Disgusted over idiotic gun advocacy comments

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Ask yourself where most of the mass shooting have been and then rethink that. Perception obviously. Didn't this guy think about that ahead of time?

ETA: Maybe he DID think of this ahead of time. In that case it makes him a world class idiot.

a reply to: intrepid

As I recall, most mass shootings were at "gun free" zones where people were not allowed to walk around with guns. Except for law enforcement, of course.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Do you mean schools?

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
A person carrying a gun around a school? OH NO! Panic! He's going to kill someone! Same situation, but the person is wearing a uniform. No big deal, carry on.

That's a BS comparison, that has been used reflexively in this discussion to a nauseating degree.

We do have accounts of unknown/unidentified people with high-powered weapons suddenly doing terrible things to innocent people for no apparent reason.

Regardless of idiots with badges overstepping their boundaries, that's not the point of this discussion, and is a lame and lazy fallback argument.

a reply to: intrepid

And movie theaters, etc. Anyplace where they could be confident that someone wouldn't legally be walking around with a gun.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: intrepid

And movie theaters, etc. Anyplace where they could be confident that someone wouldn't legally be walking around with a gun.

Right. So it's safe to say that there have been numerous, mostly(?), schools that have fallen prey to this. I can't for the life of me figure out how any sane person would think that was an acceptable venue to proclaim his 2nd Amendment rights in this manner. I mean it's not like some whackjob has never fired away in a school, right?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
A person carrying a gun around a school? OH NO! Panic! He's going to kill someone! Same situation, but the person is wearing a uniform. No big deal, carry on.

That's a BS comparison, that has been used reflexively in this discussion to a nauseating degree.

We do have accounts of unknown/unidentified people with high-powered weapons suddenly doing terrible things to innocent people for no apparent reason.

Regardless of idiots with badges overstepping their boundaries, that's not the point of this discussion, and is a lame and lazy fallback argument.

Well then, forgive me, what was the point? I thought the point was that people were getting their panties in a bunch because some people were doing something that was perfectly legal and harming no one.

Sure, some people use guns to kill people. Some of those people are nuts, some are mentally imbalanced, whatever. But for every one of those people you have hundreds of thousands of gun owners who have never so much as aimed their weapon at another human being or animal.

I see this as being all about fear. You have a better chance of being killed by lightning than being killed my a mentally unstable person in a shooting spree. But I don't hide in my basement every time a thunderstorm comes up. And I'm not going to support taking away someone else's rights because I'm afraid they might abuse them.

Now, if this isn't about fear, maybe you can explain to me what this is about.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
You have a better chance of being killed by lightning than being killed my a mentally unstable person in a shooting spree.

Really?

Last year, 23 did, the fewest on record. Other recent years have had a similarly small number of lightning fatalities, with 28 in 2012, and 26 in 2011, the previous record.

www.theatlantic.com...

Here's the point. Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean one SHOULD do something. Does the 1st allow someone to wear this:



I believe it does. Does that mean that it would be prudent to wear that at a synagog? Hardly.

a reply to: intrepid

For the life of me, I can't see why some people can't see the difference between someone with a gun that doesn't go on a killing spree at a school, and someone with a gun that does. The difference isn't the gun, it's the person.

School shootings have happened, yes. Something else that has happened: cars run up on the sidewalk and hit people. Someday, a car may hit me as I walk on a sidewalk. But I'm not going to live my life in fear of every car that drives by.

a reply to: intrepid

Wow! Did someone create some "lightning free zones" while we weren't looking?

originally posted by: intrepid
Here's the point. Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean one SHOULD do something. Does the 1st allow someone to wear this:

I believe it does. Does that mean that it would be prudent to wear that at a synagog? Hardly.

I agree with you there. I just think that trying to legislate stupid is a long row to hoe. Especially if it is being done out of fear.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord
I haven't read the whole thread. I wanted to respond to your initial post before reading anything else.

I am a staunch supporter of gun rights, and open carry, for all Americans. Even felons if they have served their time, are no longer on parole, and are legally free and clear. Nevertheless, we are not living a rerun of the "Wild Wild West". Some common sense is called for. I do hate it that so many people react to guns as if the gun has a mind of its own, and will act of its own accord. In fact, I think it's ridiculous. But that doesn't mean we need to shove guns in their face daily, and antagonize them. There comes a point where restraint and wisdom are needed. There's a time and a place to carry openly, and there's a time for discretion.

I seriously doubt that Ben Franklin would bitch slap anyone for carrying a firearm openly, but then, he was raised in a different time, with different social etiquette than we are.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Question, though... How do I as, say, a teacher at the High School where an open-carry "gunman" is walking around, know that this is a "good guy with a gun?" Is "flipping out" not a normal response to a perceived threat in this kind of situation, given all the school shootings?

If I was a teacher, or administrator, or even a student, I would alert law enforcement regarding this person - its not for me to know what his intentions are, only that he is dressed up like he might be the next guy taking out a few rooms full of kids.

Doesn't that side of the argument have as much legitimacy as the desire for someone to say "this is legal?" Sure it may be legal, but even so, walking around with a gun near a High School is asking for people to respond - it is a provocation done for attention. Same thing at a restaurant or a mall - if it's not a hunting lodge or gun range or gun convention or gun club meeting or something where its a normal thing to open carry, people may very well become concerned and call the cops. It's saying "yeah, I look scary with this gun and riot gear, but what are you going to do about it? It's legal."

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.

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.

- AB

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Well at that point I wasn't stating my position, I was simply inquiring about yours. And its one that I still just don't quite understand unless you're worried about an all out ban on open carry rights.

I personally don't have a problem with tighter restrictions because I can't think of a single reason why I would WANT to brandish my AR-15 across the street from a school or at an airport or shopping mall.

originally posted by: Klassified
I seriously doubt that Ben Franklin would bitch slap anyone for carrying a firearm openly...

Sure he would. He was notoriously impatient with stupidity and especially posturing for effect (even though he did some of it himself, but only because it was the only way to get the intellectual French elite into the revolution).

Given contemporary sensibilities and what's at stake, he most certainly would have projected all manner of anger at these fools carrying weapons for no reason other than to provoke controversy.

originally posted by: Bone75
unless you're worried about an all out ban on open carry rights

That debate is already happening here in some circles in Arizona. Restricting open-carry in populated areas has been discussed. The fool at Sky Harbor airport has been a catalyst for more of that discussion.

I'm far from a "gun guy," and quite seriously, if I had my will of rewriting history, I'd be more pragmatic about the broad scope of gun rights currently afforded in most states in the US. But that will never happen, and now that we sit where we are, there should be no backtrack of any laws related to gun ownership. My concern is that people such as those discussed in the NLBS video have the potential to spark enough public outcry to cause the backtrack to have serious consideration.

The unintended consequences are rather serious. Those who are concerned about maintaining the rights of gun owners should be visibly and publicly outraged over the actions of these fools.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: intrepid


School shootings have happened, yes. Something else that has happened: cars run up on the sidewalk and hit people. Someday, a car may hit me as I walk on a sidewalk. But I'm not going to live my life in fear of every car that drives by.

Ah, but cars are not designed with the primary purpose of killing people or animals. Guns, though used for entertainment, were designed with death in mind.

Now, I don't live in fear of guns in general nor do I want to take anyone's legally obtained gun away from them, but if you are walking around with a semi-automatic and bullet-proof vest near my kid's school, as I posted earlier, how am I to know who you are and what your intentions may be? Are you a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun? Are you exercising your 2nd Amendment rights, or about to go down in history as yet another school shooter? Seriously, how should I know what you are going to do with that deadly weapon slung over your shoulder? What purpose does it serve to carry it, if not to use it? Decoration? Accessorizing because it matches your boots and looks awesome? I don't get it.

*sigh*

- AB

finally i get to type, just couldn't find the end of these gun threads..lol

Anyways, I guess if I had to choose a stance it was what Klassified said. its really easy to pick up a felony or get 51/50ed or diagnosed with bi-polar or depression I just don't see how owning a gun is considered a right when large swaths of society are already unable to legally own a gun. I would say owning a gun has become a privilege, at odds with the constitution. Why can I not defend my self and property against gun violence? My recurring thought is that I can't protect myself if someone with a gun was interested in killing me. I'm already dead. so much for inalienable rights. Nothing is inalienable, I can be boxed up anytime like a sardine.

Open carry in public places ? What are we saying here that only small handguns, concealed, should be legal? Any place you create a gun free zone, is that not just creating an easier mass shooting scenario? I just think we are headed toward more gun ownership, more mass shootings, and more death.

Thanks again Klassified, I don't know how you did it but you convinced me we need more guns and less regulation.

I think what people should understand is they have the right to do this, but the also have the obligation to know where to do it, and where not to.

edit to add:
If you fail to fulfill your obligation, then expect legislation. (as Jessie Jackson might say)