What the hell, gun people!?!

[TooPatient]

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.

Great picture! Thanks for linking.

So the guys kneeling with guns were kneeling to fit everyone in the picture and ensure proper safe handling of guns.... Hmm.... I can see how people posing for a picture (facing a different direction) could be seen as very threatening?

 

[Snicklefritz]

"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.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the mental health system is drastically imperfect.

 

[soxfan]

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.

I saw the picture. I would still want to know why there was a group of people with SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons in the parking lot, even if they were smiling, not in a threatening pose, and the group contained women and children.

I don't think the women needed to identify themselves because they were not carrying semi-automatic weapons. It's not that they had an "opposing viewpoint," it's that they had weapons capable of killing people. Plain and simple.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think bringing semi-automatic weapons to a restaurant parking lot is "rational" in any way, shape, or form.

 

[aljdewey]

[
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.

I wanted to break this into a separate post by itself because it clearly illustrates something I commented on earlier in the thread.

This photo was interpreted by some viewers as intimidating because they perceived the OTC group was 'staring down four moms in a restaurant.' Where did they get that perception? It wasn't from the data in the photo; it was filled in and colored by personally held negative perceptions of the viewers.

That type of filling in the blanks is what I feel has prevented us as a nation from having a reasoned discussion about gun controls. You can't come to a meeting of the minds and agree on solutions when either side (for or against) fills in blanks that are not there.

 

[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.

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.

It was disheartening. We did make note with the department of the failures. The entire thing could possibly have been prevented if they had taken action. That being said, I feel much better now with the after effects knowing we have our registered and legal guns in our home.

 

[momhappy]

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.

I saw the picture. I would still want to know why there was a group of people with SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons in the parking lot, even if they were smiling, not in a threatening pose, and the group contained women and children.

I don't think the women needed to identify themselves because they were not carrying semi-automatic weapons. It's not that they had an "opposing viewpoint," it's that they had weapons capable of killing people. Plain and simple.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think bringing semi-automatic weapons to a restaurant parking lot is "rational" in any way, shape, or form.

I think that the term "semi-automatic" is being thrown around in this thread (not picking on this particular post, but rather addressing the language/general tone of the entire thread).
A semi-automatic weapon simply describes the mechanism for inserting cartridges into a firing chamber. The action of a semi-automatic weapon can best be described as "automatic loading," where the bullet is fired, expelled, and a new cartridge is loaded into the firing chamber (and the gun won't fire until the trigger is released again). This is distinct from a fully-automatic firearm (often known as a machine gun), where the shots are fired in succession until the trigger released (or the cartridge is empty). A revolver, that is not technically not considered a semi-automatic, fires a bullet with every squeeze of the trigger, but there is no "action" that loads and unloads cartridges.
Also, I don't disagree with the fact that standing around with guns was not meant to be threatening - it was. However, the group of individuals who were supporting their right to bear arms were likely feeling threatened too. I feel threatened by large signs with images of dead babies, marching around outside of Planned Parenthood, but that's the whole point. It's meant to provoke thought and emotion. In this particular instance, the men were not directly threatening the safety of those women (they were not pointing guns at them, yelling, etc.). To say that they were "crouching down with guns" is a bit of a stretch - yes, some of them were kneeling (probably out of comfort), but not in a crouching-gun-pointing stance. The guns were merely being used as props to convey their messages/opinions.

 

[aljdewey]

I saw the picture. I would still want to know why there was a group of people with SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons in the parking lot, even if they were smiling, not in a threatening pose, and the group contained women and children.

I wouldn't presume to speak for them, but my guess to the why question is 1) because they are legally allowed to, 2) because their mission to is show that guns are not inherently unsafe in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens who've demonstrated a fitness of ownership. By showing the second, I"m sure they hope to prevent restrictions that will only materially affect those law-abiding owners and will not ultimately prevent the root trouble, which is guns in the hands of criminals or mentally unfit people.

I don't think the women needed to identify themselves because they were not carrying semi-automatic weapons. It's not that they had an "opposing viewpoint," it's that they had weapons capable of killing people. Plain and simple.

I note that you've chosen to place "semi-automatic" in caps. It's worth noting that all weapons are capable of killing people when in the wrong hands.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think bringing semi-automatic weapons to a restaurant parking lot is "rational" in any way, shape, or form.

We can do that. For what it's worth, I don't presume that any of us will ultimately change others' thinking, but I do believe the exchange of viewpoints did and does still have value.

 

[Loves Vintage]

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.

I saw the picture. I would still want to know why there was a group of people with SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons in the parking lot, even if they were smiling, not in a threatening pose, and the group contained women and children.

I don't think the women needed to identify themselves because they were not carrying semi-automatic weapons. It's not that they had an "opposing viewpoint," it's that they had weapons capable of killing people. Plain and simple.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think bringing semi-automatic weapons to a restaurant parking lot is "rational" in any way, shape, or form.

I think that the term "semi-automatic" is being thrown around in this thread (not picking on this particular post, but rather addressing the language/general tone of the entire thread).
A semi-automatic weapon simply describes the mechanism for inserting cartridges into a firing chamber. The action of a semi-automatic weapon can best be described as "automatic loading," where the bullet is fired, expelled, and a new cartridge is loaded into the firing chamber (and the gun won't fire until the trigger is released again). This is distinct from a fully-automatic firearm (often known as a machine gun), where the shots are fired in succession until the trigger released (or the cartridge is empty). A revolver, that is not technically not considered a semi-automatic, fires a bullet with every squeeze of the trigger, but there is no "action" that loads and unloads cartridges.
Also, I don't disagree with the fact that standing around with guns was not meant to be threatening - it was. However, the group of individuals who were supporting their right to bear arms were likely feeling threatened too. I feel threatened by large signs with images of dead babies, marching around outside of Planned Parenthood, but that's the whole point. It's meant to provoke thought and emotion. In this particular instance, the men were not directly threatening the safety of those women (they were not pointing guns at them, yelling, etc.). To say that they were "crouching down with guns" is a bit of a stretch - yes, some of them were kneeling (probably out of comfort), but not in a crouching-gun-pointing stance. The guns were merely being used as props to convey their messages/opinions.

I don't feel threatened by the people who carry signs with dead babies on them. It makes me feel sad, but not personally threatened. By the same token, I would not feel threatened by a man carrying around a big sign with a gun on it. I would, however, feel threatened by just one man carrying a gun, let alone a group of white men carrying guns in a parking lot. I find it hard to believe that most people would not feel threatened by one or a bunch of men who they do not know carrying guns in a parking lot. I would be heading in the opposite direction of the gun-toting crowd, frankly.

 

[House Cat]

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

You mean like driving down the highway and getting wiped out by another teen texting on the phone? You mean like preventing the kids in school dealing drugs in the bathroom? Are our children "safe" from those forms of slaughter? Are the kids any less dead when they die from those? As a matter of statistics, kids die much, *much* more frequently from drugs and texting than they do from mass shootings, and those (drugs and texting while driving) already *are* illegal. Hasn't seemed to stop the problem at all from where I sit.

This is that same rhetoric that I was speaking of in my original post on this thread.

Please, don't downplay school shootings by comparing it to texting and driving. What you are doing is crass and insensitive and it won't work to derail the discussion at hand. While I realize that the children might be equally dead, we are speaking about our flawed gun laws and the terror that the children in our society are facing in the wake of gun violence. My child might choke on a tootsie roll too, but I truly pity the individual who believes that is a valid argument to bring up in order to discount the seriousness of gun violence in this country!

.

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

More of the same rhetoric.

Why don't you take responsibility for your beliefs and tell me how you will keep a person who is completely set on shooting up a school full of innocent children from doing so? This is a more respectable discussion rather than some hocus pocus about a gun shooting itself. Gun advocates love to use this argument and it is simple smoke and mirrors in order to derail the discussion. Why don't we have an intelligent conversation about keeping human beings safe in our society, instead of being silly and talking about inanimate objects coming to life.

The fact of the matter is there is a veritable slaughter going on in this nation and gun activists want to turn a blind eye to it without providing any feasible solutions to the actual very real problems that the guns are creating in our nation.

We can speak of how our country is failing the mentally ill, but there is another facet that no one is bringing up and that is the fact that the medical field is still in the dark ages when it comes to treating mental illness. I have first hand experience with medical professionals guessing at which diagnosis I had and guessing what meds would be right for me. Then, when those meds actually caused psychosis and mania, oh, then they realized I had yet another diagnosis! Then it was two solid years of trying one medication after another and a roller coaster ride of emotions and events leaving me psychotic, suicidal, depressed, manic, all to try and find the correct medications! And I wanted to get well!!! I don't envy these psychiatrists. They have to guess until they get lucky with these meds. My story isn't unique, it is common.

I have been in contact with countless families of people with mentally ill loved ones. I know more stories that I can count of psychotic family members and people trying to get them help. It is extremely difficult to get them involuntarily committed. Having someone deemed incompetent is very serious. Once again, we get into that territory of it being an infringement upon their rights.

Here is the thing, many people who are psychotic come into mental health facilities paranoid and spouting off wild accusations or ideas and there are a few common themes: I am God, I know God, the government is after me, I am being watched, I have super powers, I am psychic, etc. These common themes do not mean the person is dangerous because usually, once the person is properly medicated, these delusions disappear. One other thing really needs to be mentioned in defense of the family members of these people, usually psychosis comes on slowly. In other words, a person doesn't usually wake up one morning totally fine and the next morning hallucinating. Gradually, the symptoms come on. First a person might seem a little elevated in mood. They might start visiting the library more and checking out a ton of books, reading one or two per day. They might start staying up late at night. They might start arguing a bit more or be a bit more confrontational with the public. A few weeks or months might go by with this behavior. The person might hear voices and not say a thing, especially if this is the first time they have experienced this. The family will think the person is just acting like a jerk, especially if this is the first time they have seen this behavior in their loved one. Eventually, after months and months of *sort of* strange or semi-violent behavior, a stressful event usually causes the person to crack. The stressful event could be something as small as a big test or as big as a loved one dying. Remember that some of the family members DID try to get these people help, but the shooters were not in the throes of full psychosis, they were most likely on their way there and the mental health professionals didn't see anything alarming at the time that they saw them.

We must also know that a lot of these shooters HAD been "treated" for mental illness. Some of the teen shooters had been put on antidepressants, which have a black box warning for teens and shouldn't be prescribed because it puts them at risk for suicidal behavior. Other shooters had been treated for schizophrenia or psychosis, but I know that these meds are horrific to take and they do not work all of the time. The newer antipsychotics are so flipping expensive at $15 per pill and if someone isn't insured, they can't afford them.

What I am trying to say is that this is a very tricky, slippery issue. Focusing on the mental health issue isn't an exact science. There are so many factors at play. Should everyone who ever experiences psychosis just be locked up then, because we have guns available in our society? Pre-Reagan, we DID lock up most people with mental illness. Should we do that again? I do believe we could be doing a lot more for those that we suspect might be a danger to society. That doesn't mean that we should keep guns readily available to anyone who could snap at any moment. It doesn't take a mentally ill individual to shoot another person out of murderous rage.

 

[momhappy]

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.

I saw the picture. I would still want to know why there was a group of people with SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons in the parking lot, even if they were smiling, not in a threatening pose, and the group contained women and children.

I don't think the women needed to identify themselves because they were not carrying semi-automatic weapons. It's not that they had an "opposing viewpoint," it's that they had weapons capable of killing people. Plain and simple.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think bringing semi-automatic weapons to a restaurant parking lot is "rational" in any way, shape, or form.

I think that the term "semi-automatic" is being thrown around in this thread (not picking on this particular post, but rather addressing the language/general tone of the entire thread).
A semi-automatic weapon simply describes the mechanism for inserting cartridges into a firing chamber. The action of a semi-automatic weapon can best be described as "automatic loading," where the bullet is fired, expelled, and a new cartridge is loaded into the firing chamber (and the gun won't fire until the trigger is released again). This is distinct from a fully-automatic firearm (often known as a machine gun), where the shots are fired in succession until the trigger released (or the cartridge is empty). A revolver, that is not technically not considered a semi-automatic, fires a bullet with every squeeze of the trigger, but there is no "action" that loads and unloads cartridges.
Also, I don't disagree with the fact that standing around with guns was not meant to be threatening - it was. However, the group of individuals who were supporting their right to bear arms were likely feeling threatened too. I feel threatened by large signs with images of dead babies, marching around outside of Planned Parenthood, but that's the whole point. It's meant to provoke thought and emotion. In this particular instance, the men were not directly threatening the safety of those women (they were not pointing guns at them, yelling, etc.). To say that they were "crouching down with guns" is a bit of a stretch - yes, some of them were kneeling (probably out of comfort), but not in a crouching-gun-pointing stance. The guns were merely being used as props to convey their messages/opinions.

I don't feel threatened by the people who carry signs with dead babies on them. It makes me feel sad, but not personally threatened. By the same token, I would not feel threatened by a man carrying around a big sign with a gun on it. I would, however, feel threatened by just one man carrying a gun, let alone a group of white men carrying guns in a parking lot. I find it hard to believe that most people would not feel threatened by one or a bunch of men who they do not know carrying guns in a parking lot. I would be heading in the opposite direction of the gun-toting crowd, frankly.

I said that I agree that the guns were likely meant to be threatening, uncomfortable, thought-provoking, etc. I don't think that anyone here has said that "most" people would not feel threatened by a group of individuals holding firearms. However, some of this has to do with context. The men were supporting their right to bear arms and thus, brought their firearms. It's not that it was just some random group of men waling around with guns - it was an action in response of another action (a meeting of women to discuss "gun safety" or what the men believed to be "gun control"). For what it's worth, I happen to believe that the group of women was discussing gun control too - not gun safety as they might have some believe.

 

[Laila619]

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

You mean like driving down the highway and getting wiped out by another teen texting on the phone? You mean like preventing the kids in school dealing drugs in the bathroom? Are our children "safe" from those forms of slaughter? Are the kids any less dead when they die from those? As a matter of statistics, kids die much, *much* more frequently from drugs and texting than they do from mass shootings, and those (drugs and texting while driving) already *are* illegal. Hasn't seemed to stop the problem at all from where I sit.

This is that same rhetoric that I was speaking of in my original post on this thread.

Please, don't downplay school shootings by comparing it to texting and driving. What you are doing is crass and insensitive and it won't work to derail the discussion at hand. While I realize that the children might be equally dead, we are speaking about our flawed gun laws and the terror that the children in our society are facing in the wake of gun violence. My child might choke on a tootsie roll too, but I truly pity the individual who believes that is a valid argument to bring up in order to discount the seriousness of gun violence in this country!

.

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

More of the same rhetoric.

Why don't you take responsibility for your beliefs and tell me how you will keep a person who is completely set on shooting up a school full of innocent children from doing so? This is a more respectable discussion rather than some hocus pocus about a gun shooting itself. Gun advocates love to use this argument and it is simple smoke and mirrors in order to derail the discussion. Why don't we have an intelligent conversation about keeping human beings safe in our society, instead of being silly and talking about inanimate objects coming to life.

The fact of the matter is there is a veritable slaughter going on in this nation and gun activists want to turn a blind eye to it without providing any feasible solutions to the actual very real problems that the guns are creating in our nation.

We can speak of how our country is failing the mentally ill, but there is another facet that no one is bringing up and that is the fact that the medical field is still in the dark ages when it comes to treating mental illness. I have first hand experience with medical professionals guessing at which diagnosis I had and guessing what meds would be right for me. Then, when those meds actually caused psychosis and mania, oh, then they realized I had yet another diagnosis! Then it was two solid years of trying one medication after another and a roller coaster ride of emotions and events leaving me psychotic, suicidal, depressed, manic, all to try and find the correct medications! And I wanted to get well!!! I don't envy these psychiatrists. They have to guess until they get lucky with these meds. My story isn't unique, it is common.

I have been in contact with countless families of people with mentally ill loved ones. I know more stories that I can count of psychotic family members and people trying to get them help. It is extremely difficult to get them involuntarily committed. Having someone deemed incompetent is very serious. Once again, we get into that territory of it being an infringement upon their rights.

Here is the thing, many people who are psychotic come into mental health facilities paranoid and spouting off wild accusations or ideas and there are a few common themes: I am God, I know God, the government is after me, I am being watched, I have super powers, I am psychic, etc. These common themes do not mean the person is dangerous because usually, once the person is properly medicated, these delusions disappear. One other thing really needs to be mentioned in defense of the family members of these people, usually psychosis comes on slowly. In other words, a person doesn't usually wake up one morning totally fine and the next morning hallucinating. Gradually, the symptoms come on. First a person might seem a little elevated in mood. They might start visiting the library more and checking out a ton of books, reading one or two per day. They might start staying up late at night. They might start arguing a bit more or be a bit more confrontational with the public. A few weeks or months might go by with this behavior. The person might hear voices and not say a thing, especially if this is the first time they have experienced this. The family will think the person is just acting like a jerk, especially if this is the first time they have seen this behavior in their loved one. Eventually, after months and months of *sort of* strange or semi-violent behavior, a stressful event usually causes the person to crack. The stressful event could be something as small as a big test or as big as a loved one dying. Remember that some of the family members DID try to get these people help, but the shooters were not in the throes of full psychosis, they were most likely on their way there and the mental health professionals didn't see anything alarming at the time that they saw them.

We must also know that a lot of these shooters HAD been "treated" for mental illness. Some of the teen shooters had been put on antidepressants, which have a black box warning for teens and shouldn't be prescribed because it puts them at risk for suicidal behavior. Other shooters had been treated for schizophrenia or psychosis, but I know that these meds are horrific to take and they do not work all of the time. The newer antipsychotics are so flipping expensive at $15 per pill and if someone isn't insured, they can't afford them.

What I am trying to say is that this is a very tricky, slippery issue. Focusing on the mental health issue isn't an exact science. There are so many factors at play. Should everyone who ever experiences psychosis just be locked up then, because we have guns available in our society? Pre-Reagan, we DID lock up most people with mental illness. Should we do that again? I do believe we could be doing a lot more for those that we suspect might be a danger to society. That doesn't mean that we should keep guns readily available to anyone who could snap at any moment. It doesn't take a mentally ill individual to shoot another person out of murderous rage.

Fantastic post, House Cat. So well said.

 

[soxfan]

I saw the picture. I would still want to know why there was a group of people with SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons in the parking lot, even if they were smiling, not in a threatening pose, and the group contained women and children.

I wouldn't presume to speak for them, but my guess to the why question is 1) because they are legally allowed to, 2) because their mission to is show that guns are not inherently unsafe in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens who've demonstrated a fitness of ownership. By showing the second, I"m sure they hope to prevent restrictions that will only materially affect those law-abiding owners and will not ultimately prevent the root trouble, which is guns in the hands of criminals or mentally unfit people.

I don't think the women needed to identify themselves because they were not carrying semi-automatic weapons. It's not that they had an "opposing viewpoint," it's that they had weapons capable of killing people. Plain and simple.

I note that you've chosen to place "semi-automatic" in caps. It's worth noting that all weapons are capable of killing people when in the wrong hands.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think bringing semi-automatic weapons to a restaurant parking lot is "rational" in any way, shape, or form.

We can do that. For what it's worth, I don't presume that any of us will ultimately change others' thinking, but I do believe the exchange of viewpoints did and does still have value.

Yeah, I guess I still think of the Sandy Hook shooter and the semi-automatic weapon. BUT I don't think anyone NEEDS a semi-automatic unless they are in the military.

I used to teach, and I can't TELL you how many times I've eyed people coming into the building (my classroom was one of the ones closest to the entrance) suspiciously. It's just how it is since there have been so many mass shootings. And I think automatic weapons make it easier to kill the most amount of people.

 

[dragonfly411]

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

You mean like driving down the highway and getting wiped out by another teen texting on the phone? You mean like preventing the kids in school dealing drugs in the bathroom? Are our children "safe" from those forms of slaughter? Are the kids any less dead when they die from those? As a matter of statistics, kids die much, *much* more frequently from drugs and texting than they do from mass shootings, and those (drugs and texting while driving) already *are* illegal. Hasn't seemed to stop the problem at all from where I sit.

This is that same rhetoric that I was speaking of in my original post on this thread.

Please, don't downplay school shootings by comparing it to texting and driving. What you are doing is crass and insensitive and it won't work to derail the discussion at hand. While I realize that the children might be equally dead, we are speaking about our flawed gun laws and the terror that the children in our society are facing in the wake of gun violence. My child might choke on a tootsie roll too, but I truly pity the individual who believes that is a valid argument to bring up in order to discount the seriousness of gun violence in this country!

.

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

More of the same rhetoric.

Why don't you take responsibility for your beliefs and tell me how you will keep a person who is completely set on shooting up a school full of innocent children from doing so? This is a more respectable discussion rather than some hocus pocus about a gun shooting itself. Gun advocates love to use this argument and it is simple smoke and mirrors in order to derail the discussion. Why don't we have an intelligent conversation about keeping human beings safe in our society, instead of being silly and talking about inanimate objects coming to life.

The fact of the matter is there is a veritable slaughter going on in this nation and gun activists want to turn a blind eye to it without providing any feasible solutions to the actual very real problems that the guns are creating in our nation.

We can speak of how our country is failing the mentally ill, but there is another facet that no one is bringing up and that is the fact that the medical field is still in the dark ages when it comes to treating mental illness. I have first hand experience with medical professionals guessing at which diagnosis I had and guessing what meds would be right for me. Then, when those meds actually caused psychosis and mania, oh, then they realized I had yet another diagnosis! Then it was two solid years of trying one medication after another and a roller coaster ride of emotions and events leaving me psychotic, suicidal, depressed, manic, all to try and find the correct medications! And I wanted to get well!!! I don't envy these psychiatrists. They have to guess until they get lucky with these meds. My story isn't unique, it is common.

I have been in contact with countless families of people with mentally ill loved ones. I know more stories that I can count of psychotic family members and people trying to get them help. It is extremely difficult to get them involuntarily committed. Having someone deemed incompetent is very serious. Once again, we get into that territory of it being an infringement upon their rights.

Here is the thing, many people who are psychotic come into mental health facilities paranoid and spouting off wild accusations or ideas and there are a few common themes: I am God, I know God, the government is after me, I am being watched, I have super powers, I am psychic, etc. These common themes do not mean the person is dangerous because usually, once the person is properly medicated, these delusions disappear. One other thing really needs to be mentioned in defense of the family members of these people, usually psychosis comes on slowly. In other words, a person doesn't usually wake up one morning totally fine and the next morning hallucinating. Gradually, the symptoms come on. First a person might seem a little elevated in mood. They might start visiting the library more and checking out a ton of books, reading one or two per day. They might start staying up late at night. They might start arguing a bit more or be a bit more confrontational with the public. A few weeks or months might go by with this behavior. The person might hear voices and not say a thing, especially if this is the first time they have experienced this. The family will think the person is just acting like a jerk, especially if this is the first time they have seen this behavior in their loved one. Eventually, after months and months of *sort of* strange or semi-violent behavior, a stressful event usually causes the person to crack. The stressful event could be something as small as a big test or as big as a loved one dying. Remember that some of the family members DID try to get these people help, but the shooters were not in the throes of full psychosis, they were most likely on their way there and the mental health professionals didn't see anything alarming at the time that they saw them.

We must also know that a lot of these shooters HAD been "treated" for mental illness. Some of the teen shooters had been put on antidepressants, which have a black box warning for teens and shouldn't be prescribed because it puts them at risk for suicidal behavior. Other shooters had been treated for schizophrenia or psychosis, but I know that these meds are horrific to take and they do not work all of the time. The newer antipsychotics are so flipping expensive at $15 per pill and if someone isn't insured, they can't afford them.

What I am trying to say is that this is a very tricky, slippery issue. Focusing on the mental health issue isn't an exact science. There are so many factors at play. Should everyone who ever experiences psychosis just be locked up then, because we have guns available in our society? Pre-Reagan, we DID lock up most people with mental illness. Should we do that again? I do believe we could be doing a lot more for those that we suspect might be a danger to society. That doesn't mean that we should keep guns readily available to anyone who could snap at any moment. It doesn't take a mentally ill individual to shoot another person out of murderous rage.

I think that there should be steps taken so that guns are only sold to homes with mentally stable histories. I think that to stop a shooter from walking into a school and shooting at people, we need to first and foremost make schools safe by instilling security. Schools should be fenced in completely. There should be security at the schools and at the gates. If a teacher is a licensed and registered gun owner, they should get to keep a weapon should it be needed. There needs to be a distinct lock down system installed, making it hard for anyone to move from one area to another in a school if it is threatened. Schools are a target zone because they are vulnerable. Weapons aren't allowed on campuses, but that really needs to only apply to students, teachers at most. There should always be security at a school and they should always be monitoring campus. Our county has at least two deputies at each school, and in many situations they have more. Those deputies check the parking lots, the buildings, the gyms, the fields, and the classrooms all day long. They talk to students, they talk to teachers, they talk to parents. The teachers, and councilors talk to students. I think another problem is the lack of awareness in many situations because teachers are too scared to speak up to parents and administration when a student shows signs of problems. Teachers catch the blame for so many problems now that they are afraid to vocalize concerns.

As to access to guns, I think you should first and foremost have to provide proof that all adults in a home have attended gun safety classes if they want to purchase guns. They should be required to have a lockable, non glass front safe where the gun is kept locked when it is not being carried with a person. Most guns that you see going to schools or to shootings, they're stolen, be it from family members or from strangers. There needs to be a system for keeping them safely put away.

Now, since I have been respectful enough to answer YOUR questions. How about some of you anti-gun advocates stop ignoring MY post and answer MY questions from my original post. It would be much appreciated.

 

[crown1]

Some where along the way people have gotten the idea that all things can be controlled. It is not so. We have plenty of laws that if they were all obeyed or followed we would not have problems. The problems come when folks do not want to follow laws, rules, appropriate behavior. Punishment severe enough to deter bad behavior is sorely needed. Whether we want to admit it or not mentally ill people are not the only ones who cause harm to others and guns are not the only weapons that are used. If we put more work into expecting folks to behave in the way that they should we would not have to worry about so much violence. This country has long offered freedom and opportunity for it's citizens and those immigrating to gain those freedoms and opportunities. I hate to see us losing those because some folks care only about themselves. I hate to see folks loose the right to protect themselves against others intent on harming them because we feel need to blame the weapon rather than the offender. I also feel some of the shootings are done for attention and notoriety. News casting making these highly visible may be playing to the attention seeking offenders. Reason is what we need. Handle each case by case. Let us put the blame where the blame belongs. Judgement of bad behavior is needed and the offender needs to be held accountable. Whether that be incarceration or hospitalization will depend on the offender. If you wish to get rid of guns I think you would have to outlaw all things that could do harm. If you take an offender's gun will he build a bomb? If a person is intent on doing something he will usually find a way. We can not live our lives in fear.

eta: I own no guns but would like the opportunity to if I felt I needed one.

 

[liaerfbv]

[

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.

Several thoughts:

- Yes, the OTC group declares their peaceful mission on their FB page. That's great. That does nothing for me when a group of armed men (GOAM) are standing in the parking lot by my car. I'm not stopping to look them up on FB, I'm logically assuming that they could do me harm. I don't particularly care if the MDA women were identifiable because they were unarmed. I know you keep trying to show a correlation between the behavior of the 2 groups, but it's like comparing apples to oranges. Armed vs unarmed. I don't know your intention, and my immediate reaction is to secure my safety. I'm honestly only interested in your right to assemble to the point that it affects my personal safety. A group of women unarmed in a restaurant? I'm assuming they are discussing Channing Tatum, and to that I say get it girls.

- I also think it's splitting hairs that whatever way OTC was facing matters. If a GOAM is in a parking lot anywhere near me, I'm on HIGH ALERT. I don't care what way they are facing, how far away they are, or what kind of gun they may be carrying. If you are near enough to shoot me, turn around and shoot me, sneeze and shoot me, drop your weapon and shoot me -- I'm not interested in your rights, I'm interested in getting my ass home safely. I would feel extremely threatened by their actions and would also file a police report.

- Comparing calling someone an expletive name vs gun in hand is laughable. Utterly laughable.

- I'm not exactly sure how you feel MDA was behaving irrationally. They had dinner at a restaurant to discuss an issue. A group who opposed their views showed up with guns and waited for them in the parking lot (direction faced notwithstanding). They felt threatened, so they called them *******s and called the cops and filed a police report. How is that not a rational response to feeling threatened (whether or not you agree that the behavior was threatening)?

 

[ksinger]

What I find fascinating in this discussion, is that even the women involved have been distracted by the attempts to cast gun violence as a "mental health" issue, when in reality it is overwhelmingly gendered, and in the case of mass shootings, overwhelmingly racial. As such, it is clearly not only about the issue of the availability of guns, but is an issue striking deeply and directly into the heart of what it means to be male in America, and THAT is an issue that is not at all simple and will add enormous irrational pushback masquerading as almost anything but what it really is.

This is truly only serendipitous, and I'm only on page 47, but a few days ago I started reading "Angry White Men: American Masculinity at The End of An Era" by sociologist Michael Kimmel. A very interesting read so far. While the theme of violence seems to be setting up, I think all of chapter 6 is about violence in general and mass violence in particular.

 

[packrat]

DF, I *wish* schools would be outfitted like that. Who would pay for that, is the problem, which is sad to say..nobody wants their taxes to go up, even if it's to keep kids safe. Sad. When JD was at the Academy this past winter, there was a couple times he came home for the weekend and was just beside himself over the stuff he'd been learning, about schools and the things that have happened there. That was one of the reasons he wanted me to get my conceal carry, even tho I'd not carry at school anyway. He showed me some of the things online that they learned, and told me about some of the speakers they'd had and it made me sick to my stomach. Sitting ducks, schools.

 

[dragonfly411]

What I find fascinating in this discussion, is that even the women involved have been distracted by the attempts to cast gun violence as a "mental health" issue, when in reality it is overwhelmingly gendered, and in the case of mass shootings, overwhelmingly racial. As such, it is clearly not only about the issue of the availability of guns, but is an issue striking deeply and directly into the heart of what it means to be male in America, and THAT is an issue that is not at all simple and will add enormous irrational pushback masquerading as almost anything but what it really is.

This is truly only serendipitous, and I'm only on page 47, but a few days ago I started reading "Angry White Men: American Masculinity at The End of An Era" by sociologist Michael Kimmel. A very interesting read so far. While the theme of violence seems to be setting up, I think all of chapter 6 is about violence in general and mass violence in particular.

I'm sorry... WHAT? The last I checked, both men and women carry guns, both men and women have been shown to be capable of murder, and people of every race own guns. Hell they MAKE PINK guns!

Seriously WHAT?

 

[movie zombie]

What I find fascinating in this discussion, is that even the women involved have been distracted by the attempts to cast gun violence as a "mental health" issue, when in reality it is overwhelmingly gendered, and in the case of mass shootings, overwhelmingly racial. As such, it is clearly not only about the issue of the availability of guns, but is an issue striking deeply and directly into the heart of what it means to be male in America, and THAT is an issue that is not at all simple and will add enormous irrational pushback masquerading as almost anything but what it really is.

This is truly only serendipitous, and I'm only on page 47, but a few days ago I started reading "Angry White Men: American Masculinity at The End of An Era" by sociologist Michael Kimmel. A very interesting read so far. While the theme of violence seems to be setting up, I think all of chapter 6 is about violence in general and mass violence in particular.

I'm sorry... WHAT? The last I checked, both men and women carry guns, both men and women have been shown to be capable of murder, and people of every race own guns. Hell they MAKE PINK guns!

Seriously WHAT?

true but it is not female shooters going into schools and killing children.

tongue in cheek but perhaps only women should be allowed to own guns!

 

[liaerfbv]

What I find fascinating in this discussion, is that even the women involved have been distracted by the attempts to cast gun violence as a "mental health" issue, when in reality it is overwhelmingly gendered, and in the case of mass shootings, overwhelmingly racial. As such, it is clearly not only about the issue of the availability of guns, but is an issue striking deeply and directly into the heart of what it means to be male in America, and THAT is an issue that is not at all simple and will add enormous irrational pushback masquerading as almost anything but what it really is.

This is truly only serendipitous, and I'm only on page 47, but a few days ago I started reading "Angry White Men: American Masculinity at The End of An Era" by sociologist Michael Kimmel. A very interesting read so far. While the theme of violence seems to be setting up, I think all of chapter 6 is about violence in general and mass violence in particular.

I'm sorry... WHAT? The last I checked, both men and women carry guns, both men and women have been shown to be capable of murder, and people of every race own guns. Hell they MAKE PINK guns!

Seriously WHAT?

I don't think ksinger is implying that only men commit violent crimes. Everyone of any race or gender is capable of violence. But the overwhelming statistics show that men use guns in violent crimes more than women do, and most mass killings with guns are committed by white males.

 

[aljdewey]

[

I don't feel threatened by the people who carry signs with dead babies on them. It makes me feel sad, but not personally threatened. By the same token, I would not feel threatened by a man carrying around a big sign with a gun on it. I would, however, feel threatened by just one man carrying a gun, let alone a group of white men carrying guns in a parking lot. I find it hard to believe that most people would not feel threatened by one or a bunch of men who they do not know carrying guns in a parking lot. I would be heading in the opposite direction of the gun-toting crowd, frankly.

I have to say some of the people holding signs with dead babies on them have behaved so aggressively that others felt threatened, including some women who were going to their clinic appointments for mere annual check-ups and nothing to do with the debate at hand. I do not believe that aggression requires the presence of a gun to be received as threatening.

Just one man carrying a gun would be threatening, you say. Would that still be true if the one man (or group of men) holding the guns were police officers? Probaby less so, because you'd have reason to believe that they are in the hands of law-abiding and responsible parties.

I still maintain the element of risk lies in who's operating the gun.

 

[ksinger]

What I find fascinating in this discussion, is that even the women involved have been distracted by the attempts to cast gun violence as a "mental health" issue, when in reality it is overwhelmingly gendered, and in the case of mass shootings, overwhelmingly racial. As such, it is clearly not only about the issue of the availability of guns, but is an issue striking deeply and directly into the heart of what it means to be male in America, and THAT is an issue that is not at all simple and will add enormous irrational pushback masquerading as almost anything but what it really is.

This is truly only serendipitous, and I'm only on page 47, but a few days ago I started reading "Angry White Men: American Masculinity at The End of An Era" by sociologist Michael Kimmel. A very interesting read so far. While the theme of violence seems to be setting up, I think all of chapter 6 is about violence in general and mass violence in particular.

I'm sorry... WHAT? The last I checked, both men and women carry guns, both men and women have been shown to be capable of murder, and people of every race own guns. Hell they MAKE PINK guns!

Seriously WHAT?

Proof positive that the 900-lb gorilla in the room CAN be made invisible.

If you insist that because somebody makes a few pink guns (to cash in on some woman's cancer tragedy) that gun violence is evenly distributed between the genders, go right ahead. It ain't so, and there are about a zillion studies and statistics backing up that "ain't so", but have at. But it's really no different than saying because a few women rape men, that it is an equivalent problem for both sexes. Sorry. No go.

 

[dragonfly411]

What I find fascinating in this discussion, is that even the women involved have been distracted by the attempts to cast gun violence as a "mental health" issue, when in reality it is overwhelmingly gendered, and in the case of mass shootings, overwhelmingly racial. As such, it is clearly not only about the issue of the availability of guns, but is an issue striking deeply and directly into the heart of what it means to be male in America, and THAT is an issue that is not at all simple and will add enormous irrational pushback masquerading as almost anything but what it really is.

This is truly only serendipitous, and I'm only on page 47, but a few days ago I started reading "Angry White Men: American Masculinity at The End of An Era" by sociologist Michael Kimmel. A very interesting read so far. While the theme of violence seems to be setting up, I think all of chapter 6 is about violence in general and mass violence in particular.

I'm sorry... WHAT? The last I checked, both men and women carry guns, both men and women have been shown to be capable of murder, and people of every race own guns. Hell they MAKE PINK guns!

Seriously WHAT?

I don't think ksinger is implying that only men commit violent crimes. Everyone of any race or gender is capable of violence. But the overwhelming statistics show that men use guns in violent crimes more than women do, and most mass killings with guns are committed by white males.

Although this is true, it does NOT make THIS incident, nor anything gun control related a racial nor sexist issue.

 

[dragonfly411]

What I find fascinating in this discussion, is that even the women involved have been distracted by the attempts to cast gun violence as a "mental health" issue, when in reality it is overwhelmingly gendered, and in the case of mass shootings, overwhelmingly racial. As such, it is clearly not only about the issue of the availability of guns, but is an issue striking deeply and directly into the heart of what it means to be male in America, and THAT is an issue that is not at all simple and will add enormous irrational pushback masquerading as almost anything but what it really is.

This is truly only serendipitous, and I'm only on page 47, but a few days ago I started reading "Angry White Men: American Masculinity at The End of An Era" by sociologist Michael Kimmel. A very interesting read so far. While the theme of violence seems to be setting up, I think all of chapter 6 is about violence in general and mass violence in particular.

I'm sorry... WHAT? The last I checked, both men and women carry guns, both men and women have been shown to be capable of murder, and people of every race own guns. Hell they MAKE PINK guns!

Seriously WHAT?

Proof positive that the 900-lb gorilla in the room CAN be made invisible.

If you insist that because somebody makes a few pink guns (to cash in on some woman's cancer tragedy) that gun violence is evenly distributed between the genders, go right ahead. It ain't so, and there are about a zillion studies and statistics backing up that "ain't so", but have at. But it's really no different than saying because a few women rape men, that it is an equivalent problem for both sexes. Sorry. No go.

PLEASE Go educate yourself before you post again about women's guns. Companies make pink guns because WOMEN like the color PINK! Pink camouflage guns come to mind.

So. Are you telling me that no black, or hispanic men commit murders with guns? Because that happens every day in most major cities.

 

[Loves Vintage]

[

I don't feel threatened by the people who carry signs with dead babies on them. It makes me feel sad, but not personally threatened. By the same token, I would not feel threatened by a man carrying around a big sign with a gun on it. I would, however, feel threatened by just one man carrying a gun, let alone a group of white men carrying guns in a parking lot. I find it hard to believe that most people would not feel threatened by one or a bunch of men who they do not know carrying guns in a parking lot. I would be heading in the opposite direction of the gun-toting crowd, frankly.

I have to say some of the people holding signs with dead babies on them have behaved so aggressively that others felt threatened, including some women who were going to their clinic appointments for mere annual check-ups and nothing to do with the debate at hand. I do not believe that aggression requires the presence of a gun to be received as threatening.

Just one man carrying a gun would be threatening, you say. Would that still be true if the one man (or group of men) holding the guns were police officers? Probaby less so, because you'd have reason to believe that they are in the hands of law-abiding and responsible parties.

I still maintain the element of risk lies in who's operating the gun.

So, if there was a random guy holding a BIG GUN in the parking lot where you had lunch, you would just walk right out then? Usually, the police keep their guns in some sort of harness or belt, right? I suppose if random guy had his little gun put away, I would just walk on by because I wouldn't even know it was there. If random guy has his BIG GUN or even a little gun out and about in a brandish'y sort of way, yeah, I'm still headed in the other direction. If policeman has his gun out, I am also heading in the other direction. Seems trouble would be a'brewin nearby, no?

 

[movie zombie]

[quote="dragonfly411|1384289625|3555370.......PLEASE Go educate yourself before you post again about women's guns. Companies make pink guns because WOMEN like the color PINK! Pink camouflage guns come to mind.

So. Are you telling me that no black, or hispanic men commit murders with guns? Because that happens every day in most major cities.[/quote]

actually, dragonfly, most women do not like pink guns.
certainly not on the forum I participate on.
it is an entire marketing gimmick based on the "pink is for girls, blue is for boys" idea as well as that women will buy pink because its for a "good cause".
and some of us actually object to pink guns because it makes them look like toys rather than the tools they actually are.
I own lots of guns and not one of them is pink.
I dislike pink guns almost as much as I dislike halo color stone rings.....but hey its not my ring and its not my gun so each to their own.
however, I don't get how the color of guns got into this discussion in the first place....

 

[packrat]

Some states allow citizens to carry openly. I'd think people would be more used to seeing that around randomly and not assume that chaos was ensuing? I dunno. If *I* saw it here I'd be like um yeaaaaah going the other way. B/c you don't do that here. Unless you're wearing safety orange.

Women don't generally use guns, no. Women are more poison-ers. Women are more intimate killers than men. They're more apt to harrass their opponents to death, from my experience. Pick pick needle poke accuse blame point fingers..those are our instruments.

 

[dragonfly411]

[quote="dragonfly411|1384289625|3555370.......PLEASE Go educate yourself before you post again about women's guns. Companies make pink guns because WOMEN like the color PINK! Pink camouflage guns come to mind.

So. Are you telling me that no black, or hispanic men commit murders with guns? Because that happens every day in most major cities.

actually, dragonfly, most women do not like pink guns.
certainly not on the forum I participate on.
it is an entire marketing gimmick based on the "pink is for girls, blue is for boys" idea as well as that women will buy pink because its for a "good cause".
and some of us actually object to pink guns because it makes them look like toys rather than the tools they actually are.
I own lots of guns and not one of them is pink.
I dislike pink guns almost as much as I dislike halo color stone rings.....but hey its not my ring and its not my gun so each to their own.
however, I don't get how the color of guns got into this discussion in the first place....[/quote]


MZ - There are different circles in guns as there are in any other interest. There are a great many country girls who enjoy having pink guns. I don't have money to buy some specialized color gun anyways lol, I have my two and I sport my two and they're for hunting purposes. But to each his own. My point was that Guns are not just a one sex or one race thing.

 

[ksinger]

What I find fascinating in this discussion, is that even the women involved have been distracted by the attempts to cast gun violence as a "mental health" issue, when in reality it is overwhelmingly gendered, and in the case of mass shootings, overwhelmingly racial. As such, it is clearly not only about the issue of the availability of guns, but is an issue striking deeply and directly into the heart of what it means to be male in America, and THAT is an issue that is not at all simple and will add enormous irrational pushback masquerading as almost anything but what it really is.

This is truly only serendipitous, and I'm only on page 47, but a few days ago I started reading "Angry White Men: American Masculinity at The End of An Era" by sociologist Michael Kimmel. A very interesting read so far. While the theme of violence seems to be setting up, I think all of chapter 6 is about violence in general and mass violence in particular.

I'm sorry... WHAT? The last I checked, both men and women carry guns, both men and women have been shown to be capable of murder, and people of every race own guns. Hell they MAKE PINK guns!

Seriously WHAT?

Proof positive that the 900-lb gorilla in the room CAN be made invisible.

If you insist that because somebody makes a few pink guns (to cash in on some woman's cancer tragedy) that gun violence is evenly distributed between the genders, go right ahead. It ain't so, and there are about a zillion studies and statistics backing up that "ain't so", but have at. But it's really no different than saying because a few women rape men, that it is an equivalent problem for both sexes. Sorry. No go.

PLEASE Go educate yourself before you post again about women's guns. Companies make pink guns because WOMEN like the color PINK! Pink camouflage guns come to mind.

So. Are you telling me that no black, or hispanic men commit murders with guns? Because that happens every day in most major cities.

I do read. And still go to the occasional gun show. And this is what was in my mind when I said that.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/15/komen-pinkwashing-problem-planned-parenthood

"But the most provocative example of pinkwashing yet had nothing to do with Komen and came in the form of a pink handgun. Discount Gun Sales came up with the "Walther P-22 Hope Edition" shooter a few weeks ago, falsely claiming it was in a partnership with the breast advocacy charity. The company has since put a disclaimer on its website, apologising for the mistake and saying that it will give $50 from each $499.99 pistol sold to the American Cancer Society instead."

"Are you telling me that no black, or hispanic men commit murders with guns?"

No, I'm not, which is pretty obvious if you'd read my actual post instead of reading INTO it. I SAID that gun violence (as in general, city/country/grocery store/wherever) is gendered (as in mostly by males), and that MASS shootings (of the kind we have mentioned in here) are racial (in that they are overwhelmingly perpetrated by white males).

And lest anyone acuse me of anything - like wanting to take away someone's guns or hating white men, I'll say again, I am married to a WHITE MALE who SOLD GUNS FOR A LIVING FOR 15 YEARS. I OWN guns. I am neither afraid of them, nor do I wish to take them away from everyone. I have likely spent as much or MORE time in gun shops/shooting ranges/gun shows/festivals as anyone in this thread (except maybe Karl or Perry), and if it blows a bullet out one end, I've probably shot it. I was a good sport back then, but that early fascination of his with guns is a PRIMARY reason we did not marry the first time round. I did NOT wish to be that deep into that world - it is too dark, too paranoid, too creepy. Believe me when I say that my perspective on what drives a love of guns comes from a pretty intimate position and a lot of association with that world. I was no good at articulating it back then, but I'm pretty clear on it now. And I'm hardly the only one who has noticed. My husband, who is long past such things, will be the first to admit that the appeal of guns to disaffected, scared, and rigid young males, is pretty strong.

Honestly, Dragonfly, I'm not getting your reaction to all this. Your reaction is outsized by far to what I said. I merely made an observation, one that cannot be refuted, one that has been made by real male people even - even white ones, and needs to be wondered at at least in passing, don'tcha think?

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I believe our society has become dangerous, more and more so over modern times. Other history shows the Wild wild west where guns and killings were a common event that Lawman <Wyatt Earp) and others had to fight against. Guns were hung up and the west was tamed. Rangers, hunters, and the law still carried guns, but the society of that time were happy the cowboy criminals and Indians were defeated.

Prohibition was next, the gangsters shot at law abiding citizens, until The FBI was formed and the ATF Agency was established to take care of these problems. Most Citizens didn't have more than a rifle.

Disagreements were settled with fists, from the schoolboy to the barfight, to a group of men punching away at each other. Pretty normal in the 50's. Of course down south you had racial violence that up north was much less.

Then came the civil rights movement, womens rights movement, sexual revolution, anti war protests and turned the country into a people who all have rights. We demanded more freedom in everything, except now all sorts of behavior from the "other"was restricted.
If you puched someone , off to jail you go, if a man makes a pass at a woman- off his job he goes or faces a lawsuit. And on and on.
If you want an abortion, you're a killer, if you protest a war- off to Canada you go, and if you are poor, you are becoming aware that everyone is demanding things, but you can't get anything. So the underclass developes their own subculture, gangs, and instead of going to jail for a fight, they now employ guns for their exploits.

The last 30-40yrs has brought back the wild west. Nobody feels safe. The school that lost those children want to bring in armed guards. You see what our society has become. I don't blame people for wanting a gun for protection. AJ made the silliest of statements about fear. It is an instinctual emotion, which is necessary for survival. A gun ought to be feared, thats what it was made for.

I watched the most interesting of documentaries recently( Knuckles). It was about Gypsies, The Travelers) in Ireland. They have clans, some who have hated each other for generations. They cross each other and finally when their hate can go no further, they call for a fight. The best fighter from each clan trains for the fight, and on the day they find a private outdoor place and use bare knuckles to show who is the superior clan. The winners clan wins a great deal of money(bets have been taken) and celebrates. The loser goes home and dreams of a rematch down the road. Two or Three yrs later it happens again. No killing , no shooting, lots of hate, but oh so civilized. I don't think you can suppress all the energy of anger. I'm for a good fight, bloody nose, scraped arms, a little crying, but no gun.
We need law enforcment to help with the criminals. Send in the national guard to Chicago and any other gang related city and start cleaning it up. Maybe let out the cannibus users, and the fistacuff guys and round up all the violent criminals that have the guns we are all afraid of. I know its all simplistic, but we can live without guns if they clean up the wild west again.

Annette