I would say that part of basic civility would include not brandishing guns at little kids.
You do have that right, and further, SDMB rules are written so that generalizations about groups are considered acceptable as long as you’re not going out of your way to insult other posters. That said, this kind of argument is unhelpful and it usually kills off any kind of good debate. Try a different tactic.
Brandishing a weapon has a very precise definition, which does not include yours.
Yes, well, be sure you say the same thing to the gun toters who constantly deride anyone who doesn’t think they’re wonderful as being “scared.”
My kids don’t know the difference.
I will. It’s just as pointless.
Children only know what they are taught.
It’s your business if you want to teach them that, but your mischaracterization of what brandishing is (a crime) and your equating it to legal carry is simply false.
That’s what he just said - only with three words instead of forty.
Okay, this isn’t entirely fair - you also included the incorrect sentiment that if you don’t scream curses at children you’ve lost the right to free speech. But either way you kind of forgot to actually include reasons to carry in a coffee shop. Fortunately, others have filled in for you.
The last three are “Because I CAN”, writ verbose, with a dash of “becuase I want to remind people I can” and “because I want people to stop noticing that I can”. (At the same time, oddly enough. Was this thought through?)
The first two are, to put it indelicately, cowboyish - they make the assumption that it falls to you to be the law in this town. There are of course three kinds of cowboys - white hats, black hats, and that idiot who’s comic relief because in movies the idiot never blows away an innocent bystander. In modern societal parlence, of course, people don’t wear white hats - they wear uniforms. You’re not wearing a uniform? I guess you might be a white hat. But there no reason to think you’re not one of the other two instead. And I’m not particularly keen on finding out which you are the hard way.
To be afraid of the threat represented by a weapon is the rational position. Remember? Deadly weapon? That’s why you’re carrying it, cowboy.
I don’t “teach” them that. This piddling semantic nitpick is beside the point. It’s not like my kids would literally use the word "brandish. They see a guy with a gun on their hip and it makes them nervous. I’m not going to teach them anything I don’t know to be true, so I can’t honestly tell them they guy’s not a psycho, or give them some sensible, logical reason why the guy has a gun unless he’s a cop or something. Maybe he WILL start basting away. I don’t know. I can’t promise he won’t. It’s better not to let my kids have their good time ruined by worrying about something like that, so I just won’t take them into a place that has a lot of civilians prancing around with heaters in their waistbands.
Not that it’s much of a problem up here in MSP.
I know it’s just a typo and I’m hardly in a position to criticize but the mental image I got from this is awesome.
A cowboy would punch you in the nose for offering personal insult, and then draw his gun if you decided to escalate further. You are reported.
The cowboy wouldn’t be much without the gun then, I guess.
All three of you BACK OFF. The personal digs aren’t welcome in this forum and neither are any implied personal threads. Warnings will be handed out if this continues.
In the part of my post not quoted I made an argument substantiating the appelation of “cowboy”, based on presented opinions, and explicity stated that it was inclusive of a non-negative connotation : “White hats”. The subsequent use of the term was merely a reference to the previously justified descriptor.
I would like it if people responded substantively to the post, though. Pretending it’s a mere insult-throw is extremely cheap.
Very well. Your post divided gun carriers into three categories: good people, criminals and self-deluded fools. You strongly implied that anyone who is not an agent of the government is vastly more likely to be in categories two or three than in category one.
I for one am heartily sick of the two presumptions that (1.) The police are a elite group of paladins, vastly more trustworthy and competent than the average citizen, as a consequence of (2.) The average [del]peasant[/del] citizen is frighteningly ignorant, foolish, hot tempered and selfish. The sheer contempt with which the anti-gun faction seems to hold the intelligence and maturity of the hoi polli is appalling.
Why do I not consider the public carrying of guns a personal threat? Because I already have to accept when I go out in public that my safety is based on the likelihood that the vast majority of people I’ll meet will not try to assault, sodomize or kill me. Someone being armed is almost superfluous if they’re physically strong enough to overpower me. I accept that most people I’ll meet either have good intentions or at least will not sacrifice their status as a law-abiding citizen by committing a felony against me. Yet the people who oppose public carry seem to presume that the very act of carrying a gun is proof of antisocial intent. The pro-carry posters on this board have tried to present every testimony and argument to the contrary, yet it falls on deaf ears.
I was actually speaking to the assumptions people are likely to make; which you laid out quite clearly: Cops are an elite group of paladins, vastly more trustworthy and competent than the average citizen.
Of course when it comes to guns, that’s not an entirely uninformed opinion; cops will have gun training, and have sworn an oath to serve and protect. Some Joe with a gun? He might have training… or not. He might be a good responsible man…or not. And sadly, the presence of those known to have training does underscore the fact that we don’t know squat about you. Well, we don’t know squat about you except that you’re packing a hand cannon and presumably a willingess to use it, that is.
But you don’t really accept when I go out in public that my safety is based on the likelihood that the vast majority of people I’ll meet will not try to assault, sodomize or kill me, now do you? Because if you did accept that, you wouldn’t need to carry a gun.
There’s this strange dichotomy of perspectives here. Gun-carriers are saying that you can trust strangers with weapons not to do you ill. But, gun-carriers are carrying guns; doesn’t this mean that they half-expect to run into a stranger that intends to do them or others ill? How can I believe their claims about the harmlessness of strangers when they demonstrably don’t believe these claims themselves?
When I see somebody carrying a gun, I can only assume that they’re at least a little paranoid; they’re expecting trouble and to some degree looking for it. I think that such people are a little more likely than the average person to make trouble, just due to that attitude. And of course, with that gun at their hip, if they do get jumpy…I’m dead meat. Which would seriously ruin my whole day.
Do you have auto insurance or homeowner’s insurance? How paranoid of you!
In most states, dudes with weapon permits have had an extensive background check- at the very least a check for priors, etc. Thus, a dude with a weapon permit is safer to be around than some random guy.
No, it’s a form of gambling.
I was going to take begbert to task for that myself, but I believe he’s talking about open carry folks, who typically have no background checks or certification, in effect being average citizens. If he was talking about concealed carry licensees, well, he would be incorrect in his insinuations about the high risk of gun owners who carry (and this has been discussed at length on this message board.)