone to tell me how the (hypothetical) loaded gun on my proverbial porch is going to shoot itself.

You're like a dog with a bone, lol.

The gun will not shoot itself. We all know that. We're upset with less restrictive gun ownership and less restricted types of firearms because a) guns are made to kill things, easily. Other things gun-lovers bring up have innocent primarily functions: phones, cars, knives. They aren't made for murder. And b) there isn't a zombie apocalypse coming. Disappointing, I know.

Things that bring about swift mortality should be strictly regulated without protest. For example, at work my culture of XDRTB isn't going to open itself, but that doesn't mean the government of Australia doesn't require a retina scanner to get into its storage facility. When things easily snuff out life, they should be hard as hell to get ahold of.

But if there is, we're all stocked up with zombiemax

JG -- Have you ever shot a gun? It is super fun to challenge yourself to get closer and closer to that little dot in the center of your target paper! There is also something super satisfying showing up at the range and having a bunch of men grin and comment about "helping" if you can't hit your target.... and then using your "cheap" gun to hit a 2" circle at 150 yards.


FWIW, guns are a serious matter. Gun ownership carries a big responsibility. I am responsible for every last gun I have purchased and every last round of ammunition. Period.

I hope to NEVER have to fire a gun at anything other than my paper target at the range. Ever. But you can bet I'm open carry when we go camping and would not hesitate to protect myself or my family if there was no alternative.

TP - I have no doubt you do an excellent job of being a responsible gun owner. Goodness knows there are LOTS of people like you. They will jump through every hoop and ensure their weapons and ammunition are secured and inaccessible to intruders.

And camping? I can get on board with keeping a firearm for that occasion. Going to Staples? Not so much. It's all about calculated risks, and I think camping falls into the category of being risky enough for a gun to be a reasonable safety precaution.

I've never shot a gun. I don't know if I ever will. I can pay to go to a firing range here and do so, and perhaps I will one day for the novelty factor. I did grow up in the midwest though, where 75% of the boys (and a good number of the girls) were missing around this time of the year for hunting season traditions. My own father owns guns, but I never saw them during my childhood. If he hadn't actually stated that he had them when I was an adult, I wouldn't have ever known. I suspect he's the type that has them because goshdarnnit I can, and ain't no one tells me I can't.

Funny about your dad! My grandfather is a hunter so I've been around them forever.... but "guns are for boys"

The first trip to the range was noisy and a bit scary but I got plenty of time to relax and have fun in my safety class. It is still funny to show up to the range and have guys look at me and expect one thing only to see something totally different! The guys who are there regularly know me now and don't do anything but smile when some new guy makes some dumb comment about girls not being able to use real guns...

You'll have to go try a few out at the range and see what you think.



Oh -- regarding the Staples incident, that woman was NOT carrying responsibly. Carrying in any sort of bag (even those designed to safely hold a gun) is not a great option -- set the purse down, have it grabbed, etc... --- but carrying a loaded gun loose in a regular purse!?! NOT okay

Open carrying in Staples (or any store) is not something I would personally do but don't mind in the slightest when I see other people doing so. I'm more worried about those illegally concealing (like gang members or wanna be trouble makers). Would I concealed carry in a Staples (or any other store)? Yes. Without hesitation. The whole point of concealed carry is that it is concealed so no one knows it is there unless it has to be brought out. You've got to look a bit harder for the stories, but there have been criminals stopped by someone legally concealed carrying in the right place at the right time. One statistic I've never seen (and I don't think you can find it anywhere) is how many people routinely concealed carry and no one ever knows.

I don't go out of my way to make people feel uncomfortable. There are lots of us out there. We want our right to safely, legally, and responsibly carry but choose to do so in a way that you'd never know.

 

[LaraOnline]

A group of men gathering with automatic weapons and waiting for FOUR women to come out of the building is NOT supposed to be seen as anything other than "exercising their rights?" You're kidding, right?

Once again as an observer in another country I sit goggle-eyed on a gun thread!

 

[soxfan]

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.

Yeah, everyone I know who waits for a bus or watches a football game crouches down with guns.

 

[Kandie]

I wish we were allowed to talk about Moissanite and Amora Gems instead of guns !!!

 

[aljdewey]

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.

Yeah, everyone I know who waits for a bus or watches a football game crouches down with guns.

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out -- I figured most could infer the point -- but since it seems required......

The observation I made re the football game/bus was relative to their stances and posture alone. Cute of you to try and bypass that, but let's bring the comment back into context. The point was: the only thing that made people deem them intimidating or aggressive was the presence of guns. Had that same group been standing in that same posture absent guns, I do believe the hysteria and histrionics would have been non-existent.

The reaction was to the guns.....yanno, the things that can not shoot themselves. Worth repeating.

 

[VRBeauty]

Here's what that photo represents to me - the fact that the large gun groups are very effective in silencing any discussion of gun laws to through intimidation. The intimidation of a group of women in a coffee shop probably has little impact in the big picture. But the gun lobby effectively does the same thing to Congress - they threaten to spend big money and unleash a powerful lobby against any law maker who even suggests that we should have an open discussion about whether whether certain aspects of gun laws should be changed, or whether changing them might change the levels of gun violence we see in this country. Open carry, yes. Open discussion? Hah - just try it, sucker!

 

[soxfan]

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.

Yeah, everyone I know who waits for a bus or watches a football game crouches down with guns.

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out -- I figured most could infer the point -- but since it seems required......

The observation I made re the football game/bus was relative to their stances and posture alone. Cute of you to try and bypass that, but let's bring the comment back into context. The point was: the only thing that made people deem them intimidating or aggressive was the presence of guns. Had that same group been standing in that same posture absent guns, I do believe the hysteria and histrionics would have been non-existent.

The reaction was to the guns.....yanno, the things that can not shoot themselves. Worth repeating.

I know. Your "loaded gun on the porch" analogy.

I don't know ANYONE who would walk outside of that building and not feel threatened at all. And don't tell me again that it's ignorance or that there is something wrong with me and my perception of guns. And for God's sake PLEASE stop with the "I didn't think I'd have to spell it out, most could get the point, worth repeating" crap. Stop acting like you are more intelligent than others on this thread.

Once you started mimicking the scores of Facebook posters with the old "cars kill people, kitchen knives kill people..." I knew I should have just let it go. You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

Yes, their posture and stance IS threatening.

My father hunts. I grew up around guns. He must have 20 of them. I've NEVER seen him crouch down in a parking lot with a rifle, waiting for a group of FOUR women to come out of a building. Why? Because he would NEVER do that because he KNOWS it would be threatening behavior.

 

[aljdewey]

[

The gun will not shoot itself. We all know that. We're upset with less restrictive gun ownership and less restricted types of firearms because a) guns are made to kill things, easily. Other things gun-lovers bring up have innocent primarily functions: phones, cars, knives. They aren't made for murder. And b) there isn't a zombie apocalypse coming. Disappointing, I know.

Things that bring about swift mortality should be strictly regulated without protest. For example, at work my culture of XDRTB isn't going to open itself, but that doesn't mean the government of Australia doesn't require a retina scanner to get into its storage facility. When things easily snuff out life, they should be hard as hell to get ahold of.

Finally, we've established the gun won't shoot itself. That's a great starting point.

Your example - the retina scanner for the storage facility - is a fabulous example that fully underscores what I've proposed in this thread. Like a gun, the XDRTB culture has the potential to wreak widespread devastation and wipe out multitudes of people.....in the wrong hands. By installing the retina scanner, your company has taken measures to ensure that only people with demonstrated fitness to access it can access it. They've correctly identified that the XDRTB culture, while potentially dangerous, has potential beneficial purposes in the right hands, and they've correctly placed the restrictions where they should be in limiting *who* can access it (operator).

I am not opposed to well-targeted proposed changes in the law that make it harder for the *wrong* people to get their hands on guns. I think people with demonstrated unstable behavior should not have access to guns, but I gotta say I've yet to see any of these groups propose anything even close to that. The focus of the change should be on the gun operator, in my opinion, and not the gun.

 

[ksinger]

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.

Yeah, everyone I know who waits for a bus or watches a football game crouches down with guns.

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out -- I figured most could infer the point -- but since it seems required......

The observation I made re the football game/bus was relative to their stances and posture alone. Cute of you to try and bypass that, but let's bring the comment back into context. The point was: the only thing that made people deem them intimidating or aggressive was the presence of guns. Had that same group been standing in that same posture absent guns, I do believe the hysteria and histrionics would have been non-existent.

The reaction was to the guns.....yanno, the things that can not shoot themselves. Worth repeating.

I know. Your "loaded gun on the porch" analogy.

I don't know ANYONE who would walk outside of that building and not feel threatened at all. And don't tell me again that it's ignorance or that there is something wrong with me and my perception of guns. And for God's sake PLEASE stop with the "I didn't think I'd have to spell it out, most could get the point, worth repeating" crap. Stop acting like you are more intelligent than others on this thread.

Once you started mimicking the scores of Facebook posters with the old "cars kill people, kitchen knives kill people..." I knew I should have just let it go. You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

Yes, their posture and stance IS threatening.

My father hunts. I grew up around guns. He must have 20 of them. I've NEVER seen him crouch down in a parking lot with a rifle, waiting for a group of FOUR women to come out of a building. Why? Because he would NEVER do that because he KNOWS it would be threatening behavior.

Yes. Absolutely it is threatening, and anyone who says it isn't or shouldn't be, has been living in a box. Guns in this country are frequently tied up with some some other very ugly attitudes. All one has to do is to compare a gunshow of 30 years ago - when the sporting-collector/paranoid mix was about an 80/20 split, maybe even closer to 90/10, to today when the split is completely reversed, where you can't even get IN without going by the Rambo paramilitary crap FIRST. The entire tenor of the shows now is different, much scarier. There is only one show in our area now that approximates the shows I remember. And I NEVER recall having seen a black person in one, then or especially now.

If my husband, who sold guns and worked the shows for 15 years and is by no means against gun ownership can see and admit all the above - and he does - then it's purt durn obvious.

 

[aljdewey]

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.

Yeah, everyone I know who waits for a bus or watches a football game crouches down with guns.

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out -- I figured most could infer the point -- but since it seems required......

The observation I made re the football game/bus was relative to their stances and posture alone. Cute of you to try and bypass that, but let's bring the comment back into context. The point was: the only thing that made people deem them intimidating or aggressive was the presence of guns. Had that same group been standing in that same posture absent guns, I do believe the hysteria and histrionics would have been non-existent.

The reaction was to the guns.....yanno, the things that can not shoot themselves. Worth repeating.

I know. Your "loaded gun on the porch" analogy.

I don't know ANYONE who would walk outside of that building and not feel threatened at all. And don't tell me again that it's ignorance or that there is something wrong with me and my perception of guns. And for God's sake PLEASE stop with the "I didn't think I'd have to spell it out, most could get the point, worth repeating" crap. Stop acting like you are more intelligent than others on this thread.

Once you started mimicking the scores of Facebook posters with the old "cars kill people, kitchen knives kill people..." I knew I should have just let it go. You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

Yes, their posture and stance IS threatening.

My father hunts. I grew up around guns. He must have 20 of them. I've NEVER seen him crouch down in a parking lot with a rifle, waiting for a group of FOUR women to come out of a building. Why? Because he would NEVER do that because he KNOWS it would be threatening behavior.

I find it hilarious that someone who's peppered multiple posts with eyeroll emoties is going to preach at anyone else about condescension and not getting it. If you truly expect to people to treat you with respect, it would be good to begin by extending the same courtesy.

There is not a single post I've written that has made any comment about your personal perception or anything wrong with you at all. If you are unable to read my comments without taking them personally, by all means please feel free to skip over everything I write and ignore it. They are general comments not directed at you individually.

For my part, I'm contributing to a discussion about what I feel is a shortcoming in the current climate of the fury that is gun control. Full stop.

 

[justginger]

[

The gun will not shoot itself. We all know that. We're upset with less restrictive gun ownership and less restricted types of firearms because a) guns are made to kill things, easily. Other things gun-lovers bring up have innocent primarily functions: phones, cars, knives. They aren't made for murder. And b) there isn't a zombie apocalypse coming. Disappointing, I know.

Things that bring about swift mortality should be strictly regulated without protest. For example, at work my culture of XDRTB isn't going to open itself, but that doesn't mean the government of Australia doesn't require a retina scanner to get into its storage facility. When things easily snuff out life, they should be hard as hell to get ahold of.

Finally, we've established the gun won't shoot itself. That's a great starting point.

Your example - the retina scanner for the storage facility - is a fabulous example that fully underscores what I've proposed in this thread. Like a gun, the XDRTB culture has the potential to wreak widespread devastation and wipe out multitudes of people.....in the wrong hands. By installing the retina scanner, your company has taken measures to ensure that only people with demonstrated fitness to access it can access it. They've correctly identified that the XDRTB culture, while potentially dangerous, has potential beneficial purposes in the right hands, and they've correctly placed the restrictions where they should be in limiting *who* can access it (operator).

I am not opposed to well-targeted proposed changes in the law that make it harder for the *wrong* people to get their hands on guns. I think people with demonstrated unstable behavior should not have access to guns, but I gotta say I've yet to see any of these groups propose anything even close to that. The focus of the change should be on the gun operator, in my opinion, and not the gun.

I would never be permitted to carry around these cultures in public, and certainly not to a demonstration in a parking lot! Similarly, I think guns should not be allowed in public. They are personal protection measures, not fit for common exposure.

The level of clearance to get to these cultures is likely to be ten times that to get a gun. One culture, if used 'properly' (and by that I mean efficiently, in the case you want to do damage) might lead to deaths of what? Half a dozen people, perhaps fewer if they are of sound immunity. One gun could be used to murder thousands, given enough time. I'd like to see gun regulations in line with biological weapons regulations because I see no difference between them.

 

[soxfan]

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.

Yeah, everyone I know who waits for a bus or watches a football game crouches down with guns.

I didn't think I'd have to spell this out -- I figured most could infer the point -- but since it seems required......

The observation I made re the football game/bus was relative to their stances and posture alone. Cute of you to try and bypass that, but let's bring the comment back into context. The point was: the only thing that made people deem them intimidating or aggressive was the presence of guns. Had that same group been standing in that same posture absent guns, I do believe the hysteria and histrionics would have been non-existent.

The reaction was to the guns.....yanno, the things that can not shoot themselves. Worth repeating.

I know. Your "loaded gun on the porch" analogy.

I don't know ANYONE who would walk outside of that building and not feel threatened at all. And don't tell me again that it's ignorance or that there is something wrong with me and my perception of guns. And for God's sake PLEASE stop with the "I didn't think I'd have to spell it out, most could get the point, worth repeating" crap. Stop acting like you are more intelligent than others on this thread.

Once you started mimicking the scores of Facebook posters with the old "cars kill people, kitchen knives kill people..." I knew I should have just let it go. You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

Yes, their posture and stance IS threatening.

My father hunts. I grew up around guns. He must have 20 of them. I've NEVER seen him crouch down in a parking lot with a rifle, waiting for a group of FOUR women to come out of a building. Why? Because he would NEVER do that because he KNOWS it would be threatening behavior.

I find it hilarious that someone who's peppered multiple posts with eyeroll emoties is going to preach at anyone else about condescension and not getting it. If you truly expect to people to treat you with respect, it would be good to begin by extending the same courtesy.

There is not a single post I've written that has made any comment about your personal perception or anything wrong with you at all. If you are unable to read my comments without taking them personally, by all means please feel free to skip over everything I write and ignore it. They are general comments not directed at you individually.

For my part, I'm contributing to a discussion about what I feel is a shortcoming in the current climate of the fury that is gun control. Full stop.

Point taken. However, this statement here IMPLIES that those of us who WOULD be frightened by a group standing outside with guns are ignorant on the topic.


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).

It's like blaming us for being scared of a group of people with guns when ALL we see every single day on the news is people getting killed by them. Did they state their purpose? Did they have a sign that said "We are protesting gun safety laws and exercising our right to bear arms? They just stood around with guns. No one knew their purpose or intent. I didn't see any children in the group holding guns, but I'd be JUST as scared. Maybe more so…..

I could be wrong. Let me know if they did call ahead and make their intent known...

 

[liaerfbv]

I don't normally get involved on political threads, but I feel compelled to at least weigh in and maybe help gun supporters and enthusiasts understand the other side. I'm 29 years old, and I've been a victim in 3, yes THREE, shooting incidents.
1. A gun was brought to my middle school (pre-Columbine). Shots fired, no victims.
2. There was a shooting at my office building a few years ago by a disgruntled ex-employee. 1 killed, 6 wounded.
3. I happened to be at a bank during a robbery. 1 wounded.

Thankfully, I've never had shots fired at me, and my involvement in all of the above was circumstantial. I recognize that my experience is out of the norm, and that most people hopefully will never have any of my experiences happen to them.

Yes, I would feel threatened if a group of men with guns was waiting for me outside of a restaurant. The presence of guns is inherently aggressive because the sole purpose of a gun is to cause harm. Guns have repeatedly been likened to knives, cars, drunk driving, etc. in this thread, but the fact remains, these objects have other purposes. Yes, they can and do cause harm, and in the hands of bad/irresponsible/mentally ill people can be as dangerous as a gun, but let's be real, you'd be more fearful of a man holding a firearm than a man holding a knife. Why? The gun is more dangerous and more likely to cause you harm.

That being said, I'd probably be just as fearful of a group of NON-ARMED men waiting for me. But maybe that's just me.

I understand the several comments made that we need to worry more about addressing mental health issues rather than gun control. But again, I think a key factor has been missed here. We need to address mental health and hopefully get people help before they hurt others, but the fact remains that mentally ill individuals keep choosing guns to lash out because they are readily available. If I'm mentally ill, angry, stricken with grief (or whatever the case may be), and I want to hurt as many other people as I can to make a point about how the world has done me wrong, I'm not likely going to do so with chemical weapons, for example, because those are difficult to obtain. I'm going to buy an automatic rifle and ammunition available to me from the comfort of my couch via the internet.

I do respect the 2nd amendment and the individual right to bear arms. My dad was a gun owner and had a concealed permit. However, in my opinion, no individual has the need for a (semi-)automatic weapon for personal use. We should be limiting the sale of ammunition online. We need to have harsher punishment for gun related crimes. If that makes it more "inconvenient" for some, that's a price I'm willing to pay for the collectively safety of the people in this country.

I recognize that there's no way to guarantee safety for everyone and that's there's always going to be someone who is looking for (and will find) a way to hurt someone else. But how can we stand by and do nothing when so many people are dying preventable deaths? What does that say about our society? That we value "our rights" more than human life? I don't ever want anyone else to have to experience to fear that I've felt having a gun pointed at me.

 

[dragonfly411]

First, I'd like to say that the people who went to a restaurant and took out their guns were a bit over the top. The women were having a meeting to discuss their thoughts. That's their freedom.

Now. I would like to tell you a story. This happened very recently, and I am still dealing with the after effects.

SO's mom dated a man for four years. He lived in her home, ate, drank, sat with us. Talked with us. This year she brought a roommate into the home, a person in need, who paid rent regularly, kept to his room, helped pay for groceries and was a very respectful person who just needed some help getting his life on track. He'd been through a messy break up, lived at another house and had the land lords try to steal all of his belongings, completely clean record. The boyfriend didn't like it at all, and didn't like him. Things got worse, he began ranting about how he was going to get the roommate out, and at the boil of things, said he'd get SO to remove the man. I put my foot down and told them all that we were no longer to be involved. That week, SO's mother had a restraining order placed against the now ex-boyfriend after he chased her down their road screaming at her. He was removed from the home by police. What happened next was something we never would have expected.

The ex-boyfriend stole a gun, sawed the barrel down and removed the bulkier part of the stock. He somehow acquired flashlights, a sleeping bag, and binoculars and from what we gathered later, camped behind SO's mother's house for parts of the following week. He also found a house to stay in, and we later learned he covered the windows, destroyed the inside of the home, and had gathered knives, saws, and other sharp objects. He started following all of us in his car, so badly that SO stopped one day, got out of our truck and told him that if he didn't stop following us we would be forced to report it. That weekend, he broke into SO's mom's home in the middle of the night. The man who was renting the room was on the couch, with his legally owned gun next to him because we were all so scared for our safety. The ex boyfriend shot the man twice in the leg before the man was able to shoot back. The ex boyfriend was killed. It was found that he had just enough bullets for all three members of the home, and it is believed that he did not hit accurately on his first shot.

Now. For those of you who believe in gun control. WHAT do you think would have happened if the new roommate had not been able to legally own a gun to protect the members of the household? Do you think he just planned to injure and leave? The fact is, SO would be without a mother, and possibly without a sister today if the roommate had not been a legal gun owner.

Do not tell me that we should not be allowed to legally own guns to defend ourselves from those who obviously aren't rational when they perform such scary acts.

 

[liaerfbv]

Now. For those of you who believe in gun control. WHAT do you think would have happened if the new roommate had not been able to legally own a gun to protect the members of the household? Do you think he just planned to injure and leave? The fact is, SO would be without a mother, and possibly without a sister today if the roommate had not been a legal gun owner.

Do not tell me that we should not be allowed to legally own guns to defend ourselves from those who obviously aren't rational when they perform such scary acts.

I know the internet is tone deaf, so I want to preface this with I am truly sorry that you had to deal with this. I cannot imagine how scary that would have been, and I'm not trying to downplay the situation in any way.

That said, I feel like that situation escalation could have been prevented. If you feel you or your family is in danger, report it to the police. Don't threaten to report it. In my opinion, gun control has a trickle down effect. If you look at places like the UK which do not allow private ownership of a gun (UK citizens, please correct me if I'm wrong here), you don't need guns to protect yourself as the perpetrators don't have guns either because they are so tightly regulated (at least what I've been told by friends living in the UK). I'm not pro-banning of guns, I'm just explaining the mentality. I'm glad that someone was there to protect your family from a violent crime. I'm saying it's shame that a) the police weren't involved when you felt threatened after a RO was in place, and b) the man was able to easily get a gun in the first place.

 

[dragonfly411]

Liaer - SO's mother reported him twice in that week. Once when their tires were slashed, and once when he waited outside of her place of work. Both times they gave him a warning and sent him on his way. They failed us. Miserably. Further, what would you have suggested for them if no one had guns but he had had axes.... arrows, shovels, saws, all things he could have reached them from a distance with. Because he had all of those as well.

We have a right to defend ourselves, to defend our lives.

So to whoever started this. What the hell gun people?! is a little bit ridiculous and insensitive. We own guns to hunt and to protect ourselves. I'm sorry you seem to think that means that we are as bad as the activists who took guns to a restaurant.

 

[liaerfbv]

Liaer - SO's mother reported him twice in that week. Once when their tires were slashed, and once when he waited outside of her place of work. Both times they gave him a warning and sent him on his way. They failed us. Miserably.

That's really disheartening. I'm so sorry the police weren't there when you needed them. Like I said, in this situation, I'm glad someone was there to protect your family. And I think in lots of situations, like this one, guns can be a good thing. I just think in the larger sense they cause more harm than good.

 

[chrono]

I grew up where nobody was allowed to own or carry guns unless you are in the military or in the police force. The rule seems to have worked because I never saw / read news of mass gun murders whilst growing up. I am now in the USA though so I follow such news with interest and sadness at so many innocent lives lost. On one hand, I read that it is difficult to buy and own guns, and on the other hand, I've also read that it is easy to circumvent the system (theft, black market, fake ID)?

 

[aljdewey]

[

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.

It's like blaming us for being scared of a group of people with guns when ALL we see every single day on the news is people getting killed by them. Did they state their purpose? Did they have a sign that said "We are protesting gun safety laws and exercising our right to bear arms? They just stood around with guns. No one knew their purpose or intent. I didn't see any children in the group holding guns, but I'd be JUST as scared. Maybe more so…..

Blame? Is that what you think the comment was about? It's not about blame at all; just the opposite, in fact. If the only frame of reference ones has about guns is what they see on the news, it's fully understandable why they are fearful. They've not been to a gun range where scores of sportsmen use guns non-violently to target shoot. They've not been exposed to an assembly where people with guns in their possession didn't erupt into violence.

OTC's mission is stated pretty clearly on its Facebook page - to "educate Texans about their right to openly carry rifles and shotguns in a safe manner and to "condition Texans to feel safe around law-abiding citizens that choose to carry them." They seek to foster a cooperative relationship with police "with an eye towards preventing negative encounters."

That's a pretty clear statement of purpose to me. Did they have signs? if I'm not mistaken *neither* group did. According the article in USA today, the OTC group learned of the MDA's so-called 'private' meeting through a Facebook post (because nothing says private like broadcasting on Facebook.)

Did the MDA group declare they were only four people? They were in a restaurant full of patrons. Were the MDA women clearly identifiable? Were *they* wearing signs and placards, or do you only require that when a group with an opposing viewpoint arrives? Is there a commonly accepted protocol about assembly that requires each side to get a headcount from the other?

The photo everyone keeps labeling as intimidating? That was taken by a member of the mothers group while in the restaurant. What does that mean? That the assembled group was not facing the restaurant staring down the four moms. They weren't facing the restaurant in that photo at all. What they were actually facing was someone else with a camera; they were posing for a group photo, and when you view the photo taken from *that* angle, it's far from intimidating. Link if you're interested.....http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

I wonder if the cry for restraint of crappy behavior applies to the gun safety group, too? One of the four moms felt free to call the group an expletive name, but I'm sure that's not going to be considered as inciteful behavior. One also filed a police complaint (even though they were facing away from the women and doing nothing unlawful).

If I'm asked which side is behaving more rationally right now....I'm thinking it's not the so-called 'safety for all' group.

 

[TooPatient]

First, I'd like to say that the people who went to a restaurant and took out their guns were a bit over the top. The women were having a meeting to discuss their thoughts. That's their freedom.

Now. I would like to tell you a story. This happened very recently, and I am still dealing with the after effects.

SO's mom dated a man for four years. He lived in her home, ate, drank, sat with us. Talked with us. This year she brought a roommate into the home, a person in need, who paid rent regularly, kept to his room, helped pay for groceries and was a very respectful person who just needed some help getting his life on track. He'd been through a messy break up, lived at another house and had the land lords try to steal all of his belongings, completely clean record. The boyfriend didn't like it at all, and didn't like him. Things got worse, he began ranting about how he was going to get the roommate out, and at the boil of things, said he'd get SO to remove the man. I put my foot down and told them all that we were no longer to be involved. That week, SO's mother had a restraining order placed against the now ex-boyfriend after he chased her down their road screaming at her. He was removed from the home by police. What happened next was something we never would have expected.

The ex-boyfriend stole a gun, sawed the barrel down and removed the bulkier part of the stock. He somehow acquired flashlights, a sleeping bag, and binoculars and from what we gathered later, camped behind SO's mother's house for parts of the following week. He also found a house to stay in, and we later learned he covered the windows, destroyed the inside of the home, and had gathered knives, saws, and other sharp objects. He started following all of us in his car, so badly that SO stopped one day, got out of our truck and told him that if he didn't stop following us we would be forced to report it. That weekend, he broke into SO's mom's home in the middle of the night. The man who was renting the room was on the couch, with his legally owned gun next to him because we were all so scared for our safety. The ex boyfriend shot the man twice in the leg before the man was able to shoot back. The ex boyfriend was killed. It was found that he had just enough bullets for all three members of the home, and it is believed that he did not hit accurately on his first shot.

Now. For those of you who believe in gun control. WHAT do you think would have happened if the new roommate had not been able to legally own a gun to protect the members of the household? Do you think he just planned to injure and leave? The fact is, SO would be without a mother, and possibly without a sister today if the roommate had not been a legal gun owner.

Do not tell me that we should not be allowed to legally own guns to defend ourselves from those who obviously aren't rational when they perform such scary acts.

I am so glad the man was there and able to protect your family!

It sounds like the ex was willing to use whatever he could get hold of to do injury (and murder!) your family. Guns aren't the only things capable of killing when someone wants to use them that way.