I don’t have the answers. My guess is that you don’t have the answers, either. I’m willing to wait for clarification of what actually happened. YMMV.
I would say that there is a 100% chance that not all of the information is available yet.
Does not compute. No one was threatened, but evacuating the store and calling the police was an appropriate response?
So since these guys did nothing illegal, each time we see someone practicing open carry, the appropriate response is to have all civilians evacuate the area and call the police and have them send in a swat team?
that was not the question that I asked*
the question is
how reasonable is it to assume, on a scale of 1 to 100
that police/swat will surround and search a store
when all that is happening is that a customer is simply
shopping for a gun
*of course it is possible that some details are not known or that the police over reacted. that is possible. but how likely is it?
Right. Because that is a totally accurate description of what you were doing in that post.
I’m not anti-gun at all. I’m just anti-bullshit, which appears to be your stock-in-trade.
Open carry shouldn’t even cover having the gun out. Sure, in a holster where you can see it–or otherwise clearly inactive, but nothing more. There would be standards on whether you could pull your gun out, because you thought you might need to use it (which would include test firing at an appropriate location or hunting.)
There’d also be an exception for an unloaded gun being shown to others–as long as you weren’t holding it like you were going to fire it. Essentially, if it’s reasonable to think you might be about to use it, that would not count as open carry, but another concept of being ready to use the gun, which would be more restricted.
Stores in general exist in a weird half-private, half-public legal space. I wouldn’t know the exact specifics of Mississippi law, but that’s something to bear in mind.
(for example, public smoking bans affect private bars all the same)
Of course it’s possible that some details are not known. That’s my point.
You’re asking for me to make an assumption about something when all of the facts are not known. If you want to guess, go right ahead. I don’t have enough information to make such an assumption.
And which wrong assumption would be worse? To assume danger when there was none or to assume there is no danger because “you don’t have all the facts” (but there was in fact potential danger).
If you wanted to find out what actually happened, I would think that it would be important to find out exactly what was reported to the police.
Who called for the evacuation of the store? The store manager? The police? One of the store employees?
Maybe it doesn’t compute because there isn’t enough data to make an educated decision?
Individual cases call for individual responses. You tell me what actually happened at the Walmart, and I’ll make a choice based on the facts.
What point are you debating? The lack of facts available for this story? That someone would dare question a poorly written media story because it lacks facts? Your preference for issuing personal attacks instead of actually debating the lack of facts related to this story?
But that’s not the way it works. If the police waited until they “knew all the facts” they would never actually be able to do anything.
I don’t actually think that anyone was in any real danger. I think the intent was too cause controversy, gain attention and scare people. But we only know that because no one was actually shot. At the point that police hear “suspicious activity + public location + firearms involved” they are morally and legally required to intervene.
Furthermore, even if scaring people is not technically illegal, it should be. Given all the mass shooting in recent years, doing things that scare people with guns is an incredibly malicious thing to do.
Furthermore, I think you realize exactly how bizarre and extreme and insincere your “questions” are. I feel foolish for even engaging you. Don’t feed the troll and all that. If it weren’t for the fact that I were incredibly incredibly bored and that message boards like this are not that popular anymore in the face of youtube/Facebook etc, if I weren’t incredibly bored, I wouldn’t even be talking to you. So please keep that in mind when you chuckle to yourself about how much you are getting us all worked up.
I don’t know about that particular store - it may depend on the state law - but this is not true of Wal-Marts in general. In the ones I’ve been in, some of the smaller boxes of ammo may be kept behind a counter or display case, but cardboard boxes of shotgun shells are on open shelves. I don’t remember whether the boxes are taped shut.
Firearms are in locked display cases.
actually, i think you are correct, i think it is that way here too.
Guys, guys, guys…
Benghazi.
Before I read any more of this thread, I will submit that I’d bet $$ that the Walmart Shotgun Asshole is white. I can’t imagine a black fellow getting away with that for long.
I’ll read the thread now, and comment again If I should.
The live fire range was cleared of shoppers, and the staff were properly positioned in the safe room. The only question remaining is how to tell the difference between a spree shooter who will be using Target shoppers, and a gun nut who is unbalanced enough to deliberately terrorize people.
I am amazed at how you folks are so complacent in having your safety, rights and freedoms impinged by the gun cult.
I’ve posted two sources now, one a local Biloxi TV station. They both tell the same story. Do you have another source saying something different?
What fact or piece of data could possibly come out where both of the following are true:
- No one was threatened
- Evacuating the store and calling the police was warranted.
I cannot think of any possible scenario that would make these two statements jive. Seriously, I can’t even make something up. People obviously felt threatened, enough to were the police representative felt that calling the police and evacuating the store were “appropriate”.