Gun bless these guys. They’ve done more for gun reform than congress has in years.
Depends. Are they carrying long rifles for some reason? Remember the original story? They were carrying M4’s, AK-47s (or similar chinese knock-offs) plus some were wearing heavier body armor and some had on BDU pants. In addition, some were carrying the arms as opposed to simply slinging them.
So yeah, if I see police apparently dressed for urban combat operations entering the restaurant in a semi-ready stance it is going to raise the threat assessment for me. Through. The. Roof.
Look at the video sourced in the OP. The bravest man in the whole thing is the poor bastard from Sonic who has to tell this group of random, heavily armed strangers that they have to leave.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
True. But that isn’t because of a lack of a majority.
You sir, are a coward and a spoilsport!
Carrying long guns is kind of a PETA move. Legal, but counter productive in that it draws the wrong kind of attention. My response was more to the general commentary on open carry, not the specifics of these ass-hats.
Is it fair to say that the gun police carry doesn’t have a significant impact on your threat assessment? Open carry folks ostensibly want to normalize handgun open carry to the same treatment. The fact that you feel this way about police shows it’s possible. The problem in TX is that you can’t open carry pistols - so they use long guns. I kind of question that reasoning, but hey it’s clear what they are trying to do.
Serious question here - I’m a store owner and I open/conceal carry or just have a firearm behind my counter. During the course of normal business hours, I have many customers in my business. For sake of argument lets say it is a diner. If someone walks into my restaurant in BDUs and t-shirt and is clearly not an active duty member of the military in uniform, and they are carrying a long-arm would I not be justified in assuming this is another Aurora mass shooting about to occur? Would I not further be justified in using my firearm to immediately subdue/shoot what I perceive to be the attacker? I mean, isn’t that exactly the threat these types assume will happen when they are out getting a Sonic burger and milkshake? That someone may just arrive and start killing people so they need their weapons so they can protect the public?
When these yahoos submit to all the same training and take the same oaths and accept all the same responsibilities that police do, then they can tell us about it, okay? Meanwhile, they’re still just yahoos, at best, and dangerously unstable ones for all anyone else can tell.
Police officers are capable of misusing their weapons, too, btw - all that stuff doesn’t completely prevent it. But the odds are much better.
And they’re capable of being yahoos, too, don’t kid yourself.
Excellent point! Thanks, Rick for providing the data. This shows that about 180 children died from air bags over nearly a 20 year period (1990-2007), the vast majority of which occurred in those not in rear facing car seats.
So, given this set of data, the rational response was to PLACE RESTRICTIONS in order to reduce deaths. Most places made it illegal to have kids riding in front facing car seats or in the front seat.
Using the numbers that Rick provided, we see the following: Approximately 180 children dying from airbags over a 17 year period = new laws and restrictions.
Approximately twice that number of children dying from firearms over the 17 months since Newtown alone = calls for MOAR guns and less restrictions.
The OP has it right - these gun folks are scared pussies who over-estimate risks. Second to people experiencing psychosis, these are the last folks you want running around generally armed.
And Bricker, if you are enamored of anecdotes, I’ve been going into McDonald’s and other fast food places for over four decades. I’ve never once seen a mass shooting occur there, and I’ve never once seen anyone with a firearm (outside of police officers). My anecdote trumps your anecdote. But thanks for showing off Bricker logic for everyone who might still need to be disabused about your thinking skills.
I think you’re making a large mistake correlating an officer carrying a weapon to a random person carrying a weapon. An officer isn’t ostensibly a threat because they’re supposed to be there as protection. If we’re afraid of the officers, something has seriously gone wrong.
I wouldn’t feel any safer if the the officer was carrying a gun as opposed to only carrying non-lethal weapons. That’s due to the fact that they can summon overwhelming force quickly should anything go wrong. The gun isn’t the deciding factor in my threat assessment of the officer. That changes completely for a random citizen.
You are looking at this the wrong way. Open carry events are not an example of risk assessment going awry (calls of being pussies notwithstanding), it is a political protest aimed at raising awareness and changing the law. The actions of these guys on balance is probably detrimental to the cause, but it should be viewed in terms of advocacy - not a commentary on their level of paranoia.
There were OC events in CA before the practice was banned. Though the OC had to be unloaded because CA is stupid. In any event, you know what they did? They cleaned litter off of beaches and roadways. Raising awareness and protesting the law. That’s a better course of action, IMO.
Can’t draw that distinction. The cause they advocate for is *based on *paranoia.
This is my assessment as well. Open Carry guy #1 does not like the looks of Open Carry guy #2 and feels threatened, so an armed confrontation can take place. Using “stand your ground” laws, either one of them can justify shooting the other, because they felt threatened. Either one could also state they “thought” an attack was about to occur, so they started firing.
I see Open Carry as an invitation to a public arms race among individuals least likely to prevent crimes and most likely to have hair-trigger reactions to threats real and imagined. How does that make us all safer?
As also stated upthread, most people assume Law Enforcement have training and preparations for handling their weapons. For most of the time, the public can assume the Police will not go rampaging with their guns. Your average citizen with a rifle strapped to his back does not, generally, inspire such confidence, and may end up getting shot but one of his own. IMHO
Thank you for confirming my assessment.
Are you really asking what some random people on the internet can do to solve the problem of a small number of people in Texas following the law? They are publicly voicing their opinion that the tactics of OCT are stupid and counterproductive. I believe their solution is working since OCT is changing their tactics. They are not going away completely but at least some at the top of that organization is realizing that they look like fools.
Apparently you are not smart enough to realize I mostly agree with you. For some reason you still feel the need to argue.
I mostly agree with you. These folks represent a minority of a minority, but they are doing all they can to convince everyone else that they are dangerous weirdos. I thank them for rousing more people to want to place clearer restrictions on firearms.
Still seeing what you *want *to see, I see.
No. Duh. I’m asking if they have any ideas for how to cut down the murder rate in our country. Apparently “those idiots” have no more idea than you, although they *may *be less inclined to duck the question and resort to invective.
There’s no need to discuss points of agreement. My issues with you relate to the responsibility and seriousness with which you address our murder-rate problem, as especially demonstrated by your lack of constructive ideas about it, and even lack of recognition of a problem. That’s where an illustration that you are *not *one of “those idiots” would help your case immensely. Where you differ from them is merely in choice of tactics, not cause, right?
Yeah, no. As long as I’ve been in the arms rooms have been a vault near the orderly room. No armed guards. Security is dependent on passive measures. Vault doors. Alarms that bring the MPs and the fact that a bunch of troops live around it. There may be armed guards at the ammo supply point but that is usually out in the ass end of nowhere. I can’t tell you how many times I have walked a guard post with a rifle and no ammo. The fact remains that on military posts the only ones legally armed are the MPs and DoD police.
Possibly. But the make it clear(while still trying to spin) that they realize being banned from businesses is painting them in a negative light. I have read things by CJ Grisham. He’s no dummy. But many of those in his organization seem to have room temperature IQs.
This is not about the murder rate. Nice goalpost moving. And you remain a fucking idiot for assuming what my opinion on gun control is without any evidence. I never once stated my opinion on gun control. You make idiotic assumptions. While you’re at it go ahead and tell me what my opinion is on abortion, declawing cats and the designated hitter.
No, you would not be justified in shooting someone merely carrying a long arm over their shoulder.
But if that person began shooting, then you’d be justified.
And that’s exactly how “these types” proceed: they wouldn’t shoot someone for carrying a weapon, but would shoot as a matter of return fire to protect themselves from being shot.
The text of which specific “stand your ground” law led you to this conclusion?
What if the store-owner legitimately percieves and believes that the gun-carrier is making a threatening move? Would he be legally justified in shooting him/her?