Open carry: how many guns is too many?

Actually that's not correct. I've sold most of my guns because I don't really have enough time to take them to the range and fire them. I figured getting them into the hands of people who would actually use them would be better for society at large. What I am is a logic enthusiast. I understand there's a lot better to defend yourself with a gun then have a police officer come and draw a chalk outline around your body.

"Dandy" is your word. But I don't see a problem with it.

I always wondered who to consult when determining the "perfect time to panic" might be. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Which logically would suggest that we arm every citizen. And if we follow that ridiculous logic to its ultimate conclusion it would also suggest that people be prevented from expressing the opinion that you were advocating as a curtailment on the first amendment also. Happily God-given rights trump "common sense." Which generally means whatever the left wing wants.

I don't see any justifiable reason for someone not leaving the premises of any establishment that asks him to leave on the ground that you're carrying guns and wearing body armor. But that's a very different standard.

Why is that reasonable? That is certainly not my experience.

And I could upon sufficient investigation give you thousands of counter examples.

We don't have any kook laws, yet the left-wing goes on it's insane tirades without any impediment whatsoever. Case in point, this post of yours that I'm responding to hear.

The left always thinks that Americanism has gone too far. I understand you can find some attractive property values in Red China these days. Undoubtedly the CCP is still taking applications. With your politics you should feel right at home.
Who on earth has concerns about a "chalk line around your body"? Maybe you should consider moving to a safer place.

It is completely logical to panic when you see a man in body armor in a market carrying several large weapons and lots of ammo. Anyone who says this is not concerning is not believable.

Arming every citizen is nuts. We would end up with more cases like the robbery victim who tried to use his gun to shoot the fleeing robber and killed a little girl sitting in a car with her father.

So in your neighborhood it is common to see people in markets and churches and post offices in body armor and carrying military-style weapons? Again, maybe you should move to a safer place.

Yes, I would like to hear counter examples. Another one I can think of is the shooter in a movie theater in Aurora.

"Americanism" Never heard that term, but I am aware that RW extremists cover their extremism with claims of patriotism. the bigger the flag, the better.
 
Who on earth has concerns about a "chalk line around your body"? Maybe you should consider moving to a safer place.

It is completely logical to panic when you see a man in body armor in a market carrying several large weapons and lots of ammo. Anyone who says this is not concerning is not believable.

Arming every citizen is nuts. We would end up with more cases like the robbery victim who tried to use his gun to shoot the fleeing robber and killed a little girl sitting in a car with her father.

So in your neighborhood it is common to see people in markets and churches and post offices in body armor and carrying military-style weapons? Again, maybe you should move to a safer place.

Yes, I would like to hear counter examples. Another one I can think of is the shooter in a movie theater in Aurora.

"Americanism" Never heard that, but I am aware that RW extremists cover their extremism with claims of patriotism. the bigger the flag, the better.
Not everyone is as rich as you are.
 
Who on earth has concerns about a "chalk line around your body"?
If you're not concerned about "a chalk line around your body" what could you possibly have against someone wearing body armor and carrying guns?
Maybe you should consider moving to a safer place.
At the rate the left-wing politicians are destroying safety for all Americans, that's a more doubtful challenge every day.
It is completely logical to panic
Exactly! If there weren't people like you who always thought it was completely logical to panic the left would not be able to get a single vote. Panic is the only arrow in their quiver. They certainly don't have any logic!
when you see a man in body armor in a market carrying several large weapons and lots of ammo. Anyone who says this is not concerning is not believable.
Some people don't live in a world in which they are not surrounded by panicking cowardly people. You should give it a try. Perhaps you can get a ticket to America sometime.
Arming every citizen is nuts.
Which is truly ironic for you to say, because every time a democrat gets elected gun sales go through the roof.
We would end up with more cases like the robbery victim who tried to use his gun to shoot the fleeing robber and killed a little girl sitting in a car with her father.
We would end up with far more villains fleeing the scene of would be carjackings because they were being fired on by law abiding citizens.

So in your neighborhood it is common to see people in markets and churches and post offices in body armor and carrying military-style weapons? Again, maybe you should move to a safer place.
No, not in my neighborhood. But they certainly do in safer neighborhoods. In the kind of neighborhoods where people carry guns without apology crime is extremely low to the point of non-existence.
Yes, I would like to hear counter examples. Another one I can think of is the shooter in a movie theater in Aurora.
What was that . . . a decade ago?
"Americanism" Never heard that term,
How illustratively unsurprising.
but I am aware that RW extremists cover their extremism with claims of patriotism.
Wonderful you've laid down a predicate for maligning everyone who expresses patriotic sentiments. You've done your evil deed for the day I'm sure you can sleep like a baby now.
the bigger the flag, the better.
Right, minimize the flag. We wouldn't want anyone to be expressing patriotism. The left is supposed to be against stereotypes, yet you go out of your way to be a stereotypical as you can possibly be.
 
1 - what laws pertaining to mental health were not followed?
Am I being asked because you do not already know the answer to that question (and have posted this op with the context of that lack of knowledge), or is that a rhetorical question asked for the purpose of enlightening other readers who may not also already know the answer?

Let's start with the standard of danger to self or others.
2 - the NYT reports national news stories of interest
rotflmbo!

That's hilarious. First, that article has very little news. Second, the article is filled with falsehood, beginning with its red herring of a question. Third, the editorial process in "news-making," is highly subjective and agenda-driven - and the agenda has little to nothing to do with national interest. What the nation is interested in is solving the problem, NOT reading red herring "news" article that do absolutely nothing to do that.

Seriously, vibise, read that book. It was written by a liberal. It was written by a liberal doing her research in liberal print and television newsrooms in a "blue" part of the country. The book will speak to your concerns from your political orientation and perspective. Any bias will be "in-house," and not a conservative bias recommending a conservative biased critic of views and practice of the opposing side.

You will never read/hear "news" the same after reading that book.
3 - sure "Very, very, very few gun owners do what the men in the NYT article do." I agree, but the point is that what they did should not be legal. Law enforcement should have been able to arrest them but could not.
No, that's not the "point." That is your personal opinion. And..... while I have not read every post in nione pages of posts, the many I have read do not come anywhere close to forming a cogent argument proving the non-violent individual should be arrested (even though I may agree with you). You're not going to be able to prove that position, either, as long as you start with an argument of extremes!!!!!

Here's a better more reasonable, rational, rule-of-law based position: If the non-violent individual disturbed the peace, then he should be ticketed (or arrested) accordingly. In any city/state that legislates privilege or right to open carry that same city/state (and all its residents) must abide by those laws. Any law that is violated should be prosecuted, and in the particular case of the NYT example, there is a set of laws that are indirectly applicable.

If the NYT says the man could not be arrested..... they lied. This deceit is not particularly surprising given the fact the entire articel is a red herring, the article is unprofessional, and its author has violated his own profession's code of ethics.

Learn not to be so gullible. Be as critical of the NYT as you are of my posts ;) .
4 - How is the NYT lying?
So now we're getting into another example fo you not paying attention because I have already explained how they are lying. You are asking a question already answered.

And I do not repeat myself unnecessarily to posters not paying attention.
They did not make any claims that the behavior of these two men is representative of gun owners...
They did.

It is the necessary, inescapable implication of the article's presence. If the two episodes have no bearing whatsoever on the overwhelming, vast majority (99.9999999999999%) of people then it is not news of a national interest. It's propaganda or entertainment. When ANY news agency posts propaganda or entertainment as news they are lying. When they provide opinion as news they are lying. When they leave out salient content they are lying.

The greatest power the media has is the power to ignore.
....only that it was so frightening that it should not be allowed.
If the laws permit the non-violent man to open carry multiple firearms then it is allowed and it should be allowed - because the law allows it.

You, vibise, are either going to have to deny the rule of law or concede to a self-contradictoy position and neither will persuade anybody with a brain.

Let me see if I can provide an analogy that might be helpful. Here in my state of Virginia, the traffic laws are legislated as "requirements to yield," and not, "right of way." For example, if I approach a four-way stop sign then I have a requirement to yield to the person to my right. The person to my right DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY!!!! No driver in the state of Virginia can ever claim a right of way in traffic court simply because that's not how our laws are codified. The judge will look the other guy square in they eye and say, "Mr. Smith you do NOT have a right of way in the Commonwealth of Virginia," and then with his very next breath he will turn to me and just as unequivocally state, "Mr. Josheb, you do have a requirement to yield and I therefore find you culpable for the accident and guilt of the ticketed charge."

Owning firearms is not a privilege, it is a right. Being able to open carry is a privilege legislated by the state/municipal legislature..... that then MUST be enforced by the police, courts, etc. The rule of law should be enforced unless and until the laws prove ineffective and then and only then are they to be re-legislated - based onmajority rule as long as it does not violate the rights of the minority.

That is what constitutes a democracy in a constitutional republic in a pluralistic society.

I, personally, would not have been "frightened" by the non-violent man openly carrying his firearms. Your subjective views are not law, nor are they a sound basis for law, any more than mine are. Virginia is an open cary state and sometimes people act in a manner like that man in the article. I have often asked these people why they open carry multiple firearms. The most frequently occurring answer? "Because I can."

It's a dumb answer.

But legally it is a correct answer.
And the one of those men who was not stopped went on to kill people.
So why isn't the NYT article about stopping people instead of how many guns are too many? Your own commentary undermines the source document upon which this op is built!

The fact is (or should that be plural) there are laws that would have empowered both the citizenry and law enforcement to "stop" both individuals. It is just as equally factual the NYT article ignored all of those facts. Lies of omission are still lies.
The problem is that many gun owners are adamantly against common sense restrictions on gun ownership.
Not only is that a different topic entirely, but it's not true and it is a fallacious appeal to ad populum. The fact is most gun owners are in favor of "common sense" laws empowering AND limiting gun ownership. It is also a FACT there are already thousands of gun laws. More are not needed. I'll bet you could recommend three laws and I'd be able to tell you they are already on the books. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR A POLITICAN ARGUE BACKGROUND CHECKS THEY ARE LYING!!!!! because background checks are already legally required in the US. Every politician already knows that. He is speaking about laws he already knows exist. He is lying.

Every single US gun owner in this thread will tell you they had to fill out a background check in order to purchase a handgun. Ask them. Yes, there are ways to get around that law (such as gifts or inheritances) but that is a different matter than arguing for/against background checks that are already required by law. And if you do not know these facts then you've got no business telling law-abiding citizens about the laws that need to be legislated when they already exist.

Responsible gun owners are not adamantly against common sense restrictions of gun ownership. Don't buy into that deceitful red herring, either.
This was a news story and you failed to show it was biased.
The facts in evidence prove otherwise.
What details did they get wrong?
Already answered that question.
The NYT is one of the top news sources in the world.
Only in their own imagination ;) .

I'm not disputing their influence. I am disputing the veracity of that one specific article. Facts are facts. Anyone who considers news to be facts has a completely different definition of news than those who consider selective use of facts and personal opinion news. The Fox article you cited was not news and it was not presented by Fox as news. It was opinion, and that is how Fox presented it.

And whether you or I like it or not, the New York Times' numbers aren't significantly ahead of Fox, and Fox doesn't publish a newspaper. However, the more honest, knowing, and factual truth is BOTH those agencies get their news from Reuters and the Associated Press and then they edit those sources to meet their respective purposes.
 
Yes, I do believe that professional law enforcement and military who are required to take routine training are better trained than gun toting civilians.

Why? It is not the quantity of training that makes the difference. It is the individual involved and their talents. Law enforcement can be good or bad. Talented or not.

I think the ones with insecurities are the gun toters who see boogeymen behind each tree.

This is horrible stereotypical nonsense. I don't see "boogeymen" everywhere. In fact, the majority of the time, I don't care a gun. I do when I feel it is necessary. Which isn't very often. However, you have ZERO right to tell me what I can and can't do.

I just don't get that level of paranoia. I am a 73 YO woman and walk alone at night in my neighborhood or in the downtown areas of major cities, while gun toters cower behind their guns, sure that they are about to be assaulted wherever they are.

Get in your vehicle and exit any highway in Gary Indiana and do the same thing...... I don't even know if a gun would help you there.

I also don't trust gun toting civilians who think our elected govt is tyrannical and should be overturned, by force if necessary. And insisting that they have the right to carry guns for this unConstitutional purpose.

It doesn't matter if you trust me or not. I'm not doing it for you. You can choose not to carry a gun and live with your choice. That is why they call it "freedom".

I haven't harmed you nor would I. Yet, you trust drug peddlers more than you trust me. That says much about the Democrap mentality. You're free to be wrong. Enjoy.
 
4 - How is the NYT lying?
Well, let's take a look at the article's title and its subtitle.

"A Heavily Armed Man Caused Panic at a Supermarket. But Did He Break the Law?
In states with permissive gun laws, police and prosecutors have limited tools at their disposal when a heavily armed individual sows fear or panic in public."

Those two statements contained biased language, not objective facts. What is the definition of "heavily"? Was he carrying a SAW, or a Browning? You may not even understand my question because most folks don't have a clue what "SAW" means. If by the term "heavily," they mean "multiple, then why didn't they use the more factual, objectively understandable, and more communicative word? An editorial decision was made to use the terms printed and those decisions are demonstrably not objective.

And since the article does not explain its own use of biased language..... the manipulation is a lie of omission!

So, a man carrying multiple firearms in a state that permits the open carrying of multiple firearms received panic responses by a number of people observing him. Did that man cause the panic? As a psychologist I have to say panic is caused first and foremost from within, not from outside circumstances. It is what we think about our observations that makes the difference, and in a Walmart full of gun owners I doubt that man would have caused much if any panic AND every gun owner reading that headline from a locale where many own many guns knows this headline is manipulation.

So, objectively speaking, the man is not "heavily" armed, and he did not cause any panic.

Did he break the law? Depends. about which law is the article asking because the answer is not rocket surgery. If the man is carrying multiple firearms in a state that permits that behavior, then he has not broken any gun laws. However, there may be other laws that bear on his conduct, laws having little or nothing directly to do with laws specifically pertaining to guns. So what laws is the article asking about? Well, the article seemingly answers that question with its next line, BUT it answer's its own question 1) incorrectly, and 2) with more biased language (and at this point the biases are so recurring that it borders on prejudice.

"In states with permissive gun laws..." is another biased statement. The word "permissive" is subjective, not objective. What is permissive to a liberal author of a liberal article in a liberal news agency in a liberal state is not likely to be permissive to a conservative author writing in a conservative news agency in a conservative state.

Are you familiar with Kojo Nnamdi of NPR? How about Eugene Robinson of WaPo (and syndicated)? I once asked them how their show/opeds would be different if they had to submit them to politically conservative editors and both of those men (as well as other "news" personages in attendance) agreed they would have to change much of their content. When I asked whether that would be due to the biases in their material or the biases in the editorial standards they both also acknowledge biases in both ends of that equation. In other words, both men implicitly acknowledged they are willfully reporting in a manner they know is biased and would not pass through an alternative source of accountability.

That has happened three time in the first two sentences of this NYT article, and I'm not done appraising it!!!


I am going to skip ahead because the part about police lacking sufficient tools is complete falsehood, and if a police did tell the journalist that, then the journalist should be investigating the police, not the gun owner. The more accurate fact of policing is they can do whatever they like as long as there is a law empowering them to do so. We all KNOW a police officer could pull over any car older than two years he liked, inspect it, find something wrong with it, and then give us a ticket for failed equipment. The same holds true of disturbing the peace in any objective occasion where panic is caused. The police do in fact have all the power and resources they need to address that occasion.

The author of this article is lying. His editor is collaborating. And they are relying on the readers lack of critical thinking they built into the reader by constant exposure to biased information presented as objective news.



If you like I will go through every word of those two lines, but four examples should be sufficient to provide bias and deceit. The rest of the article is filled with more of the same. Because this article could have and should demonstrably have been written more objectively, the reasonable conclusion is they are either incompetent, asserting an unstated agenda with the deceit of omission, or openly and deliberately lying. There's no possibility of "honest mistake," or appeals to rhetoric given the frequency and nature of the falsehoods contained in the article. When rhetoric becomes sophistry then it should be ignored, and reason embraced.
 
The problem is not mental health, unless you can show that the USA uniquely has more mental health problems than any other developed country.
Is the correlation between the mental health of the mass shooters on record being denied?
The problem is not mental health, unless you can show that the USA uniquely has more mental health problems than any other developed country.
Done. The US ties for second place behind the UK. There are other mitigating conditions but the correlation between existing mental health conditions and mass shooters is nearly 1 to 1.

Now you prove mental health is irrelevant and the number of guns by an individual owned is causal. Otherwise, let go of the argument, learn more, and form a more salient case for a more veracious position.
The background of the Atlanta man decked out in body armor and massive guns in a grocery store. His lawyer said he is homeless. If you think there is info out there about his mental status, then please present it.
First, this is your op, not mine. The onus is ALWAYS first on you, not me or anyone else. Second, there will be no shifting onuses entertained, any more than the red herrings, straw men, false equivalences, ad populum, appeals to purity already deployed will receive collaboration. Third, the correlation between mental health and homelessness is already well-established and should have been understood before you posted. Fourth, I am already on record stating I suspect the non-violent open-carry individual had some issues. That appraisal is completely consistent with his lawyer's report. Lastly, we have already established, and agreed, that man is not representative of the larger population and therefore any and all appeals to his example as a basis for rational discourse are fallacious appeals to the extreme (argumentum ad absurdum).

He is not representative of all gunowners, but he may or may not be representative of those individuals with mental health diagnoses who own guns.

And the NYT ignored it.
Are you saying there should be a formal mental health evaluation before anyone is allowed to purchase a gun? I would be OK with that..............
No, that is not my position. Forcing medical/psychiatric care on anyone is unjust, and once that precedent is established there exists the risk of the government then applying that precedent to other circumstance further restricting other rights (like our right to free speech :cautious:). Sometimes the "slippery slope" is not a fallacious response. Just ask any medical professional who has access to your medical records ?.

Which brings me to my inclinations,

A better alternative, though still problematic, is for any medical/mental health professional serving in a role as mandated reporter asking their patients/clients about their ownership of firearms and managing that information within the structures of confidentiality, danger to self or others, and mandated reporting. Policies (and laws) governing that specific population could be developed without adversely affecting the majority of gun owners. Those policies could enhance public safety and affirm Second Amendment rights.

As a mental health professional, I have an incredible amount of power and influence in an individual's life. I can legally disclose certain otherwise confidential information if I believe the individual is a danger to self or others. I have acted accordingly and personally protected individuals from loss of life on more than one occasion. Some abuse the power through misapplication and other abuse the power through neglect. The latter, statistically speaking, is more problematic than the former. Folks with letters after their name are often reluctant (scared) to act. I ask. I tell my clients about the limits of confidentiality (and I ask them if they own firearms). I do not base sound social policy and legislation of personal anecdote, but I am not the exception to the rule - we are all trained in this area.

I shoot at the range at the NRA headquarters. I have had this discussion with many NRA members and am familiar with the NRA's arguments against the use of mental health diagnoses as a means of restricting gun rights. If you haven't read them then you should.

Pick a mass shooter from the news. Google to find whether they were in treatment prior to their criminal conduct. On every occasion where there is a correlation ask why the individual wasn't reported. He could have been. If he was a danger to self or others then he should have been reported. The police have the power and the resources to address those circumstances. The NYT is lying when they say otherwise.
What kind of justification is there for a person to go to a supermarket and then go into a restroom to dress in body armor, and load multiple weapons before going out into the store? Should such behavior be treated as perfectly normal? Is it unwise for other shoppers to panic when they see him? Can you not see a difference between what this man did, and what most other gun owners do, which is to carry a single gun in a holster?
Once again, I have already answered and addressed most of that. So, again, this is another example in a growing list of cases when I am asked questions I have already answered after having asked for a more circumspect reading.

AND.... the points I've broached are not being addressed.

It does not look like there's any sincere interest in your own op. Have you any room for changing your thinking on this topic?
 
Why? It is not the quantity of training that makes the difference. It is the individual involved and their talents. Law enforcement can be good or bad. Talented or not.
I disagree.

If quantity were irrelevant, then then none would matter. Talent is developed through training, so be careful not to assert false dichotomies. Furthermore, military personnel are (usually) trained to shoot while being shot at, and I can assure you that is training that makes a difference. The first time I was shot at I dissociated and do not remember anything between the time I recognized the shot and the time I reached safety. On another occasion I calmly watched someone fire into a crowd while most people panicked, including the two police officers standing within a few feet of the shooter who failed to hit anyone and ran off without injury despite both officers also firing their sidearms.

There is some veracity to your position, but it is not wholly correct.
 
We live in a republic where the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is to be recognize. But that doesn't mean there isn't a wise way and a foolish way to go about it. The man in the scenario is clearly just looking to provoke a reaction.

Vibise mentions the case in Colorado where a man with a gun was reported and carried out a mass shooting after being told by a police dispatcher that Colorado is an open carry state (and, naturally, being Vibise, there is no link to this story), but she never bothers to ask about law abiding citizens, particularly black Americans, who are shot by overzealous police officers, all because somebody was frightened of a legally carried firearm.
 
What is your experience with people who own body armor?
[/QUOTE]

I own body armor. What of it?
Do they wear that stuff in public spaces while carrying the biggest guns they own, just because they can?
Sometimes I wear it in public. Depends on where I am.

The biggest gun I have is probably my Mossberg 590. I don't carry that around because it isn't practical.
anyone on the LW is some sort of pinko, commie fascist pedophile.
That's not fair. We don't think you're all pedophiles.
I cited Scalia because he was a RW icon, but even he recognized the legitimacy of restrictions on guns.
Yes, you did cite Scalia. The problem is that you did not cite him in context, and you ignore many other relevant opinions. And you also do not appear to know the difference between an opinion and a ruling.
All fundamental rights have restrictions
No, they don't. If they have restrictions, then, by definition, they're not rights, but privileges.

And I don't think you even believe this. After all, you're always insisting that abortion is a right, but then you tell us there should be no restrictions.
and wearing body armor and carrying more than 3 loaded guns in a grocery does not seem to me to be a fundamental right.
You still haven't explained what's wrong with body armor.

Self-protection? Who is this guy afraid of? What was the obvious threat to him? There was none.

How do you know?
And your solution to gun violence in Chicago and elsewhere is to hand out even more guns?
Yes. We believe black citizens in Chicago should able to defend themselves.
Seriously? Have you not noticed that the USA has the most lax gun laws and the most gun deaths and injuries among developed countries?
[/QUOTE]
That's interesting, since the vast majority of gun laws are state laws, not federal laws.

Do you not see a connection there? Or do you really think that wild west shootouts are the way to solve this problem?
First, "wild west shootouts" are the invention of dime novels, not history. Most cowboys carried guns to protect them and their cattle from predators, and never fired a gun at another person during peacetime.

Second, who's talking about "wild west shootouts"? And could you please explain why you believe a "wild west shootout" is worse than the execution of an innocent, unarmed person?
I gather you are a gun owner and carry a gun around with you. What are you afraid of?
Has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with preparedness.
 
If you're not concerned about "a chalk line around your body" what could you possibly have against someone wearing body armor and carrying guns?

At the rate the left-wing politicians are destroying safety for all Americans, that's a more doubtful challenge every day.

Exactly! If there weren't people like you who always thought it was completely logical to panic the left would not be able to get a single vote. Panic is the only arrow in their quiver. They certainly don't have any logic!

Some people don't live in a world in which they are not surrounded by panicking cowardly people. You should give it a try. Perhaps you can get a ticket to America sometime.

Which is truly ironic for you to say, because every time a democrat gets elected gun sales go through the roof.

We would end up with far more villains fleeing the scene of would be carjackings because they were being fired on by law abiding citizens.


No, not in my neighborhood. But they certainly do in safer neighborhoods. In the kind of neighborhoods where people carry guns without apology crime is extremely low to the point of non-existence.

What was that . . . a decade ago?

How illustratively unsurprising.

Wonderful you've laid down a predicate for maligning everyone who expresses patriotic sentiments. You've done your evil deed for the day I'm sure you can sleep like a baby now.

Right, minimize the flag. We wouldn't want anyone to be expressing patriotism. The left is supposed to be against stereotypes, yet you go out of your way to be a stereotypical as you can possibly be.
You are insisting that it is Dems that panic when you admit that gun sales go through the roof when Dems are elected. So who is panicking?

And yes, I think it is natural to panic when faced with a man in body armor carrying multiple guns and ammo at a market or church or playground, and I do not believe that regular people would just continue about their business under those circumstances. And I am also sure that the people fleeing in that situation would include Republicans.

In the kinds of neighborhoods I am familiar with people do not carry around guns, and crime is virtually non-existent.

And yes, I think showy displays of patriotism by people who prefer authoritarianism is off-putting.
 
We would end up with far more villains fleeing the scene of would be carjackings because they were being fired on by law abiding citizens.
Or, ban guns and have fewer armed carjackings to begin with.

Your "solution" is contributing to the problem.
 
And yes, I think it is natural to panic when faced with a man in body armor carrying multiple guns and ammo at a market or church or playground, and I do not believe that regular people would just continue about their business under those circumstances. And I am also sure that the people fleeing in that situation would include Republicans.
Actually, most body armor these days is undetectable. You've probably stood right next to somebody wearing body armor and not even known it.
In the kinds of neighborhoods I am familiar with people do not carry around guns, and crime is virtually non-existent.
You realize that not everybody is lucky enough to live or work in the straw neighborhood you do, right?
And yes, I think showy displays of patriotism by people who prefer authoritarianism is off-putting.
Yeah, I don't like Democrats, either.
 
Am I being asked because you do not already know the answer to that question (and have posted this op with the context of that lack of knowledge), or is that a rhetorical question asked for the purpose of enlightening other readers who may not also already know the answer?

Let's start with the standard of danger to self or others.

rotflmbo!

That's hilarious. First, that article has very little news. Second, the article is filled with falsehood, beginning with its red herring of a question. Third, the editorial process in "news-making," is highly subjective and agenda-driven - and the agenda has little to nothing to do with national interest. What the nation is interested in is solving the problem, NOT reading red herring "news" article that do absolutely nothing to do that.

Seriously, vibise, read that book. It was written by a liberal. It was written by a liberal doing her research in liberal print and television newsrooms in a "blue" part of the country. The book will speak to your concerns from your political orientation and perspective. Any bias will be "in-house," and not a conservative bias recommending a conservative biased critic of views and practice of the opposing side.

You will never read/hear "news" the same after reading that book.

No, that's not the "point." That is your personal opinion. And..... while I have not read every post in nione pages of posts, the many I have read do not come anywhere close to forming a cogent argument proving the non-violent individual should be arrested (even though I may agree with you). You're not going to be able to prove that position, either, as long as you start with an argument of extremes!!!!!

Here's a better more reasonable, rational, rule-of-law based position: If the non-violent individual disturbed the peace, then he should be ticketed (or arrested) accordingly. In any city/state that legislates privilege or right to open carry that same city/state (and all its residents) must abide by those laws. Any law that is violated should be prosecuted, and in the particular case of the NYT example, there is a set of laws that are indirectly applicable.

If the NYT says the man could not be arrested..... they lied. This deceit is not particularly surprising given the fact the entire articel is a red herring, the article is unprofessional, and its author has violated his own profession's code of ethics.

Learn not to be so gullible. Be as critical of the NYT as you are of my posts ;) .

So now we're getting into another example fo you not paying attention because I have already explained how they are lying. You are asking a question already answered.

And I do not repeat myself unnecessarily to posters not paying attention.

They did.

It is the necessary, inescapable implication of the article's presence. If the two episodes have no bearing whatsoever on the overwhelming, vast majority (99.9999999999999%) of people then it is not news of a national interest. It's propaganda or entertainment. When ANY news agency posts propaganda or entertainment as news they are lying. When they provide opinion as news they are lying. When they leave out salient content they are lying.

The greatest power the media has is the power to ignore.

If the laws permit the non-violent man to open carry multiple firearms then it is allowed and it should be allowed - because the law allows it.

You, vibise, are either going to have to deny the rule of law or concede to a self-contradictoy position and neither will persuade anybody with a brain.

Let me see if I can provide an analogy that might be helpful. Here in my state of Virginia, the traffic laws are legislated as "requirements to yield," and not, "right of way." For example, if I approach a four-way stop sign then I have a requirement to yield to the person to my right. The person to my right DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY!!!! No driver in the state of Virginia can ever claim a right of way in traffic court simply because that's not how our laws are codified. The judge will look the other guy square in they eye and say, "Mr. Smith you do NOT have a right of way in the Commonwealth of Virginia," and then with his very next breath he will turn to me and just as unequivocally state, "Mr. Josheb, you do have a requirement to yield and I therefore find you culpable for the accident and guilt of the ticketed charge."

Owning firearms is not a privilege, it is a right. Being able to open carry is a privilege legislated by the state/municipal legislature..... that then MUST be enforced by the police, courts, etc. The rule of law should be enforced unless and until the laws prove ineffective and then and only then are they to be re-legislated - based onmajority rule as long as it does not violate the rights of the minority.

That is what constitutes a democracy in a constitutional republic in a pluralistic society.

I, personally, would not have been "frightened" by the non-violent man openly carrying his firearms. Your subjective views are not law, nor are they a sound basis for law, any more than mine are. Virginia is an open cary state and sometimes people act in a manner like that man in the article. I have often asked these people why they open carry multiple firearms. The most frequently occurring answer? "Because I can."

It's a dumb answer.

But legally it is a correct answer.

So why isn't the NYT article about stopping people instead of how many guns are too many? Your own commentary undermines the source document upon which this op is built!

The fact is (or should that be plural) there are laws that would have empowered both the citizenry and law enforcement to "stop" both individuals. It is just as equally factual the NYT article ignored all of those facts. Lies of omission are still lies.

Not only is that a different topic entirely, but it's not true and it is a fallacious appeal to ad populum. The fact is most gun owners are in favor of "common sense" laws empowering AND limiting gun ownership. It is also a FACT there are already thousands of gun laws. More are not needed. I'll bet you could recommend three laws and I'd be able to tell you they are already on the books. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR A POLITICAN ARGUE BACKGROUND CHECKS THEY ARE LYING!!!!! because background checks are already legally required in the US. Every politician already knows that. He is speaking about laws he already knows exist. He is lying.

Every single US gun owner in this thread will tell you they had to fill out a background check in order to purchase a handgun. Ask them. Yes, there are ways to get around that law (such as gifts or inheritances) but that is a different matter than arguing for/against background checks that are already required by law. And if you do not know these facts then you've got no business telling law-abiding citizens about the laws that need to be legislated when they already exist.

Responsible gun owners are not adamantly against common sense restrictions of gun ownership. Don't buy into that deceitful red herring, either.

The facts in evidence prove otherwise.

Already answered that question.

Only in their own imagination ;) .

I'm not disputing their influence. I am disputing the veracity of that one specific article. Facts are facts. Anyone who considers news to be facts has a completely different definition of news than those who consider selective use of facts and personal opinion news. The Fox article you cited was not news and it was not presented by Fox as news. It was opinion, and that is how Fox presented it.

And whether you or I like it or not, the New York Times' numbers aren't significantly ahead of Fox, and Fox doesn't publish a newspaper. However, the more honest, knowing, and factual truth is BOTH those agencies get their news from Reuters and the Associated Press and then they edit those sources to meet their respective purposes.
Yes, I would like to know what laws re mental health are not being followed. I have no idea what laws you are referring to.

And yes, the NYT article was news. It certainly reported a news-worthy event that actually happened and reported on the legal quandries involved.

It seems clear to me that a person in full body armor and carrying multiple weapons and lots of ammo is disturbing the peace at the minimum if he is in a public space like a market as opposed to participating in some sort of military exercise.

And yes, this article is of national interest and garnered quite a lot of reader comments. People are interested in gun violence and reports of a possible thwarting of a mass murder.
 
Why? It is not the quantity of training that makes the difference. It is the individual involved and their talents. Law enforcement can be good or bad. Talented or not.



This is horrible stereotypical nonsense. I don't see "boogeymen" everywhere. In fact, the majority of the time, I don't care a gun. I do when I feel it is necessary. Which isn't very often. However, you have ZERO right to tell me what I can and can't do.



Get in your vehicle and exit any highway in Gary Indiana and do the same thing...... I don't even know if a gun would help you there.



It doesn't matter if you trust me or not. I'm not doing it for you. You can choose not to carry a gun and live with your choice. That is why they call it "freedom".

I haven't harmed you nor would I. Yet, you trust drug peddlers more than you trust me. That says much about the Democrap mentality. You're free to be wrong. Enjoy.
I have heard law inforcement people talk about the importance of muscle memory when it comes to gun use, and that frequent training is necessary to maintain quick reaction time and accuracy.

I personally certainly have no right to tell you where and when to carry your gun if what you do is legal where you live. But collectively, citizens should have the right to set up those laws, and I don't think we actually have much of a say.

Wait a minute - how dare you claim that I trust drug dealers more than you!!! What a thing to say!
 
Back
Top