American Gun Ownership Highest In 18 Years

[derspiess]

Open carry doesn't mean you get to threaten people by aiming the weapon at them.  Your snarkiness is noted, though.

[derspiess]

Anyway I think I'll get Tommy his first bb gun. I think he's seen enough Christmas Story so that he'd be disappointed with anything other than a Red Ryder.

We'll shoot it in the back woods and I'll keep it in the safe to preclude any possible shenanigans.

[Berkut]

Open carry doesn't mean you get to threaten people by aiming the weapon at them.  Your snarkiness is noted, though.

He didn't aim it at the police - they shot him simply because he had it.

It almost seems like open carry only applies to "non-threatening" people. Like...not black.

[derspiess]

Did I say at the police? He had been aiming it at people prior to the police arriving.

[Berkut]

The police don't know that, so that doesn't apply to their actions.

If I am exercising my rahts by carrying my AR-15 into Wendys, and someone "feels threatened" and calls the cops and SAYS I am aiming it at people, do the cops have the right to blow me away as they get our of their car as long as someone SAYS I aimed it at someone?

Doesn't seem like much of a right in that case.

This is what I find so silly about the entire gun nut mantra - it simply does not make rational sense from a policy standpoint.

Once person exercising their right to run around armed has the right to kill you if they "feel threatened". See Treyvon Martin.

You can feel threatened even if you don't have a gun, because someone could kill you in 4.5 seconds with a knife if they are within 40 feet, hence you can justifiably blow them away and call it self defense.

Yet anyone exercising their "open carry" right, by definition, is ALWAYS within moments, literally constantly less than a second away, from being able to kill someone within a hundred yards...so if someone with their AR-15 is acting a little squirrelly, and frankly, walking around with an AR-15 openly in the manner these d-bags do is pretty fucking squirrely, then do I not have the right to kill them before they get a chance to kill me, as long as I "feel threatened"?

The open carry nuts basically have defined a system where person A has the right to openly carry their gun, and person B has the right to kill them at the drop of a hat because doing so makes them an imminent threat.

The entire thing is just ridiculous.

And there is no question that the practical impact is radically racially unfair - there is no way some black kid is going to get away with strolling about exercising their open carry rights in the manner some white guy will in general.

[Admiral Yi]

If I am exercising my rahts by carrying my AR-15 into Wendys, and someone "feels threatened" and calls the cops and SAYS I am aiming it at people, do the cops have the right to blow me away as they get our of their car as long as someone SAYS I aimed it at someone?

No.  They have a right to blow you away if you don't comply with their orders.

[Berkut]

If I am exercising my rahts by carrying my AR-15 into Wendys, and someone "feels threatened" and calls the cops and SAYS I am aiming it at people, do the cops have the right to blow me away as they get our of their car as long as someone SAYS I aimed it at someone?

No.  They have a right to blow you away if you don't comply with their orders.

Even if those orders violate my rahts?

"Put the gun down!"

"I have the raht...."

BANGBANGBANG!

Of course, in this case, I guess the gun nut would actually have the right to shoot the cop, since the cop is threatening him while he does something perfectly legal?

The point is that being armed immediately escalates the situation into one where the police are in immediate fear for their life - the definition bandied about is that if the police can reasonable assume you can threaten someones life within moments, and they have some reason to believe you might do so, they can shoot you. They killed a guy with a knife who wasn't attacking anyone simply because he threatened to do so - surely someone with a gun is an order of magnitude more dangerous, and at vastly greater range. Someone with a rifle is dangerous to the police at a distance they cannot even safely approach in any fashion. In the kids example, if he was playing with a replica AR-15, the argument that they were justified in driving up and blowing him away would apply to a police sniper simply shooting him from 500 yards.

But lets not even talk about the cops for now - what about other private citizens?

You can shoot someone if you feel reasonably threatened that they might kill or harm you. If they have a gun, they can do so instantly. Same with you.

So two people both exercising their rights are in a situation where they are IMMEDIATELY justified in shooting one another the moment ANY altercation begins that COULD result in one of them deciding to use force. So the only rational response is to be the one to decide to use that force first, and we can lean on our "right to carry/right to not retreat" rights to validate that, and of course only one person will be around to tell their side.

The entire open carry concept is simply not practically workable outside the Wild Wild West, unless we are ok with people shooting one another even more than they do already.

[Admiral Yi]

You have the right to do what?  Ignore police commands?

[DGuller]

So, I have to admit to being a little surprised that the recent shooting of the kid with the toy gun has not become a cause celebre with the open carry crowd. Granted, it was a toy gun, but that hardlly matter, right?

If it is a-ok to run around sporting a gun, then his being shot for doing so should be a huge deal for those who are very much in favor of the rights of people to carry their weapons around openly - so why no outrage over his being killed by the police for having a gun?

I have a feeling you have an explanation.  One whose absurdity and offensiveness is only exceeded by its truthfulness.

[Berkut]

You have the right to do what?  Ignore police commands?

Have a right to carry a gun around.

And if the police commands are not lawful, while I may not have a "right" to ignore them, you can certainly find it justifiable. If a cop tells me I don't have a right to refuse to let him search my car, am I wrong to refuse to let him do so just because he "commands" it?

[sbr]

You have the right to do what?  Ignore police commands?

So cops can use lethal force if their commands are ignored?  That seems a rather low bar.

[Berkut]

No cops can use lethal force if they feel their or someone elses life is in danger.

They can order people to take particular actions in response to the potential for that fear, and not obeying those orders can result in the police deciding it is then necessary to use lethal force, since the alternative (telling the person to stop doing whatever is it they are doing to create the perception that they might be dangerous) did not work.

This isn't really nearly as complicated as people are trying to make it, at least in theory. Obviously in application it can be incredibly complex.

[Grey Fox]

almost seems like open carry only applies to "non-threatening" people. Like...not black.

Yes.

[lustindarkness]

I got my surprise Xmas present today, the type you have to get yourself so you can register it. It was a good day, first she used her womanly charms to convince me to call in sick so we could go get my present, then she tells me to drive in that direction, and she gave me a $600 limit , so I got an XDS 45 (oh, I also got some nice hiking boots and we ordered some kayaks (how is Santa gonna fit 3 kayaks under the tree?  )).

[derspiess]

Good woman you got there