Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

[Duper]

Yeah, I guess. It's just hardware. Machines aren't inherently dangerous. People are.

precisely. It's own fear that takes it from there. (not without reason these days, of course)

Back when I was commuting to college, I daily drove along a highway with a speed limit of 50 MPH and no median. I remember thinking at the time how odd it was that with barely a flick of the wrist, I could easily suicide murder any of the strangers passing by a few feet away -- and they me. I didn't know anything about these people. I didn't know how stable they were, or even how well they were paying attention. Every day I passed within a few feet of likely death at the hands of strangers . . . and nobody thought anything of it!

I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one that thinks of things like this.

[Foil]

...[vehicle analogy]...
It's folks behaving dangerously--or especially folks behaving like threats--who are worth being scared of.

Yes, it's the person/behavior that matters, not the hardware. And that was my point.

Let me clarify: what bothers me is not that he was armed. Plenty of people are, and my understanding is that this is within legal boundaries in AZ.

My point was specifically about this guy's actions, namely entering a politically-charged situation with the intent to get a reaction / make a statement by brandishing a weapon.

Doesn't matter if he was carrying a gun, driving a car or toting a knife. That kind of behavior is way outside the norm, even for people making political statements. In my personal opinion, a person doing so warrants keeping an eye out for.

And the point that it's dangerous to bring weapons into a volatile situation strikes me as kind of backwards. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that would make people more polite, not more violent.

Depends on the person. While I agree most people tend to behave themselves in the presence of firearms, it doesn't take much to provoke others. Especially given a scenario with political tension.

Yeah, well. It takes an awful lot to provoke a law abiding citizen into becoming a killer. You have to do a lot more than get them really angry. Generally you have to threaten someone's life.

Yes, most people, and the vast majority of firearm owners, are law-abiding rational folks who know how to behave themselves in the presence of firearms.

But that's not who I was referring to.

Read my post again. When I said "others", I meant exactly that: The tiny percentage of people who aren't as reasonable as you or I, and who have the potential to react irrationally and unpredictably.

Perhaps Mr. Broughton made the assumption you seem to be making: that everyone around was a normal, rational, law-abiding citizen who wouldn't react badly to his firearm 'statement'. Personally, I think that's a dangerously naive position to take...

... it's akin to driving aggressively, and making the assumption that all the other drivers on your road will do exactly as they should, and no one will react badly.

[Spidey]

Ha Ha Ha, I got a lecture about how cars are not airplanes, but I guess thay can be compared to guns if it serves the purpose…

[Lothar]

try explaining to a young mother sitting in a McDonald's with her two children why she shouldn't be concerned about the guy getting out of his car with an assault weapon

She has every right to be concerned. She has every right to be concerned if someone just plain creeps her out. Her emotions are her own business, but let's not pretend they're a good basis for law. CUDA nailed it:

people get uncomfortable, they get uncomfortable around Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, White's, KKKer's Black Panthers, Gang Members and the list goes on and on and on, you cannot legislate to make people feel comfortable.

If the guy gets out of his car carrying an M-16 and acts in a threating manner, he's violating the law. If he gets out of his car carrying nothing at all but acts in a threatening manner, he's STILL violating the law. And if he's carrying an M-16 in a place where it's legal, and not acting in a threatening manner, he's fine. The fact that some people get unnecessarily emotional or uncomfortable or "concerned" over weapons doesn't mean we should ban weapons. It just means that people sometimes will be uncomfortable. Boo freaking hoo.

I'm sure there will be times when people do things around my little boy that will make me uncomfortable. I'm just going to have to deal.

My point was specifically about this guy's actions, namely entering a politically-charged situation with the intent to get a reaction / make a statement by brandishing a weapon.

.... In my personal opinion, a person doing so warrants keeping an eye out for.

1) "Make a statement" or "get a reaction"? Which is it?

2) He was making a second amendment statement. Are you saying he/we should be worried about someone who doesn't support the second amendment pulling out a gun and getting violent?

3) "Keeping an eye out" is very, very different from "making illegal" or even "declaring him to be in the wrong". There's nothing wrong keeping your eyes open.

[Lothar]

Ha Ha Ha, I got a lecture about how cars are not airplanes, but I guess thay can be compared to guns if it serves the purpose… :roll:

Cars do not differ from firearms in the key aspect in question in this discussion (their potential to kill, and the reality that people don't think all that much of it.)

Cars differed from airplanes in the key aspect in question in that discussion (engineering complexity). Or, if they didn't differ in the aspect you actually wanted to discuss, you didn't take the time to make your point clearly. In either case, you deserved the lecture you got. Throwing a hissy fit about it only makes you look silly.

[Spidey]

Hissy fit?

I just thought it was funny.

[Foil]

The fact that some people get unnecessarily emotional or uncomfortable or "concerned" over weapons doesn't mean we should ban weapons.

Who is talking about banning weapons? There's pretty much a consensus that this guy was legally within his rights.

The question we've been discussing is not a legal one, it's "Is this a bad idea?"

I'm sure there will be times when people do things around my little boy that will make me uncomfortable. I'm just going to have to deal.

Sure, if it's just something odd or strange or something you don't agree with, you just deal with it.

However, if it's something you deem potentially dangerous (as I would have because of the tension Mr. Broughton's 'statement' evoked), then you'd do well to get away from that situation.

1) "Make a statement" or "get a reaction"? Which is it?

My impression is that he was looking to do both. Whatever his intent, there was certainly a reaction.

2) He was making a second amendment statement. Are you saying he/we should be worried about someone who doesn't support the second amendment pulling out a gun and getting violent?

Huh? When did I say anything about second amendment views? [Note: I didn't.]

I'm not talking about people who agree or disagree with his position. I'm talking about people (on either side of that debate) who have the potential to react unpredictably to someone brandishing an AR-15.

Again, most people are rational law-abiding folks like you and me who won't stir up trouble. However, it's be dangerously naive to assume that everyone else reacts as rationally as we would. It wouldn't take much for things to go very very badly because of a few drunk or paranoid or stupid people in a politically-charged atmosphere.

3) "Keeping an eye out" is very, very different from "making illegal" or even "declaring him to be in the wrong". There's nothing wrong keeping your eyes open.

Again, where are you getting that I am making a legal argument? Mr. Broughton was within his rights, which I generally support. (If you think I'm arguing from a gun-control perspective, you'd be wrong.)

My point is that Mr. Broughton's 'statement', while legal, was a dumb-ass move. Entering a politically-charged situation and brandishing a weapon is just careless.

[Tunnelcat]

No one has mentioned what would happen if someone else in the crowd pulled the weapon right off of the back of this yokel and decided to use it on others. It's hanging there, just strapped right on his back in a holster and easily accessible to someone that has a mind to take it by force.

I tried that argument on someone once…

Go ahead…try it.

Well, if the owner can get the weapon out of it's holster when it's on his back, someone else can too.

[Bet51987]

try explaining to a young mother sitting in a McDonald's with her two children why she shouldn't be concerned about the guy getting out of his car with an assault weapon

She has every right to be concerned. She has every right to be concerned if someone just plain creeps her out. Her emotions are her own business, but let's not pretend they're a good basis for law. CUDA nailed it:

Her emotions are her own business? Nice cop-out.

If I see a man with a gun I'm getting my kids out of there and calling 911.... every single time no matter what function I'm at. I will let the police determine if I have a valid concern and I will write letters to McDonald's and every other establishment on why I won't patronize.

No shirt, no shoes, carry gun... no service.

Bee

[Duper]

Permits allow a person to carry guns. Whether you like it or not. Mind you, they typically are concealed hand guns. the laws vary from state to state.

Now, in the vid, this guy is OBVIOUSLY not a threat. It isn't mentioned whether or not it's loaded. There is a clip in it, but no rounds were shown. In many states, it's perfectly legal to carry a weapon like that if it's not concealed.

Personally, I'm glad he did it. Makes people think.

[Lothar]

If I see a man with a gun I'm getting my kids out of there and calling 911.... every single time no matter what function I'm at. I will let the police determine if I have a valid concern

Under 911 abuse laws, calling the police regarding a citizen who is not breaking the law and didn't give you any reason to feel threatened other than "he had a gun" could be considered harassment against that citizen.

If you do it once, the police will most likely educate you about the proper use of 911 -- they'll educate you about what is a "valid emergency" and what is a "waste of police time and resources". Calling the police because someone is doing something perfectly legal falls in the second category. If you make a habit of it, in some states, you risk fines or even jail time.

I will write letters to McDonald's and every other establishment on why I won't patronize.

So you won't patronize an establishment unless they violate the second amendment and/or applicable state and local gun laws?

Good luck with that.

[Spidey]

I’m not sure what you can do in states that have the right to carry…(enter a private establishment)

But, you are not coming into my place of business carrying a weapon!

[Lothar]

Who is talking about banning weapons?

Bettina is talking about calling the cops on people who carry weapons legally, and saying that doing such a thing "is a disturbance and should be stopped". So perhaps not so much "banning weapons" as "banning carrying weapons". Bettina was not asking "is this a bad idea", she was stating that the government/police should step in and stop it -- a legal point!

if it's something you deem potentially dangerous.... people (on either side of that debate) who have the potential to react unpredictably to someone brandishing an AR-15.... It wouldn't take much for things to go very very badly because of a few drunk or paranoid or stupid people in a politically-charged atmosphere.

Life is "potentially dangerous". People have the potential to react unpredictably at a D&D game because his ex dumped him for a guy at an anime convention and there was an anime sketch on the guy's character sheet. The question is not whether there's potential for danger, but whether he introduced an unreasonable risk.

Was the atmosphere politically charged? Yeah. Was the gun really big? Yeah. Did that create a situation which was unreasonably dangerous, or was it unreasonably likely to cause the situation to turn dangerous? I don't see any reason to think so. I don't see any reason to think the guy, the police, or secret service would've let things get out of hand. I don't see any reason to think what he was doing was unreasonably risky or dangerous.

It's speculative to go from "he had a weapon in a politically charged situation" to "he / the police / secret service / the crowd would not have handled themselves appropriately if they had reason to think the situation might be getting out of control". One could just as easily speculate that the guy bringing a large gun with him made the situation SAFER for everyone involved. One could just as easily argue that his "aggression" (as you call it, though I don't think that's a fair characterization) made others less aggressive rather than more. And it's purely speculative to assume that, if someone else started to become aggressive, this guy would've escalated things rather than being a calming influence.

Keep in mind, I think the guy is a moron and his group is a bunch of nutjobs. I said back on page 2 that there are better ways to protest (though I was at the time under the misconception that he tried to get inside with the weapon.) Certainly, a person with a large firearm warrants some attention. But he was well within his rights, and in my opinion of the situation, he did not introduce unreasonable danger or risk.

[Spidey]

Now, in the vid, this guy is OBVIOUSLY not a threat. It isn't mentioned whether or not it's loaded. There is a clip in it, but no rounds were shown. In many states, it's perfectly legal to carry a weapon like that if it's not concealed.

So what was that message again?

I have this gun, but I’m not a threat?

The threat “MUST” be implied, or you are making my point, that he was carrying just because he could.

[Bet51987]

....calling the police regarding a citizen who is not breaking the law and didn't give you any reason to feel threatened other than "he had a gun" could be considered harassment against that citizen.

If you do it once, the police will most likely educate you about the proper use of 911 -- they'll educate you about what is a "valid emergency" and what is a "waste of police time and resources". Calling the police because someone is doing something perfectly legal falls in the second category. If you make a habit of it, in some states, you risk fines or even jail time.

I agree that in some towns where basically everyone walks, talks, and carries shotguns around, I would most likely feel comfortable. But, in a town where this is not the norm (and that counts for the majority and the one I live in) the police would be very interested.

...So you won't patronize an establishment unless they violate the second amendment and/or applicable state and local gun laws?

Good luck with that.

I believe you're wrong. I don't know for sure but I will bet that any privately held business can post a sign stating that no guns are allowed on the property.

Good luck it is.

Bee

[Kilarin]

My point is that Mr. Broughton's 'statement', while legal, was a dumb-ass move. Entering a politically-charged situation and brandishing a weapon is just careless.

I agree. It was more likely to HURT his cause than help it, and it's just foolish to make the secret service nervous. He was legally within his rights. Legal doesn't equal smart.

If I see a man with a gun I'm getting my kids out of there and calling 911.... every single time no matter what function I'm at.

But, you are probably around people with guns all the time. Off duty police officers, security guards, and citizens with a license to carry. The vast majority of them are responsible citizens.

So, consider an imaginary scenario.

You are at MacDonald's eating happy meals with the kids. There is a sudden crashing noise outside and a car smashes into the front of the diner. out of the vehicle pour three heavily armed hoodlums. The three are members of a local gang, they robbed a bank in an attempt to get drug money. They killed a security guard and a teller. The cops were close behind them when a tire blew out on their getaway car and sent them careening into the front of the MacDonalds. Now, they are firing Uzi's and Shotguns down the street as they climb through the broken wreckage of the front door and into the MacDonalds. Before you've had time to do more than grab your kids, the bad guys have all of the exits covered. There is nothing you can do but hold them and try to keep them from crying too loudly.

One of the gang members, a man wearing a stocking over his head shouts out to the police: "Any fuzz steps in here, and I'm going to start shooting hostages!" Someone outside has a bullhorn. They answer him with "You don't want to do that, you KNOW you don't want to make this any worse, we aren't letting you go, so just put down the guns and come along quietly."

The man in the stocking fumes and shouts, "You don't think I'll shoot anyone? You don't believe me, we got a dozen people in here, I can afford to give out some free samples!" He looks around the room, and his stockinged face seems to focus on your little girl. With a wicked laugh he aims the Uzi right at her. You scream and move, but before you can get between your child and the villain, there is a pair of loud reports.

Your heart skips several beats, but the shot did NOT come from the man with the stocking mask. It came from behind him. Joe Smith fought in Desert Storm, and is now a citizen with a license to carry a concealed weapon. He hesitated to pull his gun on three armed men, but when he saw them about to shoot your child, he knew there was no choice. He drew is weapon and placed two rounds in the bad guys center of mass. Stocking face is dead before he hits the ground.

Half a second later, there is another series of gunshots coming from a table next to yours. Again, it wasn't the crazy loons, these bullets came from Mabel Nelson. Mabel also has a license to carry. She keeps her "Rape Insurance" in her purse. She never fought in a war, but she took training classes in how to use the small pistol. Her aim isn't as perfect as Joe's, and the caliber is a lot smaller, but enough rounds hit to drop bad guy number two to the ground. He might live, but he won't be shooting anyone for a while.

Gang member number three counts up the cops outside, and the two guns inside, both now aimed at him, and promptly drops his shotgun shouting "Don't Shoot! Don't Shoot!"

In the aftermath, when the police are taking reports and the MacDonald's manager is passing out free coffee, you think about the guns you just saw. The three bank robbers didn't care about any laws. Most of the weapons they carried were illegal anyway. No amount of anti-gun legislation would have made any difference to them.

It was two, armed, law-abiding citizens who saved your little girls life. The sight of a gun will probably still make you nervous, but the thought that there might be armed citizens near you in a public place, MIGHT actually be a bit comforting in the future.

[Spidey]

LOL, I guess in the world you live in, all the bad guys “are” idiots. The first thing I would do would be to make all the hostages lie on the floor face down, then search them.

But it was a good fiction.

[Sergeant Thorne]

So we can learn things about reality from imaginary scenarios now, eh?

I would be so insulted if you tried that on me.

[Bet51987]

Kilarin, Joe Smith fires his weapon and the bad guys start shooting too. Mabel begins firing and Joe fires again. After the dust settles the bad guys are dead, Mabel is dead but Joe is alive. After examination it is found that Joe killed an innocent girl and the police never fired a shot.

You have a bad argument to support legal carry of firearms in an establishment. I rather trust the police and security guards who are trained in these hostage situations rather than a a couple of people pretending to play cop.

EDIT: The only gun I can see in any establishment is the owner's.

Bee

[Duper]

As the owner of any business or a person of a house hold you are allowed denial of entry to anyone for ANY reason. Of course someone is likely to pull the racists card on you before they cry about their first amendment rights ... which has nothing to do with carrying a gun into a proprietorship.

He was protesting certain legislation that the Pres is sponsoring a being a bit cocky about it. He wasn't trying to be a threat. He was \"exercising his first Amend rights\". So take it for what it is.

Bet, you really need to spend a couple of years in another country. Most Americans do.

To carry a concealed weapon, you take classes and take tests. (at least here in Oregon you do.) It's also pointed out that if you shoot someone in self defense, you had BETTER be sure that your life is in eminent danger or you will be charged with excessive use of lethal force. So if you shoot someone that is threatening you with a club, you just put your butt in a sling.
In your last illustration, the same thing can happen with a car, and DOES every day; bike riders and cars, take your pick. Tragic accidents happen regardless.
Police are given guns and yet we trust them. I've known a couple of cops with severe anger problems. Does that make one feel safe? nope. It's like Drak said: \"Machines aren't inherently dangerous. People are.\"

The First Amend as was pointed out several times over the last couple of months, was to provide the people protection and assurance against a bad government. ... no self defense as you walk around in your daily life. .. but \"Original intent\" is a bad word on the Hill.

Draks first post pretty much covered the whole thing and Lothar has belabored the topic trying to make sense of your \"what if's\".

If guns really bother you THAT much, I highly recommend you move to Canada or the UK or Australia where they have them all locked up nice and tidy at gun clubs. ... except for the people robbing stores.

[Drakona]

My point was specifically about this guy's actions, namely entering a politically-charged situation with the intent to get a reaction / make a statement by brandishing a weapon.

You keep using that word. I didn't say anything about it at first because I figured you didn't mean anything technical by it, and it's annoying to be nitpicked. But now I wonder. You don't mean this do you? Because that's generally illegal whether you do it with an assault rifle or a butter knife, as it well should be.

I guess the key distinction between "brandishing" and "carrying" is whether a normal person feels threatened by what you're doing. But it seems to me that that definition breaks down when a lot of the population has such a massive allergic reaction to firearms that they feel threatened anytime they can see one at all.

Still, though, just watch the video Lothar linked and judge for yourself. I wouldn't call what he's doing brandishing, at least not by a common sense definition. I don't think he's threatening at all, and find it strange that anyone would parse it that way. Certainly the people around him don't seem intimidated. I mean, they don't seem shy about arguing forcefully with him.

There's a valid point to be made that when you see something way outside the norm -- like a pickup truck on a playground -- until you understand it better, you're worried it might be a threat. Both you and Bettina made it, and there's merit to that. You don't see a lot of normal folks walking around with AR-15s over here, so it turns heads. If this were Israel, it would be so forgettable you wouldn't even notice.

I judge that that means it needs to be done more, then, not less. There's no better cure for the irrational fear of guns than hanging out with normal people who carry them, and seeing how normal and safe they really are.

When I said "others", I meant exactly that: The tiny percentage of people who aren't as reasonable as you or I, and who have the potential to react irrationally and unpredictably.

What are you implying? That there are folks who are so terrified of guns that the mere presence of one--slung passively on a clearly otherwise normal guy--will provoke them to . . . do what exactly? Panic? Call the police? Start a firefight?

I'm just not seeing it. There might be a couple of Bettinas in the crowd who have issues at first, but I'd expect even them to quickly conclude that the guy wasn't going to be a problem.

Ha Ha Ha, I got a lecture about how cars are not airplanes, but I guess thay can be compared to guns if it serves the purpose…

LOL, still sore about that? Analogies are only as good as their application; you can attack my analogy if you want. Kilarin did, and I'd judge him to have had some success.

If I see a man with a gun I'm getting my kids out of there and calling 911.... every single time no matter what function I'm at.

That's certainly your prerogative. To me it looks like irrational fear--you know, like the folks who react to thugly-lookin' black guys or big dogs the same way. If you think the view is the right one, you're certainly welcome to maintain it. But--pardon my frankness--if you decide to ask me for help, I'm going to suggest the psychiatric variety, not the democratic/legal type.

I don't buy that having kids around is the critical factor, either. You're not the only one around here who's ever put thought into protecting kids; a lot of the guys around here are dads, and a lot of the rest of us have been responsible for kids at some other time, in some other way. Really, all bringing kids into it does is amplify the urgency of your existing judgement. If you think armed citizens are dangerous, it's even more imperitive to you that they be restrained--for the children's sake. On the other hand, if you think armed citizens make everyone safer, it's even more important that they be allowed to continue--just think of the children!

I'll give you credit for saying you wouldn't be afraid of a guy with a gun in a town where everyone had one, but that it's different in a town and place where that's unexpected. I agree, that's pretty rational. All things considered, I'd probably be the same.

I am curious, though -- I don't think that's the only factor, and I wonder if you agree. Maybe you haven't seen the video Lothar (or I) linked yet, of how the guy carried himself and interacted with the crowd. It's only a couple minutes long. My reaction is, even though the weapon is extremely eyecatching and unexpected, to quickly conclude the guy isn't a problem. Do you react the same way? Or would he worry you if you were in the crowd?

The threat “MUST” be implied, or you are making my point, that he was carrying just because he could.

He was carrying just because he could. That was the point.

I'd argue it's also not a bad reason in general. Rights are like muscles -- they atrophy if you don't exercise them.

[woodchip]

I believe you're wrong. I don't know for sure but I will bet that any privately held business can post a sign stating that no guns are allowed on the property.

Good luck it is.

Bee

In Michigan when relaxed conceal carry became law, there were any number of businesses that hung signs saying guns were not allowed...as was their right. After firearm owners boycotted those businesses, the signs soon came down.
My landlord where I was renting office space put up a no guns allowed sign on the front door. I told them I would be cancelling my lease if the sign did not come down. Two days later the sign was gone.

As is the case in many situations where something new comes about, the unknown frightens people. There was all sorts of horrible predictions about allowing people to carry firearms, none of which bore fruit.

People like Bee are afraid of gun carrying citizens because they have never really associated with people who do carry and have been indoctrinated that the only people who should carry are govt. officials.
Thankfully the reality that law abiding citizens carrying firearms are responsible people and not to be feared is proving to the uneducated and misinformed the fallacy of the information disseminated by the anti-gun propaganda machine.

[woodchip]

So we can learn things about reality from imaginary scenarios now, eh?

I would be so insulted if you tried that on me.

A robber entered a Burger King flashed a gun and demanded money from the customer. A customer, John Landers talked to the robber and asked him to lower his gun and stop pointing it at people (I guess this was the Bee method ). The robber then shot John several times. John, a ccw holder, drew his firearm and shot and killed the robber.
Miami Herald 03/25/09

So you see boys and girls, Kilarin is not so far off. These things happen from time to time. Bad guys are notoriously stupid at times. While both Thorne and Spidey are thinking from the perspective of their intellect and the safety of their home, reality can and does mirror what Kilarin's hypothetical post illustrates.

[woodchip]

As to Lothars vid link, how many here understand that the original laws requiring a license to carry a firearm were in essence a means to keep blacks from carry guns (read racist motivated)?

\"It appears that the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at the same time as these arms control laws, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. [ Foner, Reconstruction, 200-1.]\"

So to see a black man legally carrying firearms as he walked down the street should be a rallying cry for those freedom loving liberal mindset types. Instead they go into a destructive logic loop where on the one hand they shouldn't be racist, on the other hand anyone carrying a gun is bad. Must be tough to preach one thing and then fall on ones face.

[Spidey]

Wait Woody…I didn’t dismiss Kilarin’s Fantasy…I simply added a variable.

[Foil]

if it's something you deem potentially dangerous...

Life is "potentially dangerous". People have the potential to react unpredictably at a D&D game ... The question is not whether there's potential for danger, but whether he introduced an unreasonable risk.

Was the atmosphere politically charged? Yeah. Was the gun really big? Yeah. Did that create a situation which was unreasonably dangerous, or was it unreasonably likely to cause the situation to turn dangerous? I don't see any reason to think so.

I do.

Again, I'm not saying his actions introduced a highly 'unreasonable' risk factor, or that I would run screaming.

Yes, the crowd was generally behaving, and the chances were still low that anything would go wrong. But his presence with that type of weapon is still an increased risk, enough that I personally wouldn't stay nearby.

I don't see any reason to think the guy, the police, or secret service would've let things get out of hand.

Okay, let's say the police or Secret Service needed to step in and keep something under control. That's exactly what I'm talking about. I wouldn't want my wife or son around in that circumstance, especially if they had to draw their weapons. [No, not against Mr. Broughton; I'm still talking about other people in the crowd.]

...brandishing a weapon.

You keep using that word...

"...I do not think it means what you think it means."

Sorry, couldn't resist a great opportunity for an Inigo Montoya quote.

I didn't say anything about it at first because I figured you didn't mean anything technical by it, and it's annoying to be nitpicked. But now I wonder. You don't mean this do you?

No, of course not.

I meant:

bran·dish (brān'dĭsh)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es

2. To display ostentatiously.

... which is exactly what he was doing.

I guess the key distinction between "brandishing" and "carrying" is whether a normal person feels threatened by what you're doing.

No, in my usage, the difference is whether he meant it to be seen, which he clearly did.

I don't think he meant it to be threatening. But it was careless of him to assume that no one else took it that way.

Still, though, just watch the video Lothar linked and judge for yourself.

I did. It confirmed my opinion that wasn't trying to be threatening, but he was looking to make a statement and get a reaction.

It's the unpredictability of the reaction he got that would have me concerned enough to get my family away.

There's a valid point to be made that when you see something way outside the norm --
You don't see a lot of normal folks walking around with AR-15s over here, so it turns heads. If this were Israel, it would be so forgettable you wouldn't even notice.

Exactly. If this was Israel, or a firearm-owners convention, I'd feel differently.

But that's not the case. This guy was at a political event, where his 'display' was not only well outside the norm, he was intentionally looking to evoke a strong reaction.

I judge that that means it needs to be done more, then, not less. There's no better cure for the irrational fear of guns than hanging out with normal people who carry them, and seeing how normal and safe they really are.

Fine, that's a legitimate statement, and I don't disagree.

But yet again, I'm not talking about legal policy or whether firearms should be more or less common at political events. I'm talking about this guy, at this event.

...The tiny percentage of people who aren't as reasonable as you or I, and who have the potential to react irrationally and unpredictably.

What are you implying? That there are folks who are so terrified of guns that the mere presence of one--slung passively on a clearly otherwise normal guy--will provoke them to . . . do what exactly? Panic? Call the police? Start a firefight?

Are you implying that no paranoid / potentially violent folks exist, or could have been near Mr. Broughton?

Also, you keep referring to people "terrified of guns" or having an "irrational fear of guns". Do you think those are the only people with the potential to freak out? Sorry, but gun-control supporters don't own a monopoly on paranoia; anyone could react unpredictably, whether they support or own firearms or not.

I'm just not seeing it. There might be a couple of Bettinas in the crowd who have issues at first, but I'd expect even them to quickly conclude that the guy wasn't going to be a problem.

Sure, rational people would eventually see this guy isn't trying to be threatening.

But the blind assumption that everyone there is rational is not one I'm going to make.

[Lothar]

Did that create a situation which was unreasonably dangerous, or was it unreasonably likely to cause the situation to turn dangerous? I don't see any reason to think so.

I do.

Then this is a major point of disagreement between us. You seem to think it's a huge and unwarranted assumption that other people will behave themselves like normal, rational human beings. My experience around people with firearms, even very large firearms (like at military bases) is that people actually do in fact behave like normal, rational human beings around them. Having been in crowds where there have been some obvious firearms, I think reactions are remarkably predictable, according to the old adage: "an armed society is a polite society."

I judge that that means it needs to be done more, then, not less. There's no better cure for the irrational fear of guns than hanging out with normal people who carry them, and seeing how normal and safe they really are.

Exactly. This guy carrying this weapon at this event is a part of that cure.

[Foil]

Then this is a major point of disagreement between us. You seem to think it's a huge and unwarranted assumption that other people will behave themselves like normal, rational human beings.

Not quite.

I think it's reasonable to assume that in such cases, most people will behave themselves like normal, rational human beings.

What I believe is unwarranted is to assume that such rationality applies for every person. That's the assumption Mr. Broughton made, and I personally think it's careless.

[Lothar]

What I believe is unwarranted is to assume that such rationality applies for every person.

It has every time I've been in a crowd where someone has been clearly armed. *shrug*

[Foil]

Ah, but IMHO there's a difference between:

• a crowd where \"someone is clearly armed\" (e.g. a police officer or someone clearly packing)
• a crowd where \"someone is using a weapon to make a statement, and evoking a strong reaction\" (e.g. this guy)

[Bet51987]

Score: 19-4

Awesome and kudo's to you whoever you are...

Bee

[Drakona]

You don't see a lot of normal folks walking around with AR-15s over here, so it turns heads. If this were Israel, it would be so forgettable you wouldn't even notice.

If this was Israel, or a firearm-owners convention, I'd feel differently.

But that's not the case. This guy was at a political event, where his 'display' was not only well outside the norm, he was intentionally looking to evoke a strong reaction.

Heh. Well, it was Ari-"we like to hire our citizens as bounty hunters"-zona. So perhaps the rules are a little different there . . .

But we agree. Context matters.

I don't think he meant it to be threatening. But it was careless of him to assume that no one else took it that way.

...

It's the unpredictability of the reaction he got that would have me concerned enough to get my family away.

...

anyone could react unpredictably

...

But the blind assumption that everyone there is rational is not one I'm going to make.

Meh. I think you're reaching. Sure, there's a possibility of crazy people anywhere -- maybe even a higher than usual concentration of them at political events. But I'd say dangerous reactions from them are are (a) their moral responsibility and (b) not common enough to worry about.

If anything, I'd be more worried about violent reactions to signs and slogans -- that's common enough, and well documented. But it wouldn't worry me enough not to carry one.

Respect and decency are good things, and in general you should try not to provoke people. But that only applies to scattered individuals, and only goes as far as things I'm willing to give up out of courtesy. When folks are offended, when folks react hysterically, to opinions that I hold dear or to the exercise of rights that are important to me, when my own decency is a weapon used against me to suppress freedom and stifle dissent, then it's time to switch gears to gentle but firm self-assertion.

I see this as the same kind of the same tradeoff. In a contest between "I want to exercise my rights to make the point that I have them" and "someone might irrationally flip out", if the second proposition is winning too often, the first proposition must sometimes win. The likelihood of the second is, while admittedly nonzero, low -- and given than I'm acting reasonably, he'd be the one with the problem.

[woodchip]

I see this as the same kind of the same tradeoff. In a contest between "I want to exercise my rights to make the point that I have them" and "someone might irrationally flip out",

The whole problem with worrying about people flipping out at the expense of exercising your rights is overtime you will lose your rights as people will manipulate irrationality to prevent your rights from being used.

[Spidey]

Yes, one of the problems I see with carrying weapons just because you have the right is, it can be counterproductive to your cause. What good is it if while exercising your rights in an out of context way, you rile up a bunch of anti gun people and end up with new gun control laws?

Man I hate to do this…but like Kilarin says…

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

God, I love those song lyric analogies! (pun intended)

[AlphaDoG]

\"Right! NOW! ha ha ha ha ha

I am an anti-christ
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want but
I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passer by cos I

I wanna BE anarchy!
No dogs body\"

The Sex Pistols

[Bet51987]

Yes, one of the problems I see with carrying weapons just because you have the right is, it can be counterproductive to your cause. What good is it if while exercising your rights in an out of context way, you rile up a bunch of anti gun people and end up with new gun control laws?

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve. - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Bee

[Sergeant Thorne]

Don't be melodramatic. That's an awful misuse of a historical quote.

[Stroodles]

Don't be melodramatic. That's an awful misuse of a historical quote.

Gotta agree here.

[Drakona]

Yes, one of the problems I see with carrying weapons just because you have the right is, it can be counterproductive to your cause. What good is it if while exercising your rights in an out of context way, you rile up a bunch of anti gun people and end up with new gun control laws?

Yeah. Fair. In fact, you could mean either thing by it -- "See how safe and reasonable this is? Can you believe folks are afraid of it?" or "See how dangerous this is? Can you believe it's legal?"

Though I'd say if the simple act of carrying them causes people to freak out, you've already lost the right. The laws just haven't caught up with popular opinion yet. There's a guy I was reading recently who makes the same point:

open carry will never be normal unless we actually practice it. We can’t normalize carry as long as we’re hiding our sidearms under our jackets. Sure, we’re winning the fight to get shall-issue or constitutional carry all over the US, but to the general public carrying guns will never be normal until they see regular people carrying guns.

So, eh. I think it's a good idea from that perspective, and I think a political demonstration is about the most reasonable place to do it. I mean, it makes sense in context. You're making a political point. It sure makes more sense than, say, at the grocery store . . .

But at the end of the day . . . yeah. Judgement call.

[Ferno]

yeah. it's akin to yelling fire in a theatre when there is none.

just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.