It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disgusted over idiotic gun advocacy comments

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
All I'm saying is that the guy(s) did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. Actually, I said that I wouldn't do what these guys did specifically because I'm sensitive to other people's issues with guns, and like I said, I don't want to be the first target of a true bad guy.

Now, while your comment has some merit, it is also suffers from hyperbole. For instance, the "Rambo" wasn't walking toward or into the schools, nor was he threatening anyone at all. An administrator can have concern, sure, but when someone is doing nothing illegal (or wrong) in the eyes of the law, just because someone feels uncomfortable doesn't mean that law enforcement should be called every time. And hopefully you don't react emotionally over this, but I'm an advocate of voluntary concealed carry by teachers and administrators willing to get the proper training and instruction to carry such a burden. If I were an administrator with a concealed weapon, I certainly wouldn't have the need to call an LEO because a guy is walking down the sidewalk in front of my school carrying a rifle.


originally posted by: AboveBoard

Guns are weapons designed to kill animals or people. Period. They may be used for sport at target ranges, of course, but the bottom line is that they take life. A man or woman walking around with a gun is a potential threat to all who do not know his or her intentions - and sometimes accidents happen, too.


Okay, first off--no, not all guns are designed for killing humans or animals. Sure, they all (mostly) have the capability of doing so (although I doubt you're taking down an elk with a .17cal rifle), but that's not the primary function of many of them. The same goes for knives...sure, some knives are designed specifically for combat purposes and taking a life if necessary, but not all are designed that way--they all can, but that's not the intention of every knife. Same goes for guns.

And, yes, accidents happen, but not a statistically high enough amount of the time to make them a logical argument in this discussion.


originally posted by: AboveBoard

Not advocating against the 2nd Amendment here, just not wanting the crap scared out of me while I'm shopping, picking my kid up from school, or going out to a restaurant or movie theatre or wherever. If open-carry advocates do not understand why they are scary, then they are very out of touch with what non-open-carry folks might think/feel when they see a person with a deadly weapon.


Then don't overreact. Having the crap scared out of you is a personal, subjective reaction. I see people open carry often enough where I live, and I don't get nervous around them. You know why? Because they're doing something legal and not acting suspicious. They're standing in line at the grocery store, or getting gas, or having a taco, or getting their wife some tampons.

If everyone worried so much about other people's reactions to legal activity, no one would ever do a damn thing in this world. Abortion is legal, but should people who have that procedure opt out because it disgusts and horrifies others? Butchers slaughter and dismember and cut up living creatures, but should they stop doing that because some other people can't stomach their actions? Vehicular accidents take thousands of lives per year and the vehicles add polution to the air we breathe--that terrifies and angers some people, so should we all stop legally driving vehicles in the safest way possible?

My point in all of this is that these two examples in the OP did something legal that they wanted to do, and it didn't harm anyone else. Same with my other examples (except for abortion, IMO, but that's for another thread). If these people are not harming anyone else, and not breaking the law, who are you to tell them what they should and should not take into account before doing an action--in this case, open carrying a firearm?

No part of the constitution protects an individual from feeling uncomfortable in this country, nor should there be any law that does. Just because the hyperbole of The Gun Owner is often overstated and blown out of proportion does not mean that we need to bow down to political correctness in an effort to keep everyone having a warm-and-fuzzy feeling in this world.
edit on 30-9-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Bone75

Every time there a mass shooting the gun advocates say, "It's not the guns. Do something about mental illness." Well, I don't think it shows a sound mind to be pacing back and forth in front of a school with a rifle and a vest. Taking a firearm into an airport is just plain stupid.


Actually, taking a firearm into an airport is perfectly legal and a sanely intelligent thing to do if you have a CCDW--you just can't go beyond the TSA checkpoint with one. Of course, that depends on the airport and if they are allowed to prohibit firearms outright, but federal law only prohibits them beyond the security checkpoints.

Of course, criminals will disregard all laws anyhow, so there's that point to consider...



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord


Amongst the small handful of supportive comments, for which we have no idea about their position related to gun-control, we have an overwhelming flood of (often borderline illiterate) intensely negative comments, some advocating violence against those who made the video.

What gives?

People fighting for what they believe in - a legitimate 2nd Amendment Rights battle - allow the rabble to speak for them, even if what they say or believe is not worthy of the cause

It's the nature of politics these days - no compromise. Win at all costs, any concession might mean a loss

So - we pander until we've completely polarized our society. People are clinging to their own even when they're not rational

I was reading through the comments on a major news site yesterday (one of my favorite things - freely given, random comments) on a hot topic that's in the headlines. I was actually surprised by the amount and the kind of just plain ugly I saw there, up to and including death threats

You'd think by now I'd just expect it, but it was over the top. Maybe it's anonymity that makes all this more likely



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

No the point they're trying to make is that there is no reason in these circumstances for the public TO be afraid.

they want open carry to be allowed because it IS allowed under the constitution or rather it cannot be denied under the constitution, and the general public needs to become more aware that your average citizen carrying a firearm is actually as safe, or SAFER in many instances than the law enforcement openly carrying and criminals will be less likely to attempt criminal activity if citizens are openly carrying.

THAT'S the point.

It needs to become more common place so that the people will NOT be afraid every time they see someone carrying as they should not be.

Jaden



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

I see what you are saying, but I just cannot agree. We all have our rifles and handguns and we keep them locked in the safe until we are ready to use them. We carry our handguns concealed to ensure that 1. nobody knows you have it, and 2. so that you don't alarm others.

Yes, you certainly have the right to open carry wherever it's allowed by law, but I promise you, if you strap on your AR-15 and parade yourself in front of a school, you are going to make more folks uneasy than you will make others know the law. It's just human nature. I just don't see what good it does, other than make you a spectacle and have news folks interview you. And guess what, news usually = liberal media. So how do you think they are going to portray your actions?

I see it as like that one commercial of the guy surfing the net and watching a game in the front row of a wedding. The caption was, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. We already have these rights by law. YES we should be sure we can keep them and be sure that anyone who might challenge them is tried for treason. But we need to be responsible in exercising our rights. IMHO.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Let's put this into point form:


1) I think it's safe to say that every adult citizen of the United States is already aware of the open/conceal carry weapon laws.

2) Thus it's just an exercise in the beating of a dead horse.

3) Beating a dead horse gets on the nerves of most people.

4) Getting on peoples' nerves pisses them off.

5) Pissing people off is going to work against you, not for you.



The causal domino effect.



And here's another causal domino effect of these extremist gun advocacy actions:

1) People can't read minds, therefore seeing a stranger parading around in public with a rifle strapped to their back is going to naturally cause a percentage of people to pause and step back with a feeling of uneasiness at the very least. It's an inherent survival instinct brought on by the very nature of what a firearm can do if in the wrong hands. Since people don't know whether or not it's in the wrong hands, they get uneasy.

2) A feeling of uneasiness brings about a sense of fear to some degree or other.

3) Causing a sense of fear in people is almost always followed by a feeling of anger.

4) A feeling of anger causes those same people to aim it in your direction.

5) Anger being thrown in your direction works against you.

6) Doing something that works against you is known as 'counterproductive'.

7) Being counterproductive never gets anyone anywhere.




The negative causal domino effect: Learn it, understand it, avoid it.




posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ah. Yes. I must just be "emotional."

Seriously, however, while I understand what you are saying, I disagree, for very rational reasons.

My question still stands and I will expand on it: How do I know that the person open-carrying the gun is a responsible gun owner? How do I know he is a good human being? How do I know he uses proper safety precautions while handling his gun in public? How do I know that the individual with the gun is sober? Or is he "drinking and packing?" How do I know, really and truly know, that I am not in danger? The rational answer to these questions is that I don't know, and can't know, the level of responsibility, maturity or sobriety of the individual, or the personal intentions/mental health of the person who is openly carrying, in this case, a semi-automatic rifle.

To say that guns aren't for killing is disingenuous. Yes, I will give you the point that BB guns are not, but let's be honest, the entire reason the technology of the gun was invented was for the purpose of killing.

This is in no way hyperbole or unrealistic, and at times, fear is a very very rational thing to feel, a totally rational response to a rationally perceived threat. My "discomfort" with people making grand open-carry gestures is not an assault on the 2nd Amendment, nor an affliction of irrational emotions, but a rational plea for common sense.

Fear is also a strong political motivator, and if these grand gestures continue, politicians may find that laws limiting open-carry will get them elected.

You have said you would not do what the open-carry advocates did in the video, and so you DO understand in your own self the kind of common sense I'm talking about.

peace,
AB



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: SlapMonkey


How do I know that the person open-carrying the gun is a responsible gun owner?


You never "know," in the truest sense of the word, unless you have a sixth sense I don't. But, there will be many indicators, including body language, behavior, the fact he's/she's not breaking a law, the fact the weapon is out for everyone to see (most murderers don't give fair warning to victims by waving a murder weapon for minutes and minutes), etc. There are many visual cues that every person should be able to pick up on when something is actually wrong. The fact that peole let fear overpower these inate abilities says something negative about the individual's mentality--it's called "hoplophobia," or a fear of firearms.



How do I know he is a good human being?


You don't, but that's not a prerequisite for someone to do something within the law. How do you know that the person adopting a puppy isn't a serial animal abuser? You don't, but you have to accept that someone doing something legal without any indication of aggressive behavior is, at the very least, not going to be an issue.



How do I know he uses proper safety precautions while handling his gun in public?


You don't, but that's not a prerequisite for someone to do something within the law. I don't know the guy next to me at a gun range doesn't have unsafe firearm handling habbits, but it's part of living in a society and doing something in a relatively public place--you have to deal with other people. If you wander around suspecting everyone of not knowing how to safely drive, or safely operate heavy machinery--or whatever--then your life is going to be miserable. You put your life in other people's hands every second you are on the roadway in a vehicle--do you constantly suspect them, too? Probably not, because it's an everyday occurrance. Works the same with LEOs...you see them constantly with an openly-carried firearm, but you think nothing of it, because it's "normal" to most people. If more people open-carried, it would seem normal as well and this suspicious fear you have would subside substantially, I would think.



How do I know that the individual with the gun is sober?


You don't, unless you use your eyes and observe the individual to see if they're acting inebriated. If not, you assume he's sober. Kind of like what a cop would do...you know, because it's legal to carry that firearm openly while sober.



Or is he "drinking and packing?"


You don't know, but if he is, he's breaking the law and should be arrested.



How do I know, really and truly know, that I am not in danger? The rational answer to these questions is that I don't know, and can't know, the level of responsibility, maturity or sobriety of the individual, or the personal intentions/mental health of the person who is openly carrying, in this case, a semi-automatic rifle.


Same with car drivers, or the handyman with a hammer in your home, or the plumber with a heavy pipe wrench, or the knife salesman in your grocery store, or whatever scenario you want to use where someone has somethat that they can use to kill you if they're not sober, or responsible, or being safe, or if they're a good person. The reality of life is that you don't have the right or ability to know you're not in danger throughout your life while you're in public. If you want to feel perfectly safe, stay in your house all the time--but you know, electrical fires happen, too, or gas leaks, or radon poisoning.

I'm sure you're rolling your eyes right now as you read these responses, but they're just as valid (which is 'not very') an argument as what you're bringing up. Hell, I take Krav Maga self defense training, and I'm in class with 30 other people who could kill someone with their elbow if necessary, so it's time you stop pretending that, just because there's a big, spooky semi-automatic rifle slung over someone's shoulder that your life is suddenly in massive danger.




To say that guns aren't for killing is disingenuous. Yes, I will give you the point that BB guns are not, but let's be honest, the entire reason the technology of the gun was invented was for the purpose of killing.


This is in no way hyperbole or unrealistic, and at times, fear is a very very rational thing to feel, a totally rational response to a rationally perceived threat. My "discomfort" with people making grand open-carry gestures is not an assault on the 2nd Amendment, nor an affliction of irrational emotions, but a rational plea for common sense.


I've never denied that guns weren't created for war-time violence, but they've evolved over the centuries to include specified purposes other than killing, so no, that's not a disingenuous statement, but yours isn't an unrealistic claim either, it's just not perfectly accurate. And BTW, a .17 caliber rifle is in no way a BB gun.

As far as fear being rational--sure, sometimes. But what you are describing sounds like hoplophobia, which is not rational at all. I totally get not wanted to trust other people absolutely, but the only reason you don't is because it's a gun. If it were a vehicle, or hammer, or pipewrench, or kitchen knife, I bet you wouldn't think twice about it. All the folks being randomly beheaded right now would say different--I'm not trying to be obnoxious with that, but I'm just trying to make a point that is relavent to rational-versus-irrational fears.




Fear is also a strong political motivator, and if these grand gestures continue, politicians may find that laws limiting open-carry will get them elected.


Nope, gun control favorability is declining. Now, people--and I am one of them--think that existing laws need to be more strictly enforced, but you'll noted in that link that there is a majority who would feel safer if their children went to a school with armed employees.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: SlapMonkey


How do I know that the person open-carrying the gun is a responsible gun owner?


You never "know," in the truest sense of the word, unless you have a sixth sense I don't. But, there will be many indicators, including body language, behavior, the fact he's/she's not breaking a law, the fact the weapon is out for everyone to see (most murderers don't give fair warning to victims by waving a murder weapon for minutes and minutes), etc. There are many visual cues that every person should be able to pick up on when something is actually wrong. The fact that peole let fear overpower these inate abilities says something negative about the individual's mentality--it's called "hoplophobia," or a fear of firearms.



How do I know he is a good human being?


You don't, but that's not a prerequisite for someone to do something within the law. How do you know that the person adopting a puppy isn't a serial animal abuser? You don't, but you have to accept that someone doing something legal without any indication of aggressive behavior is, at the very least, not going to be an issue.



How do I know he uses proper safety precautions while handling his gun in public?


You don't, but that's not a prerequisite for someone to do something within the law. I don't know the guy next to me at a gun range doesn't have unsafe firearm handling habbits, but it's part of living in a society and doing something in a relatively public place--you have to deal with other people. If you wander around suspecting everyone of not knowing how to safely drive, or safely operate heavy machinery--or whatever--then your life is going to be miserable. You put your life in other people's hands every second you are on the roadway in a vehicle--do you constantly suspect them, too? Probably not, because it's an everyday occurrance. Works the same with LEOs...you see them constantly with an openly-carried firearm, but you think nothing of it, because it's "normal" to most people. If more people open-carried, it would seem normal as well and this suspicious fear you have would subside substantially, I would think.



How do I know that the individual with the gun is sober?


You don't, unless you use your eyes and observe the individual to see if they're acting inebriated. If not, you assume he's sober. Kind of like what a cop would do...you know, because it's legal to carry that firearm openly while sober.



Or is he "drinking and packing?"


You don't know, but if he is, he's breaking the law and should be arrested.



How do I know, really and truly know, that I am not in danger? The rational answer to these questions is that I don't know, and can't know, the level of responsibility, maturity or sobriety of the individual, or the personal intentions/mental health of the person who is openly carrying, in this case, a semi-automatic rifle.


Same with car drivers, or the handyman with a hammer in your home, or the plumber with a heavy pipe wrench, or the knife salesman in your grocery store, or whatever scenario you want to use where someone has somethat that they can use to kill you if they're not sober, or responsible, or being safe, or if they're a good person. The reality of life is that you don't have the right or ability to know you're not in danger throughout your life while you're in public. If you want to feel perfectly safe, stay in your house all the time--but you know, electrical fires happen, too, or gas leaks, or radon poisoning.

I'm sure you're rolling your eyes right now as you read these responses, but they're just as valid (which is 'not very') an argument as what you're bringing up. Hell, I take Krav Maga self defense training, and I'm in class with 30 other people who could kill someone with their elbow if necessary, so it's time you stop pretending that, just because there's a big, spooky semi-automatic rifle slung over someone's shoulder that your life is suddenly in massive danger.




To say that guns aren't for killing is disingenuous. Yes, I will give you the point that BB guns are not, but let's be honest, the entire reason the technology of the gun was invented was for the purpose of killing.


This is in no way hyperbole or unrealistic, and at times, fear is a very very rational thing to feel, a totally rational response to a rationally perceived threat. My "discomfort" with people making grand open-carry gestures is not an assault on the 2nd Amendment, nor an affliction of irrational emotions, but a rational plea for common sense.


I've never denied that guns weren't created for war-time violence, but they've evolved over the centuries to include specified purposes other than killing, so no, that's not a disingenuous statement, but yours isn't an unrealistic claim either, it's just not perfectly accurate. And BTW, a .17 caliber rifle is in no way a BB gun.

As far as fear being rational--sure, sometimes. But what you are describing sounds like hoplophobia, which is not rational at all. I totally get not wanted to trust other people absolutely, but the only reason you don't is because it's a gun. If it were a vehicle, or hammer, or pipewrench, or kitchen knife, I bet you wouldn't think twice about it. All the folks being randomly beheaded right now would say different--I'm not trying to be obnoxious with that, but I'm just trying to make a point that is relavent to rational-versus-irrational fears.




Fear is also a strong political motivator, and if these grand gestures continue, politicians may find that laws limiting open-carry will get them elected.


Nope, gun control favorability is declining. Now, people--and I am one of them--think that existing laws need to be more strictly enforced, but you'll noted in that link that there is a majority who would feel safer if their children went to a school with armed employees.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Let's put this into point form:


1) I think it's safe to say that every adult citizen of the United States is already aware of the open/conceal carry weapon laws...


That's actually a very unsafe assumption. Seriously, go out somewhere today and just ask random adults citizens. The rest of your 'points' are invalid because they're based off of an unrealistic premise.



And here's another causal domino effect of these extremist gun advocacy actions:

1) People can't read minds, therefore seeing a stranger parading around in public with a rifle strapped to their back is going to naturally cause a percentage of people to pause and step back with a feeling of uneasiness at the very least. It's an inherent survival instinct brought on by the very nature of what a firearm can do if in the wrong hands. Since people don't know whether or not it's in the wrong hands, they get uneasy.


2) A feeling of uneasiness brings about a sense of fear to some degree or other.


3) Causing a sense of fear in people is almost always followed by a feeling of anger.


4) A feeling of anger causes those same people to aim it in your direction.


5) Anger being thrown in your direction works against you.


6) Doing something that works against you is known as 'counterproductive'.


7) Being counterproductive never gets anyone anywhere.


You're correct to a degree, but you completely ignore those who see someone open-carrying in public and get a sense of pride out of it--not everyone is as afraid of open carrying as you are (or those who rush to call 911 over people doing nothing wrong). But you also forget that knee-jerk negative reactions to these things creates a negative backlash for those advocating anti-gun or anti-carrying laws, too, and regardless of what you try to imply, the majority of Americans are perfectly okay with where the gun laws sit right now--they just wish that they'd be enforced a better.

Here, take a look at these.



The negative causal domino effect: Learn it, understand it, avoid it.


I'd argue that, according to public opinion, it's working less in your favor than you think.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

The fact that peole let fear overpower these inate abilities says something negative about the individual's mentality--it's called "hoplophobia," or a fear of firearms...(edit)...

As far as fear being rational--sure, sometimes. But what you are describing sounds like hoplophobia, which is not rational at all. I totally get not wanted to trust other people absolutely, but the only reason you don't is because it's a gun. If it were a vehicle, or hammer, or pipewrench, or kitchen knife, I bet you wouldn't think twice about it. All the folks being randomly beheaded right now would say different--I'm not trying to be obnoxious with that, but I'm just trying to make a point that is relavent to rational-versus-irrational fears.


Let's look up the big word, shall we? "Hoplophobia"


Etymology:
Firearms authority and writer Colonel Jeff Cooper coined the word. First attested in 1976: hoplo- (“weapon, arms”) +‎ -phobia (“fear”).

Noun:
hoplophobia (uncountable)

(pejorative, rare) The fear of guns.
Usage notes
Cooper coined the term to describe what he termed "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons".
SOURCE

This is not considered an "official" phobia, however...


Hoplophobia is not a phobia listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association. It is listed in The Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties, Third Edition as well as the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology.

The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the definition of a phobia used by the DSM. For example, one diagnostic criterion of phobias is that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment.[9] True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.[3]


Let's look a little deeper...


Firearms authority and writer Jeff Cooper claims to have coined the word in 1962 to describe what he called a "mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons."[5] The term was constructed from the Greek ὅπλον - hoplon, meaning, amongst other things, "arms,"[6] and φόβος - phobos, meaning "fear."[7] Although not a mental health professional, Cooper employed the term as an alternative to other slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not [explain this behavior]." Cooper attributed this behavior to an irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry. Cooper's opinion was that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."[5] Writing in an opinion piece, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Dimitri Vassilaros asserted that the term was intended by Cooper as tongue-in-cheek to mock those who think guns have free will.[8]


It would seem you have made some assumptions, yourself.

I am not afraid of guns, but thanks for attempting to diagnose me as irrational, yet again, implying I have "something wrong with [my] mentality," and mocking me with a pejorative term.

Guns do not cause me heart palpitations, fainting spells, sweating, panic attacks, etc., or any other real "phobic" symptoms. As is often quoted, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." So, in and of itself, a gun is a tool, and in that we agree. I learned to shoot one as a child with my father. He wanted me to understand what a gun could do, and that it was absolutely something to respect. I'm a fairly decent shot, too.

I appreciate that some people feel pride carrying around their firearm. In an open-carry state, I would have no problem with a gentleman or lady with a properly holstered and safe gun in their belt. I appreciate the pride a hunter feels in a gun passed down from his or her father, the memories and bonding associated with that activity. I appreciate people carrying their weapons of various sizes and strengths to the local gun show with their family. I am in no way "ignoring" this aspect of our culture surrounding guns.

There is a big difference between those examples and someone wearing a bullet-proof vest and carrying a semi-automatic around to various public venues, such as near a HIgh School. If you can't understand and appreciate the difference then no amount of discussion or walls of text, or quotes will convince you.

And for the record, I would also be concerned if someone was behind the wheel of a car and drunk, or was standing on the sidewalk with a big kitchen knife for no reason. Other tools, perhaps not, but context is everything.

Good day, SlapMonkey. Go slap someone else.

- AB



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Oh snap!
Ownage with the DSM!



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

If you think for half a second that a rifle or handgun locked in a safe is going to help you in an emergency, you are smoking crack.

Besides, the last time I read the second amendment, it didn't say, "the freedom to keep arms in a safe until needed shall not be infirnged", it said, "The Freedom to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed"....

Jaden



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Feel free to leave them lying around for your kids to pick up and play with then. The 2nd Amendment advocates will LOVE that irresponsibility on display.


Pretty much makes the OP's point about irresponsible gun use.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

There is a big difference between those examples and someone wearing a bullet-proof vest and carrying a semi-automatic around to various public venues, such as near a HIgh School. If you can't understand and appreciate the difference then no amount of discussion or walls of text, or quotes will convince you.


I already acknowledged the difference, saying it's something I wouldn't do--but, meh, just disregard that and keep talking in circles to try and make me seem irrational.


originally posted by: AboveBoard

And for the record, I would also be concerned if someone was behind the wheel of a car and drunk, or was standing on the sidewalk with a big kitchen knife for no reason. Other tools, perhaps not, but context is everything.


Context is everything--I agree. So, you should be able to tell if someone who is open-carrying a firearm is just carrying or is out to do someone harm. Someone walking back and forth--especially someone "known" for doing so--in public open carrying does not a dangerous context create. The wearing of a bullet-proof vest, while intentionally provocative (I assume...could be because he gets the cops called often and LEOs aren't known for their restraint on their trigger fingers lately), is also not illegal, and he can't kill someone with it, nor does it indicate he dangerous. If it were hidden under clothing, I'm sure you'd suddenly have no problem with it.

Americans need to realize that someone with a weapon is not an automatic danger to the public. I'm tired of the whining that goes on concerning this issue--But officer, he was walking with a rifle, I was so scared--without taking the time to see if the situation is truly a dangerous one. I challenge you to show me a mass shooting where the assailant first broadcast to everyone before hand that he had the weapons he used in the attack.

It's asinine to think this way--I'm not saying you may not want to maintain situational awareness, because that's just doing your due diligence as a human being, but we don't have to go crying to LEOs when something makes us uncomfortable. THAT is my point. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but if you can't understand and appreciate that, well...

Off to slap someone else.

Best regards, and I appreciate the relatively civil discussion.

edit on 1-10-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Dear Mr. SlapMonkey,

I think we have still not adequately finished this conversation, so I will wrap up my part in, perhaps, a more gracious fashion (though I do feel I was wronged by you, sir).



Americans need to realize that someone with a weapon is not an automatic danger to the public.


I never said that they were. If this is what you think I was saying, then I hope you will reread my last post about this issue.



I challenge you to show me a mass shooting where the assailant first broadcast to everyone before hand that he had the weapons he used in the attack.


Challenge accepted and met, though your wording is vague - "Broadcast to everyone" is rather broad and not exactly a fair challenge, but I believe I've met the spirit of your statement with real events. I found many horrific shootings that were close, but here are two from this year that best fit the criteria of someone openly announcing ahead of time and showing off the weapons/bragging about doing it.

Las Vegas Shooting - June, 2014

(CNN) -- Filled with regret, Kelley Fielder wishes she would have tried to stop them.
She was Amanda Miller's best friend. Amanda and her husband, Jerad Miller, had moved from Indiana to Las Vegas and for two weeks had been living with Fielder.
Jerad was always going off, she recalled, spewing anti-government rants. He filled his Facebook page with political cartoons that mocked police and other authorities. A recent post read: 'We must ... prepare for war."
Then something really disturbing.
Around 5:45 Sunday morning, Fielder told CNN, the couple were awake. They had a cart full of ammunition.

SOURCE


Santa Barbara killer bragged about his upcoming attack on a video... May, 2014


The attack ended with Rodger dead in his BMW -- hours after a disturbing video titled 'Elliot Rodger's retribution' was posted, a manifesto authorities said was a clear sign of 'premeditated mass murder.' Rodger's father, a Hollywood director, and his family say they warned police about disturbing videos weeks before the shooting rampage their son committed near a Santa Barbara university.

Rodger stabbed to death three roommates at his apartment in Isla Vista before starting his shooting rampage, Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown said at a Saturday night news conference.

Brown added that Rodger had three semi automatic handguns--a Glock 34 and two Sig Sauer P226s-- as well as more than 400 rounds of ammo when he died.

The suspected shooter purchased all his firearms legally. They were registered to him.

SOURCE

So there you have it. That was fun, but not really at the heart of the matter. (It is hard to resist a good challenge...)



-I'm not saying you may not want to maintain situational awareness, because that's just doing your due diligence as a human being, but we don't have to go crying to LEOs when something makes us uncomfortable. THAT is my point. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but if you can't understand and appreciate that, well...


In doing "due diligence" I would contact law enforcement if I felt someone was a threat and state very clearly what I saw and why I felt threatened. Where we disagree is on what constitutes a threat. I have stated clearly that I do not consider everyone with a gun, even open-carry, to be a threat. Someone walking around with a gun near a High School and wearing a bullet proof vest is not something I would take lightly, even if it is technically legal. You originally called that irrational and "emotional." I call it maintaining situational awareness and doing due diligence as a human being.
Thus the disagreement.




I already acknowledged the difference [between examples provided of non-threatening open-carry and the video examples], saying it's something I wouldn't do--but, meh, just disregard that and keep talking in circles to try and make me seem irrational.


Argh! Around and around you go...I am dizzy from YOUR circles!! I also disagree with you painting my words that way.


If you feel I have been uncivil, it was in reaction to a perceived lack of civility from you. I was labeled as "emotional," and you said you thought I had a mental problem stemming from an irrational fear of guns. Those were not friendly things to say, quite the opposite, Mr. SlapMonkey. Yes, sir, that was where I was wronged (*sighs dramatically*), and if a bit of tartness entered my voice, it was in response to this belittlement from you. Then you flipped it around and claimed I was trying to make you seem irrational. lol! You funny.


Now, what I'm hearing you say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that people should think of guns as tools, equivalent in danger to a car, and that it is not rational to be concerned about people carrying guns in general, as long as one is "maintaining situational awareness" which is something people should be able to do. (I seriously hope I have that right and you don't feel misquoted/misunderstood.) If that is correct, then I understand what you are saying and I fully agree that it is obvious the vast majority of gun owners are not rampaging mass murderers, I just have a different perspective on it that comes from my own life experiences. Please read on.

I have acknowledged that guns are tools (designed for killing, though used for sport), and that the person using the gun is the issue. I've already stated my thoughts on why people can be rationally concerned regarding seeing someone carrying a gun, while also acknowledging most gun owners are not going to go out on a killing spree. Yet here is where we differ, because in my point of view, it seems foolish not to respect the power of a firearm in someone else's control when I or my loved ones are in public places, and from this respect over what guns potentially can do, I find my trust in the stranger carrying the gun is limited. Again, that is my perception of due diligence as a human, as you put it, based on my life experiences. Your experiences are different, I'm gathering, so our perceptions are different.

Now the good news. The original discussion was in regards to someone carrying a large semi-automatic weapon in a restaurant/airport, or walking around near a High School with one while wearing a bullet-proof vest on (what message is that giving, really?) Well, Mr. SlapMonkey, sir, we DO actually agree on something here, and that is that neither of us would do this ourselves!! That is progress, no? I will leave on a positive note.


Good night. Wishing you well, and no disrespect has been intended on my part.

- AB



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Dear Mr. (assumed) AboveBoard-

First, let me get this out there--I'm a very blunt person who does not like getting my words mixed up. I speak directly, but generally not with disrespect. Concerning the hoplophobia comments, I would like to point out that I said what you were describing sounds like hoplophobia, because at that point in time, our discussion's main focus seemed to be on the fact that it was a firearm and nothing else.

As for your examples--I must have been vague, as those are not examples of what I meant. Your examples show cases of known warning signs, which I think should at least have been investigated, but I was looking for instances where the assailant was advertising his weapons to the general public at the place of his attack prior to the attack. That just simply doesn't happen (or is a statistical insignificance)--my point trying to be that wandering around across the street from a high school or in a coffee shop (in an airport or not--doesn't matter) with a rifle slung over their shoulder should not be recognized as a threatening act. That's all I was getting--but like I may or may not have said before, I get that many people are not comfortable with guns or how they're properly carried when NOT being used, so I get the concern...but I don't get the fear.

But that does come down to life experience, like you said. I regularly train with firearms, carry one every day, and am also a student of Krav Maga--not to mention was a Soldier in the Army--so I'm relatively confident that, in a situation like this, I could handle myself. The SAHM on the street where the "Rambo" was pacing with a rifle who has never had firearm or self-defense training, has young kids in the house, and no way of protecting them...she certainly has a cause for concern.

Where we seem to disagree is the course of action from here on out. My logical course would be for people (you are not included in this group, from your own claims) to shed the ignorance of firearms, take advantage of their right to own and train with them, and get themselves up to par for defending themselves and their families. BUT, not everyone sees that as a viable or logical option, and for them, the only recourse is to call the police. All I can hope at that point is that the police are intelligent as to the carry laws in the state and city that they are "protecting" and don't do anything stupid and violate someone's constitutional right because someone is scared--mostly likely scared because they haven't taken the proper precautions as stated above to get him/herself confident in their self-defense capabilities.

I still adamently disagree that all modern firearms are designed for killing 1st and sport second, but that's a semantic argument that is no longer necessary. As for your assertion of my general stance on the subject:



Now, what I'm hearing you say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that people should think of guns as tools, equivalent in danger to a car, and that it is not rational to be concerned about people carrying guns in general, as long as one is "maintaining situational awareness" which is something people should be able to do.


You are close. What you aren't gathering is that I feel this way because, as stated, I have done my due diligence to make me much less fearful of someone with a gun (or other potentially deadly object) because I'm confident I can protect myself. I wish everyone felt that same confidence, but I'm not dilusional enough to think everyone is the same way. Self empowerment allows me the luxury to think that way, and I only wish self-empowerment on everyone else.

I think many times you took my comments as a personal attack against you, and that was not the intention--I generalize "people" in my comments often, and that does not imply the person to whom I am responding, but I get how it can be taken that way.

Like I said, thanks for the generally cordial discussion--no one yelled obscenities or got super pissy. I think we both made a few assumptions as to the other, but that's expected in an online world where tone of voice and intentions don't always make it through via typing.

Best Regards, and "stay alert, stay alive," as the Army likes to say.

-- Slappy



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Masterjaden

Feel free to leave them lying around for your kids to pick up and play with then. The 2nd Amendment advocates will LOVE that irresponsibility on display.


Pretty much makes the OP's point about irresponsible gun use.



*heavy sigh*

You do realize that just leaving them lying around is not the only other option than a gun safe, right?

THIS is the emotional crap that derails conversations into the ditch of stupidity.

edit on 2-10-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Thank you. It is "Mrs. AboveBoard" by the way.

I appreciate your response. I had a feeling you were military and very confident with firearms and self-defense. While I am in no way afraid of guns, I am not as confident with them or with physical self defense as you are. I do not have the training for that. I would be the mom with kids wondering if we were in danger - it is instinctual at that level.

Respect for you service, sir. I think we understand each other much better now.

Peace,
AB



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Certainly...and if you lived in my area, I'd offer to take you to a range and familiarize you with things so that you had the confidence...if you wanted. I would never presume to force someone to handle firearms who didn't want to, of course, because that leads to accidents, IMO.

In any case, I should have inferred the "Mrs." from your avatar--my apologies.

See, my family (wife, 11-year-old, 9-month-old) is the reason why I keep myself so comfortable and confident in self defense. My wife was also military (actually had to deploy to Iraq in 2005), so she's close to being as comfortable, too. That also probably skews my view a bit--but doesn't change my thoughts.

Take care.

Slappy




top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join