He probably got that idea from news stories about police shootings in America. Police regularly get away with killing people based on imaginary perceived threats: sudden movements, reaching into pockets, holding cellphones and so forth. Gorsnak probably mistakenly believes that this is the law of the land and that civilians are allowed the same leeway in shooting people that police are. They aren’t. Civilians are generally only allowed to shoot in response to actual threats and will be prosecuted if they kill people in the circumstances that police do.
I’m a pretty pro-gun guy, but I could see a law requiring all long guns carried in public to be cased or scabbarded. That would make drawing a gun clearly crossing a line.Then the first person on either side angry and stupid enough to draw gets busted by the police and the whole thing shut down as an unlawful assembly.
On the basis of the recent acquittal of the police officer in that Minneapolis shooting, and the commentary of various 2nd Amendment enthusiasts in threads discussing that case and other similar events on this board. Certainly it is not a standard I myself believe to be the correct standard, but it appears to me to be the actual standard in the US, at least with certain configurations of threateners and threatenees.
However, it would be a mistake to focus on my particular phrasing here. In the midst of a melee, with clubs and various thrown projectiles striking people all about, and many participants armed with firearms, somewhere in the crowd is surely someone who might reasonably fear for his life even if that fear is based on mistaking a club for a rifle or something similar. Is that person not entitled to self-defense? Or do self-defense rights go out the window in such a context? Must I allow myself to be beaten to death if I attend such a rally and am attacked by club-wielding thugs, or rely solely on hoping my assailants will stop short of killing or maiming me? Or may I shoot my assailants in self-defense? If the answer is that I may shoot at them then surely in the confusion, hearing the gunshots, many others around me will reasonably fear for their own lives.
I dunno, I’m not that good at these American gun hypotheticals. My previous post opened with a genuine question - do your laws in fact prohibit gunfights in street brawls? I was not asking that rhetorically. I am not professing to know the answer to this question, just extrapolating from the data points I have and hoping someone with more knowledge can provide the answer. The Socratic method won’t necessarily serve you well here.
That’s not the standard. The question suggests that you get to weigh my answer and decide based on some standard of yours whether my need is sufficient. But I don’t trust your standards or your ability to make such decisions, so I support a law such as currently exists, where I don’t have to submit the reasons I exercise a right for your review.
I don’t really have the time to explain the difference between the legal standards and the reaction of a jury applying the standards. But the short answer is that juries weigh the totality of the circumstances in rendering a decision. It is not accurate to draw a conclusion about a particular legal standard by relying upon a jury verdict.
Now, if you were interested in the topic, you might undertake to read the jury instructions in a given case. These instructions lay out the applicable law and provide the jury a roadmap for their deliberations in terms of what specific facts they must find to be true in order to return a verdict of guilty.
If you had such an interest, I’d be happy to post the instructions from a recent high-profile trial.
Do you?
How do you reconcile that line of reasoning with the observed fact that no such leapfrog shooting events have actually happened?
OK, then the answer is: the question is too imprecise to answer. But the laws generally create a strong disincentive to be the first to employ deadly force.
I am not asking about the law.
The law says you get to carry a gun. I know that. You know that. I am not disputing that. It’s your right. End of story.
But just because you can do a thing does not mean you should do thing. You have a right to tell your wife she is fat and ugly (regardless of whether she is or not). Just because it is your right to do that if you want does not make it a good idea.
Since the thread is about armed protestors at these rallies I am asking you of what use is your gun at these rallies? How will it protect you? How will it improve the situation for you and everyone else there keeping in mind there is a large police presence?
How is, “It’s never happened before,” a response to the question, “Would it be legally justified it it did?”
I have no idea. I don’t attend these rallies, and if I did I would be very unlikely to attend while carrying a weapon. I don’t argue that “it will improve the situation for me and everyone else” at such an event.
I have answered the question “Would it be legally justified it it did?” as best as it can be: * the question is too imprecise to answer. But the laws generally create a strong disincentive to be the first to employ deadly force.* Post #25.
You mean like this?
Or do you mean guns that bear a purely superficial resemblance to military weapons?
If the hypothetical has no definitive answer how is it possible to categorically assert, “Our laws already prohibit that,” when speaking of such an event?
Honestly, I didn’t intend this to lead into a gotcha-type question, and I apologize that I’m nonetheless asking it. I was and still am genuinely puzzled by what seem to me to be self-contradictory standards regarding open carry and self-defense amongst American gun enthusiasts. Not those espoused by you personally, and I’m not asking you to resolve my confusion by any means, just trying to explain where my comment was coming from.
The problem isn’t, as some have argued, that the dice will definitely come up 6, the problem is that the more you roll dice, the more probable a 6 becomes. We have a habit of denying the probability of 6’s until a 6 rolls up, then acting surprised that such a thing could ever happen.
It doesn’t even require malicious intent on either party. If a nearby car backfires and someone on either side reacts to it like a gunshot, suddenly there’s a battle/massacre.
While I’m with you in defending their right to assemble, spew racist garbage and protest government action, there’s a reasonable safety concern when they bring weapons into close proximity to those they wish to do harm upon. At the very least it should be reasonable for the peacekeepers to stand betwixt groups - not an ideal solution for anyone, least of all the police, - but can we at least agree that there is an unadressed safety concern the more often the dice get rolled and both sides get riled towards violence?
Note: I take a neutral stance, but make no mistake, “both sides” are hardly to blame here - Nazi punching used to be an American pastime, and by Jingo, I’ll gladly take up where my Grandfathers left off.
It’s unclear to me why you have disregarded, or forgotten, the second sentence: But the laws generally create a strong disincentive to be the first to employ deadly force.
Sure, I don’t say it’s impossible. But when you say “6,” are you implying a six-sided die, or is the actual figure closer to rolling a dodecaplex-shaped die and you’ve simply arbitrarily picked ‘6’ as the unique result signalling a gun battle?
Sure!
But some think there’s an unaddressed safety concern when we let HIV-positive people roam the nation freely without some sort of mandatory brand or mark. Do you agree?
See, when I say that, it becomes a bit clearer that there’s a potentially unpleasant suggestion lurking behind the observation.
Will you? Will you treat these Nazis the way your Grandpa did at Aachen? Shoot them, punch them, attack on sight? Is that truly how you think we should run society?
What should happen to you? Arrest? Or a medal from a grateful city mayor?
[quote=“Bricker, post:34, topic:793840”]
Sure, I don’t say it’s impossible. But when you say “6,” are you implying a six-sided die, or is the actual figure closer to rolling a dodecaplex-shaped die and you’ve simply arbitrarily picked ‘6’ as the unique result signalling a gun battle?
Sure!
But some think there’s an unaddressed safety concern when we let HIV-positive people roam the nation freely without some sort of mandatory brand or mark. Do you agree?
See, when I say that, it becomes a bit clearer that there’s a potentially unpleasant suggestion lurking behind the observation.
Should they start belligerence/violence? Yes. If I see a Nazi causing unjust harm to another, you’d better believe I have a bullet ready for them.
Vitrolic hate, IMHO, is more of a mental illness than anything else, and ought to be treated exactly how we treat other people who are violent due to mental disorders. It is one thing to disagree vehemently, it is another thing to form armed mobs and terrorize synagoges, threaten mass violence, run over pedestrians, etc. These people are clearly sick, and in desperate need of rehabilitation.
Slipped and submitted, ignore above
I used 6 because most people associate dice with d6’s and it’s a useful metaphor for explaining probability. I could have used a coin toss to the same effect. The problem is, we can’t ascertain the likelihood of any independent event resulting in a “6” because we 1) have no idea how many sides this die has, 2) have not rolled the dice enough times to ascertain anything approximating that and 3) have only really flawed statistical analysis to go off of. Your own “counter example” was like saying “Whelp, we flipped the coin thrice and it didn’t therefore can’t come up heads.” Even if there’s a 99% chance of an event occurring, it’s still possible that after 1000 attempts it wouldn’t - we can’t surmise after 1000 attempts that the probability was not 99%.
The problem is you’re removing the actors involved - specifically there motivations - from the equation. The Nazis want to be violent, it is their specific intent. Few if any HIV positive people want to and/or actively and knowingly attempt to spread HIV.
Should they start belligerence/violence? Yes. If I see a Nazi causing unjust harm to another, you’d better believe I have a bullet ready for them.
Vitrolic hate, IMHO, is more of a mental illness than anything else, and ought to be treated exactly how we treat other people who are violent due to mental disorders. It is one thing to disagree vehemently, it is another thing to form armed mobs and terrorize synagoges, threaten mass violence, run over pedestrians, etc. These people are clearly sick, and in desperate need of rehabilitation.
Time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech have been upheld. Communities have been permitted to impose restrictions on mass gatherings. I’m not an expert on Constitutional law, but it is not immediately clear to me why some aspects of carrying firearms at public gatherings could not be regulated in some manner.
Yes, I specifically pointed that out in the post you responded to. My post was about near-future – I wouldn’t think it would be controversial to say that adding a bunch of guns into both sides of the mix of angry people might increase the chances of deadly violence. And I’m not recommending any restrictions on guns are the necessary solution – just that this really is a reasonable concern and something that can and should be discussed, IMO.
I haven’t really watched much of the footage of the events in Charlottesville - maybe one of the people who did can answer. Were there incidents of anyone attacking with a club or another weapon someone else who had an open-carry firearm?
Because I have this feeling that such an event didn’t happen. It takes a special kind of stupid to do that, not just the normal stupid.
I realize there is a pervasive gun fetish in America, promoted & protected by law. As such, any suggestions of prohibition of firearms at protests and rallies will be met with idiotic bravado like offers of surrender of guns from cold dead hands, etc.
It may well come to that.
Perhaps The Beatles were right - Happiness is a warm gun.