This does seem to be one of those cases in which the law seems to clash with “common sense” about behavior that contributes to civic peace (cue in the chorus about phobias and cowardice and ignorance being the cause of people being upset, and snowflakes just having to suck it up).
One thing’s for sure, if I’m armed I will be making an extra effort to NOT give cause for alarm by demeanor or conduct or being circumstantially inappropriate. As mentioned, there’s legal and then there’s wise which is why I am in no hurry to ever put to the test Shodan’s Guide To Police-Citizen (If You’re White) Interaction.
I would be happy to let this be one matter in which the rule devolved to the lower level and if community consensus in Place X is against open carry, then let that be the rule there, and if a community consensus in Place Y is to let it all hang out, let it. But there seems to be this whole race to universal unrestricted carry, no ifs ands or buts, going on that puts me off. Like I said, parameters of time, place and manner are placed on all sorts of rights.
It’s legal even if it’s not typical, people don’t typically sing I’m a little teapot on a corner but it’s legal.
There are PLENTY of cases were a rifle in town was used for self defense purposes. And unless it was by magic at some point someone carried that rifle in town, and probably in public.
Their choice of self defense weapon is none of the police’s or your business as long as said weapon is legal.
Your suspicion or gut feeling isn’t RAS. I felt he was up to no good isn’t going to stand up in court, and probably cost the city or the officer a LOT of money.
As far a carrying an ax, or flamethrower for that matter, as long as it’s legal there would be no RAS, there could be many reasons for carrying an ax, flamethrower, and many other items, unless said item is against the law to carry there is no RAS.
So, you are okay in some circumstances with limiting some freedoms if they may cause harm to others.
And is that what I said? Like I said, talking about someone else’s argument is poor form for arguing with another person.
I can quote people on your side:
Does that have anything to do with your argument? No, then why do you presume to say that what someone else has to say has anything to do with mine?
Once again, insulting someone else’s intelligence is not a great method of debating. You are supposed to be trying to insult my intelligence here.
But, you have DrDeth over here who claims that he can’t tell the difference between a deer hunting rifle and an AR-15, so I don’t know that it is just the “gun grabbers” who can tell which ones are the “scary ones”.
Then don’t “beat back stupid ideas” propose some of your own. People are being killed and injured, and we should do something to address that. We have successfully reduced the injuries and deaths associated with cars, with alcohol, and with smoking, all without banning them.
If a proposal is not a good one, that ther than just “beating it back”, haw about being productive and countering it with something that is not a stupid idea. Do you actually have any? I have yet to have heard any proposals from the gun advocates that would decrease the injuries and deaths associated with guns.
Maybe the problem isn’t that they are stupid ideas, they are just ideas that you don’t like, and that the problem is is that you don’t wish to do anything at all to reduce the harm associated with guns, and so anything that does address that is automatically labeled as a stupid idea.
You said:
You explicitly state there that people bought these guns out of a reaction to liberals calling for their ban.
There is no chance that they will be banned, so anyone who bought a gun under that pretense is a moron who was lied to by the NRA.
So, is it ignorance on your part if you cannot tell a gun grabber who wants to work with the gun advocates to find ways of reducing injuries and deaths associated with guns and one that wants to ban all guns?
I would very much agree that if someone feels the need to carry when they are in a Walmart, then they have serious paranoia issues that frankly make me feel uncomfortable with them having a gun.
“I am fulfilling my civic duty of reporting what I see as suspicious activity. I could not have gone in good conscience without letting someone in authority know about my concerns. If you do not feel that that is a concern to be checked out, then at least if it does turn out that my suspicions were warranted, I know that I did what I could to prevent tragedy.”
In another thread, quite some time ago, it was stated that even if I saw people open carrying their guns into a school, that it would be silly to call the cops on them.
Now, one of the problems is that, if I am concerned, and the police refuse to take my concerns seriously, then I* may lie to the police, and claim that the gun bearer is waving it around or pointing it at people.
For instance, not only the previous link with the beavercreek shooting, but you also have people who see a gun, and then lie to the police to get them to respond, like in this story.
*not I, but other people who have actually done this.
So, after leaving the cop, you then head to your ex-girlfriend’s house and murder her. Too bad the cop couldn’t see that you were ineligible to possess a gun due to your numerous felonies and threats.
Keep in mind, when you are being this way with the cop, the cop can shoot you, and they will not get into trouble for it. If they give you a “lawful order” to drop your gun, and you refuse, they are completely within their rights to shoot you dead.
But, if you happen to be a black teenage girl, in a place where there was a report of a large black man being threatening, then it is reasonableto stop the black girl and beat her up.
Consider the difference between open carrying a holstered pistol and holding the pistol in your hand. The former is protected (though it still distresses lots of people) while the latter would definitely constitute “articulable suspicion”. That’s why I think requiring long guns to be scabbarded in public is a reasonable compromise: it makes the firearm not instantly accessible and therefore not an immanent threat, or no more so than a holstered pistol.
In high school, lots and lots of kids take a “driver’s education” course to familiarize themselves with the safe operation of automobiles. Why don’t we have a “shooter’s education” course offered alongside that so that they can familiarize themselves with the safe operation of firearms? I think it could reduce the number of accidental gun deaths. You onboard for that?
You’ve gotten yourself confused here. “I have little doubt that a good number of Americans would not have purchased them without liberals like RTFirefly calling for their ban” does not mean “people bought these guns out of a reaction to liberals calling for their ban.” That’s not what it means at all. People buy them because they’re afraid the RTFireflys of the world might succeed to varying degrees.
You haven’t been paying attention. While a nation-wide federal ban seems unlikely to pass anytime soon, there are a number of states that have enacted AW bans in recent years. Our very own Bone finds his options for firearm purchases severely limited. He is not a moron nor was he lied to by the NRA. That’s the reality in a number of liberal-leaning states.
If you had a list of 700 types of literature you were allowed to publish, would you consider your first amendment rights “severely limited”?
How about if there were 700 religions you could legally choose to follow? I mean, you could go to church as often as you want! How is that “severely limited”?
But sure, I’d be okay with some sort of formal environment where teachers could hand students guns and find out how irresponsible the students really are. (And how much the student hates their teachers.)
But what happens when a student fails this course*? Can we prevent them from getting a “gun license” and prevent them from using one outside of private property, as we do with people without a driver’s license? How far do you want to take this analogy?
Note that I’m presuming there are ways to fail the class other than literally murdering your instructors/fellow students. Because yes, I know that’ll already make them ‘lose their license’ (if convicted), you’re so clever you.
So, that would be- fully automatic weapons, mortars, machine guns, etc- all of which are banned, and with a few exceptions- *are not in civilian hands. *
The only difference between a “deer rifle” and a “assault weapon” are cosmetic differences.
You certainly can (and many people have) use a AR15 for hunting deer.
In fact, it is you that can’t tell the difference, not knowing anything about calibers, range, muzzle velocity, and so forth.
Maybe long guns (to include legal firearms designed to be operated with 2 hands) should be the ONLY firearms authorized for open carry. It is after all, much harder to sneak around un-detected in pursuit of your crime with a long gun.
I’d be okay with that. I mean I’d rather nobody walked around with weapons at all, but this would be an interesting compromise with no overt downsides that I can see. Presuming nobody minds if police overtly keep half an eye on anybody with a long gun walking by, of course.
Yeah, it is a suggestion that I have made a few times on these boards. Akin to “sex ed.”, your parents could opt you out of it, if they so chose, but it would be offered in public schools, at different age groups, where kindergarten is pretty much “If you see an unattended gun, don’t touch it, get away from it, and tell an adult.”, with gun handling and shooting coming later.
That is exactly what that means. “They wouldn’t’ have bought them without” “They bought them because of” are pretty much synonyms.
They are worried that liberals may succeed to varying degrees in lowering the rate of injury and death by guns.
So, yeah, if over 700 models of gun, including the AR-15 are available, then to think that your options are severely limited is to believe the NRA’s lies.
Aslo, how does thi explain a spike in AR-15 sales in deep red states? Do they think that suddenly they are going to flip?
It’s also pointless. It was something that they were not thinking about buying. Then they heard about a mass shooting, and now they want it, just in case it gets banned, and now they can’t have the gun they didn’t know they wanted until they heard about it being used to shoot up a bunch of people?
I’m not buying it, you were saying that guns like the AR-15 were being advertised by the AWB. I disagree, mass shooters are the most effective form of advertising.
That the cops can pull up and shoot you dead before you get to your , “Hello officer, what seems to be the problem here?” speach.
And it does. My mileage is that parading about with long guns is reasonable articulable suspicion in the first place.
If you are “scaring” the people, then you are creating a public disturbance. If you are creating a public disturbance, is that not a reasonable articulable suspicion?
So, you are saying that you don’t think that there are any substantial differences between a deer rifle and an AR-15. I can point out over a half dozen.
I could use it for opening my beer too, that’s not the issue. The issue is, would you use a deer rifle for combat?
You are the one that is stating that they are the same, while also stating that they are different. I’m not the confused one here. I know the difference, and can point it out and articulate it. You are the one that is claiming ignorance.