Not Another Gun Thread

[Anddenex]

What I appreciate about my sister and BIL is that they admit not all gun owners are created equal. This guy's a fool for presenting himself the way he did, and makes other gun owners cringe. I guess what blows me away are the people that feel this guy is within reason. Yes, within right (I admit that) but within reason, no.

And this is your personal opinion Bini. Other people think people who think this man is a fool, are the fool themselves.

Other people think, that if anybody thinks this man is a fool for honoring his 2nd amendment right, are the fools themselves.

Whose right, whose wrong on who the fool is Bini?

I am honored to be apart of the people that "blow you away."

[skalenfehl]

Here's a question for both sides of the fence. Was it unreasonable for Nephi to make many swords after the manner of Laban's sword? If there had never been swords made, would Nehor have used something else to slay Gideon? Ponder this because I have more questions.

[pam]

My opinion, this guy was exercising his right. Now....that being said. There have been so many mass shootings in public places over the years, people need to understand that others live in fear that this could happen anywhere. While exercising his right it also instills fear in others. We also have a right to feel safe when we go to a public venue..even a JC Penney.

[NeuroTypical]

What an immature teenager. This guy isn't interested in self-defense - he's interested in provoking reactions. Like a bratty teenager flaunting his new piercing or tattoo and daring people to say something. Look, I'm one of the more enthusaistic 2nd amendment supporters around here, but I'm just barely willing to acknowledge this guy's right to do what he's doing. He makes the rest of us look bad. I don't claim him as one of mine.

[Bini]

Objectively speaking, is he a fool simply because you say so or if enough people say so? I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly.

You understand CORRECT.

I don't believe it's responsible gun handling when you carry an assault rifle into a venue KNOWINGLY it will cause hysteria amongst most mainstream public. Why do this? By all means, carry your gun, but how about something more reasonable and LESS intimidating? A handgun or pistol, or whatever the heck you call those, would suffice.

[Bini]

Thank you, LM.

[skalenfehl]

Thank you, Bini. Personally speaking, I'd be more intimidated by the sidearm, which he could access more easily than trying to remove the rifle and taking aim before I knock his lights out.

[Guest gopecon]

As a gun owner, I'm in the "this guy is an embarrassment camp". Legally able to do something is great, that does not mean you should do it. Was he dangerous? Clearly not as he didn't draw it and nobody was shot. Did he scare some of his fellow shoppers unnecessarily? Clearly.

Most gunowners that I know respect that others are nervous around guns in public, so they respect that and are discreet in how they carry. The legitimate (note: I did not say legal) reasons for carrying a gun should not be for show offs to create a scene.

[Gwen]

I don't know anything about this guy.

A theoretical situation, Why would he do this other than for attention? I could see someone in the military coming back from active duty, having lived a yr or more with a gun strapped to them, having a hard time adjusting and not feeling "dressed" or "complete" without a gun. However, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be an effort to become part of the main stream again.

My question as far as the legalities go is yes it might be an open carry state but with the social environment it is fair to assume it would cause some hysteria. Would his actions be the same as yelling fire in a crowded building? Yes the freedom of speech gives you the right to yell fire but not anywhere and everywhere, if it will cause public safety issues then you don't have that right. This could be a public safety issue. What if someone freaked out and started running yelling "he has a gun!". Others start freaking out and running (not seeing him) and someone gets trampled and seriously injured who is held accountable? Would he be charged with a crime?

[skalenfehl]

Education is important. We don't start running around in a parking lot where cars are maneuvering around corners, from stop signs, etc. We clearly understand that we can easily become severely injured. Education is key. It's obviously not necessary to carry that rifle around. At least it wasn't at that place and at that time. Some day it may be the right place and the right time and some day it may be the wrong day and the wrong time. There's a line being drawn in the sand between people and government. One day, people might be glad they know where his line is drawn.

[Anddenex]

My question as far as the legalities go is yes it might be an open carry state but with the social environment it is fair to assume it would cause some hysteria. Would his actions be the same as yelling fire in a crowded building? Yes the freedom of speech gives you the right to yell fire but not anywhere and everywhere, if it will cause public safety issues then you don't have that right. This could be a public safety issue. What if someone freaked out and started running yelling "he has a gun!". Others start freaking out and running (not seeing him) and someone gets trampled and seriously injured who is held accountable? Would he be charged with a crime?

The one that should be in trouble is the boy/girl crying wolf? The one that caused the uproar (people being injured) is the person yelling, using their freedom of speech to create hysteria, not the person with a gun.

[MorningStar]

What an insensitive thing to do! If you're going to carry, do it where people can't see it.

Edited January 18, 2013 by MorningStar

[NeuroTypical]

And now, some random stinging commentary on how stupid it is to "ban" "high capacity" magazines:

(sorry - couldn't resist.)

[skalenfehl]

Forgive my ignorance, but that picture eludes me. Please explain?

[MarginOfError]

And now, some random stinging commentary on how stupid it is to "ban" "high capacity" magazines:

(sorry - couldn't resist.)

I have mixed feelings on this one.

On the one hand, I don't understand for what rational purpose civilians need more then 10 rounds in a clip. I think it's a reasonable number.

I also understand the idea of wanting to "slow down the shooter." Sure, for someone with sufficient practice, it doesn't take long to switch out a clip. But if you're using a weapon that can shoot 5 rounds per second, the difference in ammunition used can add up.

If we assume it takes one second to switch out a clip (which is probably a bit faster than your average gun user can do it), using a weapon that fires 5 rounds per second, the number of rounds spent in a ten minute rampage with a 30 round clip is 2,571. With a 10 round clip, it's 2,000. That's a pretty significant difference.

At the same time, if you really wanted to slow down the shooter, you could write a much more simplistic law that states that any gun with a barrel longer than six inches* requires a manual action to reload the chamber (pump, lever, **** a hammer, bolt action, etc). Even if you assume that the shooter is amazingly fast and can clear the chamber in .5 seconds, the most shots he could get off in a 10 minute rampage with a continuous stream of ammunition would be 300. (Not to mention that most of those actions will force the shooter to have to take aim again, whereas the fully automatic doesn't have that strong of an effect on aim).

I'd be interested, LM on what your reaction to such a law would be.

[MarginOfError]

Forgive my ignorance, but that picture eludes me. Please explain?

New York just passed a law that outlaws clips with more than 7 rounds.

One of President Obama's recommendations to Congress is to outlaw clips with more than 10 rounds.

[Guest gopecon]

The one that should be in trouble is the boy/girl crying wolf? The one that caused the uproar (people being injured) is the person yelling, using their freedom of speech to create hysteria, not the person with a gun.

Except in this case, someone yelling "gun!" would be right. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is only illegal if there is no fire. I doubt he would be LEGALLY liable for a panic created while he broke no laws, but MORALLY is a different story. In the recent wake of shootings with similar weapons, flaunting one in a department store is tone-deaf and boneheaded.

[Guest gopecon]

I have mixed feelings on this one.

On the one hand, I don't understand for what rational purpose civilians need more then 10 rounds in a clip. I think it's a reasonable number.

I also understand the idea of wanting to "slow down the shooter." Sure, for someone with sufficient practice, it doesn't take long to switch out a clip. But if you're using a weapon that can shoot 5 rounds per second, the difference in ammunition used can add up.

If we assume it takes one second to switch out a clip (which is probably a bit faster than your average gun user can do it), using a weapon that fires 5 rounds per second, the number of rounds spent in a ten minute rampage with a 30 round clip is 2,571. With a 10 round clip, it's 2,000. That's a pretty significant difference.

At the same time, if you really wanted to slow down the shooter, you could write a much more simplistic law that states that any gun with a barrel longer than six inches* requires a manual action to reload the chamber (pump, lever, **** a hammer, bolt action, etc). Even if you assume that the shooter is amazingly fast and can clear the chamber in .5 seconds, the most shots he could get off in a 10 minute rampage with a continuous stream of ammunition would be 300. (Not to mention that most of those actions will force the shooter to have to take aim again, whereas the fully automatic doesn't have that strong of an effect on aim).

I'd be interested, LM on what your reaction to such a law would be.

MOE - the 5 rounds per second you describe is characteristic of a machine gun, not a semiautomatic weapon. Fully automatic weapons are HIGHLY regulated. You need a permit from ATF to own one. I don't think that they have ever been used in a mass shooting in the US. Semi-automatic means one pull of the trigger sends out one round of ammunition. Over half of the guns sold today are semiautomatic - including many hunting rifles and shotguns.

[Anddenex]

Except in this case, someone yelling "gun!" would be right. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is only illegal if there is no fire. I doubt he would be LEGALLY liable for a panic created while he broke no laws, but MORALLY is a different story. In the recent wake of shootings with similar weapons, flaunting one in a department store is tone-deaf and boneheaded.

I understand this is your opinion gopecon, as to others, they would feel you are tone-deaf and boneheaded.

This is probably the reason why the individual is carrying this gun out in the open. As a result of the recent shootings government is now trying to ban the ownership of these guns.

This individual is providing a solid point, these types of guns don't kill people, people kill people.

The idea of the person yelling "gun!", would imply that the shooter is about to rampage throughout the mall. Why even yell "gun!" at all when there was obviously no threat to anybody's personal life?

Running around yelling "gun!" when there is no present danger is similar to yelling "fire!" in a theater when there is no fire.

[skalenfehl]

I have mixed feelings on this one.

On the one hand, I don't understand for what rational purpose civilians need more then 10 rounds in a clip. I think it's a reasonable number...At the same time, if you really wanted to slow down the shooter...

I don't visualize assault weapons being used against a single shooter or even less than a handful of shooters. I visualize an assault weapon used against an invading tyrannical force (foreign or domestic).

This brings me back to my previous question about Nephi making many swords.

[Guest gopecon]

I have a carrying permit. Concealment is not legally required for me to carry a weapon, but I would never dream of carrying my 12 gauge through Walmart just to make a statement. I fully realize that he did not have intentions of hurting anyone (as no one was hurt). As to that being obvious to another patron at the mall, I don't know that I agree with that. Especially when the image that is fresh on everyone in America's minds is a nutcase shooting up a school and a mall with a similar gun. I know a lot of pretty staunch 2nd Amendment supporters (myself included), but I don't know anyone who would pull a stunt like this (with extra clips and all).

As to those who might think I am being "tone deaf and boneheaded" about this, I'm sure that they are a distinct minority. To be clear, I don't question the legality of what he did, I just think it was not helpful to the cause of gun rights.

[MarginOfError]

MOE - the 5 rounds per second you describe is characteristic of a machine gun, not a semiautomatic weapon. Fully automatic weapons are HIGHLY regulated. You need a permit from ATF to own one. I don't think that they have ever been used in a mass shooting in the US. Semi-automatic means one pull of the trigger sends out one round of ammunition. Over half of the guns sold today are semiautomatic - including many hunting rifles and shotguns.

I pulled that number from something I had read a few weeks ago, but have no idea what the source is. So I'll go ahead and revise my assumptions. According to this link , the weapon used in Newtown could fire 45 rounds per minute. At that rate, with a 30 round clip, you can put out 440 bullets in 10 minutes. With a 10 round clip, it's 418 rounds. Whereas manual reloading of the chamber still lowers it to 300 rounds in ten minutes.

So requiring manual action is still far more effective at slowing down the shooter.

[Anddenex]

I have a carrying permit. Concealment is not legally required for me to carry a weapon, but I would never dream of carrying my 12 gauge through Walmart just to make a statement. I fully realize that he did not have intentions of hurting anyone (as no one was hurt). As to that being obvious to another patron at the mall, I don't know that I agree with that. Especially when the image that is fresh on everyone in America's minds is a nutcase shooting up a school and a mall with a similar gun. I know a lot of pretty staunch 2nd Amendment supporters (myself included), but I don't know anyone who would pull a stunt like this (with extra clips and all).

As to those who might think I am being "tone deaf and boneheaded" about this, I'm sure that they are a distinct minority. To be clear, I don't question the legality of what he did, I just think it was not helpful to the cause of gun rights.

I agree, the intentions within the heart of an individual are not obvious to people. In all these mass shootings, the majority, if not all of them, the individuals were seeking to conceal these weapons in a handbag, duffel bag.

This is why I would say, it was clearly obvious he was making a point, because the gun was in full view.

I also agree, these types of statements do not help gun rights. At the same time, what statements should be made that that the government does not have the right to infringe on our 2nd amendment.

My personal opinion, if this guy had a hand gun, clipped to his side, the experience wouldn't be any different. People would still be throwing a fit.

[BadWolf]

I'm ex-military. I "like" weapons.

I'm on a digsite back of beyond a few months most years... where I have to shoot or chop things on a daily/weekly basis (snakes, hyenas, jaguars, crocs... Shudder. Things trying to actively eat me.) I REALLY "like" weapons.

When in France? (Where the military is often used as police, so there are soldiers, in uniform, with big dang guns). They make me nervous. Israel & the IDF? Ditto. Jamaica and that 7yo with the AK slung over his shoulder? Yup. When elsewhere, heck, even North Carolina near LeJeune with people in trucks rolling away to a training exercise, much less stopped getting slushies at the gas station? They make me nervous.. Any time people have open carried weapons? For totally legitimate purpose! They make me nervous.

This is a useful thing to know. ((Esp on deployment. Unless people are being actively fired upon, they won't be thrilled to see you if you're carrying weapons)). Countries where weapons are common, people get USED to it, but they still keep their distance. Why useful to know?

Because its true for MOST people.

No matter how much you like, use, or even depend upon weapons... The sight of them makes other people nervous.

And nervous animals (like us!) are dangerous.

Nervous people do stupid things. (Like throw rocks, scream and run, knock things over, etc. Those who are USED to them, keep their distance, which is also not the smartest thing in the world... Because when push comes to shove you want to be OUT of the line of fire, but at least its not a hysterical fear response.) On patrol, you have to know the difference between an actual attack, and a scared kid. Not on patrol? Going hunting, to the range, where ever? Most people take pains NOT to frighten others.

Ahem. Which IS illegal.

Which is why it may be legal to walk down a public street strapped like Rambo, but if you're being obnoxious about it, the cops DO arrest you (after polite questioning/warning... There ARE some legitimate reasons to be in public looking like Armageddon is around the corner). Under one of MANY various charges. From disturbing the peace, to illegal brandishing, to all the way to inciting a riot.

Cases like this make the news... But ask any cop... They happen all the time. And are dealt with, in most cases, quickly/quietly/discreetly. Which is as it should be, IMHO. What vexes me the most are these news cases that inspire fear driven reactionary laws, made by netvous people... Instead of well thought out laws that actually make sense & are useful... And instead of focusing their time and money on issues that are far more pressing than Narcissist At Large.

[LittleWyvern]

It appears we have relatively the same understanding regarding gun safety. However, I honestly would be more concerned if this man had his hand on the gun handle and trigger and the left hand (assuming he is right handed) on the barrel, or the other hand position.

Now I think that is not safe, and that would be concerning. When not using these guns, the shoulder strap is a standard way of carrying these weapons.

With the shoulder strap, the gun isn't being aimed at anyone. No hand on trigger. No hand even on the gun. No one in danger. I would hope he would have the safety on, but I don't know. I am thinking the gun safety was on, for reason that if trying to prove a point they will typically make sure all things are safe before making their point.

Ok, I think this is just a difference on how each of us were taught about how to be responsible with guns. I learned gun safety from Boy Scouts, so my idea of gun safety is probably more conservative than yours is. If I showed up like this to the rifle range, I probably wouldn't be getting my rifle shooting merit badge that day, or maybe ever. While this may not suggest immediate danger, it does suggest "dude don't care about nobody," which is enough reason for me to suspect a dangerous situation.

Also, I'm curious what this guy's point was if not "OH HAI I HAVE A GUN, TAKE THAT GOVERNMENT!"

This individual is providing a solid point, these types of guns don't kill people, people kill people.

The idea of the person yelling "gun!", would imply that the shooter is about to rampage throughout the mall. Why even yell "gun!" at all when there was obviously no threat to anybody's personal life?

Well, shoot, if I was booking it out of this mall (which I would be doing) and people asked me why I was leaving, I'd tell them there's a dude flaunting a rifle and I don't know what his intentions are. We only know there was no threat to anybody's personal life because nobody died. That's after the fact. If you were there during the incident, it would be impossible to know that.

Running around yelling "gun!" when there is no present danger is similar to yelling "fire!" in a theater when there is no fire.

Again, seeing somebody flaunting a gun like that and assuming there's no present danger seems terribly naive. Maybe I have spent too much time in San Bernardino?