The Big Gun Control Thread

The Conformist wrote:

And the more the media keeps drilling these stories in our heads, the more the nut-jobs will come out of the woodwork and start shooting people. Adding fuel to the fire.

You heard him! Let's ignore the problem so it goes away!

SallyNasty wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Another school shooting, this time in California:
http://www.kget.com/news/local/story...

And the more the media keeps drilling these stories in our heads, the more the nut-jobs will come out of the woodwork and start shooting people. Adding fuel to the fire.

Obviously it is the media's fault, and not the ease with which crazy people can procure high-magazine armaments.

...the kid had a shotgun and a pocket of shells.

clover wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Another school shooting, this time in California:
http://www.kget.com/news/local/story...

And the more the media keeps drilling these stories in our heads, the more the nut-jobs will come out of the woodwork and start shooting people. Adding fuel to the fire.

Obviously it is the media's fault, and not the ease with which crazy people can procure armaments.

...the kid had a shotgun and a pocket of shells.

My point still stands when edited.

"They rally around the family, with a pocket full of shells."

wow wah
chika wow wah
chika chika

edit: I hope someone gets that...

fangblackbone wrote:

"They rally around the family, with a pocket full of shells."

wow wah
chika wow wah
chika chika

edit: I hope someone gets that...

Yeah, we're old

SallyNasty wrote:
clover wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Another school shooting, this time in California:
http://www.kget.com/news/local/story...

And the more the media keeps drilling these stories in our heads, the more the nut-jobs will come out of the woodwork and start shooting people. Adding fuel to the fire.

Obviously it is the media's fault, and not the ease with which crazy people can procure armaments.

...the kid had a shotgun and a pocket of shells.

My point still stands when edited.

Well, they couldn't legally have bought it themselves, as they're under 18. From a quick search, it looks like the owner of the gun is possibly guilty of a felony, depending on how it was stored.
Your point about it not being the media's fault for reporting it is still spot on though. Still, it was only one student shot, and no one killed, so as far as school shootings go, not horrible. It's still really bad, but I'd guess this was more of a personal grudge thing than someone snapping and deciding to kill everyone they could. It's too early to tell right now though.

He told the teacher who intervened who exactly he wanted to shoot; it's awful, but it wasn't a random spree.

I've been ruminating on what the unique aspects of American culture are that lead to these kinds of events more so than in other countries.

Question - is American culture more adversarial than most?

Because at some point, the shooters in these incidents think to themselves that it's A-OK to go shoot some folk. Mental health issues can go some way to explaining that, but don't we have to consider that at least part of it has to be an ingrained cultural acceptance of that high degree of adversarial-ism.

"Joey wronged me, so Imma shoot him."

There's some serious moral math in there that shooting Joey is an appropriate response to being wronged by him. Is this "shock and awe" coming home to roost? Adversarial culture, where others are competitors who need to be taken down by any means possible so that they don't "win"?

Or something else? A reflection on the self-obsessed and inward-looking nature of American culture, where we, the country are #1, and therefore by extension, me the person, is #1 and therefore anything I do to anyone else is A-OK?

SallyNasty wrote:
clover wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Another school shooting, this time in California:
http://www.kget.com/news/local/story...

And the more the media keeps drilling these stories in our heads, the more the nut-jobs will come out of the woodwork and start shooting people. Adding fuel to the fire.

Obviously it is the media's fault, and not the ease with which crazy people can procure armaments.

...the kid had a shotgun and a pocket of shells.

My point still stands when edited.

Even under some of the most restrictive gun control areas around the world, like California, allow shotguns. This isn't a failure of the procurement laws, which still need to be more restrictive. This case is a clear example on storage and access laws, which California already has.

So what would you propose that would actually have changed the situation?

Edwin wrote:

So what would you propose that would actually have changed the situation?

Are there penalties currently for not properly and safely storing firearms?

I was thinking that implementing draconion punishments for owners of a firearm used in a crime might go some way to providing some motivation for people to get their firearms securely stored away from where little Timmy can help himself.

But of course, without some system of registration required for firearms, that ain't gonna happen...

Jonman wrote:

I've been ruminating on what the unique aspects of American culture are that lead to these kinds of events more so than in other countries.

Question - is American culture more adversarial than most?

Because at some point, the shooters in these incidents think to themselves that it's A-OK to go shoot some folk. Mental health issues can go some way to explaining that, but don't we have to consider that at least part of it has to be an ingrained cultural acceptance of that high degree of adversarial-ism.

"Joey wronged me, so Imma shoot him."

There's some serious moral math in there that shooting Joey is an appropriate response to being wronged by him. Is this "shock and awe" coming home to roost? Adversarial culture, where others are competitors who need to be taken down by any means possible so that they don't "win"?

Or something else? A reflection on the self-obsessed and inward-looking nature of American culture, where we, the country are #1, and therefore by extension, me the person, is #1 and therefore anything I do to anyone else is A-OK?

I think it is the whole Scots-Irish general orneryness.

Jonman wrote:
Edwin wrote:

So what would you propose that would actually have changed the situation?

Are there penalties currently for not properly and safely storing firearms?

I was thinking that implementing draconion punishments for owners of a firearm used in a crime might go some way to providing some motivation for people to get their firearms securely stored away from where little Timmy can help himself.

But of course, without some system of registration required for firearms, that ain't gonna happen...

In this case, yes. CAL. PEN. CODE § 12035 : California Code - Section 12035. I've bolded the relevant sections below for everyone.

(d)Criminal storage of a firearm is punishable as follows:

(1)Criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree, by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine; or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(2)Criminal storage of a firearm in the second degree, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

(e)If the person who allegedly violated this section is the parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies as the result of an accidental shooting, the district attorney shall consider, among other factors, the impact of the injury or death on the person alleged to have violated this section when deciding whether to prosecute an alleged violation. It is the Legislature's intent that a parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies as the result of an accidental shooting shall be prosecuted only in those instances in which the parent or guardian behaved in a grossly negligent manner or where similarly egregious circumstances exist. This subdivision shall not otherwise restrict, in any manner, the factors that a district attorney may consider when deciding whether to prosecute alleged violations of this section.

(f)If the person who allegedly violated this section is the parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies as the result of an accidental shooting, no arrest of the person for the alleged violation of this section shall occur until at least seven days after the date upon which the accidental shooting occurred.

In addition to the limitation contained in this subdivision, a law enforcement officer shall consider the health status of a child who suffers great bodily injury as the result of an accidental shooting prior to arresting a person for a violation of this section, if the person to be arrested is the parent or guardian of the injured child. The intent of this subdivision is to encourage law enforcement officials to delay the arrest of a parent or guardian of a seriously injured child while the child remains on life-support equipment or is in a similarly critical medical condition.

(g)(1)The fact that the person who allegedly violated this section attended a firearm safety training course prior to the purchase of the firearm that is obtained by a child in violation of this section shall be considered a mitigating factor by a district attorney when he or she is deciding whether to prosecute the alleged violation.

(2)In any action or trial commenced under this section, the fact that the person who allegedly violated this section attended a firearm safety training course prior to the purchase of the firearm that is obtained by a child in violation of this section, shall be admissible.

(h)Every person licensed under Section 12071 shall post within the licensed premises the notice required by paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of that section, disclosing the duty imposed by this section upon any person who keeps a loaded firearm.

I am unsure if (e) would apply in this case as it wasn't an accident, but a premeditated attempted murder. I would hope the parents are severely punished for criminally storing their weapons in a incredibly irresponsible way.

As for your second question, it depends on the case we are talking about. Cases in where the shooter wants/plans to commit suicide won't be affected by draconian punishments. It's a case of the "criminals don't follow laws", which makes gun free zones redundant. In cases where the weapons were stolen, there would need to be a process to determine if the proper owner took reasonable steps to secure the weapons (covered in an earlier post of mine), and if they failed to do so, then a punishment should be given to them.

Lastly, you don't need a system of registration of individual firearms to accomplish this. You can simply enforce this by the person who owns a license (which needs to be implemented nationally). You have code enforcement show up at the place listed on the license and inspect everything. If they fail to be up to code, they get punished with fines, arrest, license suspensions, etc.

Vestigial frontier justice? Westward expansion was all tied up with notions of law and order and civilization.

ruhk wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

And the more the media keeps drilling these stories in our heads, the more the nut-jobs will come out of the woodwork and start shooting people. Adding fuel to the fire.

You heard him! Let's ignore the problem so it goes away! ;)

Not what I meant.

SallyNasty wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Another school shooting, this time in California:
http://www.kget.com/news/local/story...

And the more the media keeps drilling these stories in our heads, the more the nut-jobs will come out of the woodwork and start shooting people. Adding fuel to the fire.

Obviously it is the media's fault, and not the ease with which crazy people can procure high-magazine armaments.

I never said it was all the media's fault. But you can't tell me that with all the commotion going around about gun laws, school shootings, and automatic weapons that it doesn't "inspire" the loonies to come out. Heck, at our local Cabela's the man behind the gun counter said after the huge "Gun Ban" urge that he sold over 400 AR's in two days. You think that would have happened if the media and everyone else wasn't shoving this down our throats?

Suggestion: owners of guns used in a crime could be considered accessories to the crime and prosecuted as such. Some measures can be included for reasonableness. Stolen guns could be reported to the local police; the gun owner can then pay a hefty fine instead of facing criminal prosecution.

Suggestion from game market concepts: licenses. Each gun will require a separate license in addition to the gun owner's license, all of which are renewed every two years. Only permanent storefronts can acquire FFL. Individual gun owners cannot legally engage in the resale of purchased firearms unless they are also willing to set up a gun shop. Their ownership of guns they sell illegally is maintained, and they retain legal liabilities for whatever is done with it, as per above.

Suggestion: Make gun sellers partially liable for any crimes done with guns they sell. A small fee is levied against the gun seller from whom the legal gun license was procured in case of crime, save in the case of reported gun theft. The fee is directly paid to victims or disinterested next-of-kin in certain crimes, or directly to the local police department where there is no disinterested next-of-kin and the victim is unable to benefit. The aim of this policy is to make gun sellers more enthusiastic about enforcing checks on who can purchase weapons, since avowed gun owners perceive enforcement to be a widespread problem.

I think it is the whole Scots-Irish general orneryness.

Possibly, it's the entire "honor culture" thing.

Wikipedia, Culture of Honor:

"One theory to explain why the American South has this culture is that a willingness to resort to retribution to enforce one's rights is important for a man in any region where gaining resources and keeping them depends on the community’s belief that the man can protect those resources against predators. Toughness is a strong value in such a culture because of its effect on the deterrence of such predators from one’s family, home and possessions."

There's also such factors as the disintegration of family and clan structure, and the emphasis on individualism in Western culture.

LarryC wrote:

Suggestion: owners of guns used in a crime could be considered accessories to the crime and prosecuted as such. Some measures can be included for reasonableness. Stolen guns could be reported to the local police; the gun owner can then pay a hefty fine instead of facing criminal prosecution.

Suggestion from game market concepts: licenses. Each gun will require a separate license in addition to the gun owner's license, all of which are renewed every two years. Only permanent storefronts can acquire FFL. Individual gun owners cannot legally engage in the resale of purchased firearms unless they are also willing to set up a gun shop. Their ownership of guns they sell illegally is maintained, and they retain legal liabilities for whatever is done with it, as per above.

Suggestion: Make gun sellers partially liable for any crimes done with guns they sell. A small fee is levied against the gun seller from whom the legal gun license was procured in case of crime, save in the case of reported gun theft. The fee is directly paid to victims or disinterested next-of-kin in certain crimes, or directly to the local police department where there is no disinterested next-of-kin and the victim is unable to benefit. The aim of this policy is to make gun sellers more enthusiastic about enforcing checks on who can purchase weapons, since avowed gun owners perceive enforcement to be a widespread problem.

Why should someone be culpable for a crime if their gun is stolen? I just fail to see the logic in that, sir. It is one thing if you actively supply a gun to someone with the knowledge of what it will be used for, but to have it taken from you without your consent is an entirely different issue.

I am not necessarily against the idea you espouse with regards to licenses. And having a gun shop handle the issue of gun sales would not be entirely unusual since that is how I acquired mine from another buyer across the Internet with the shop facilitating it as the FFL.

Your third suggestion, on the other hand, is really out there and I am completely against it. I just fail to see why any blame should levied against the seller for the misuse of another. There is no way you can expect for them to be able to ensure that kind of diligence with regards to customers. Anyone can break down mentally and lose it with the right circumstances.

LarryC wrote:

Suggestion: owners of guns used in a crime could be considered accessories to the crime and prosecuted as such. Some measures can be included for reasonableness. Stolen guns could be reported to the local police; the gun owner can then pay a hefty fine instead of facing criminal prosecution.

Suggestion from game market concepts: licenses. Each gun will require a separate license in addition to the gun owner's license, all of which are renewed every two years. Only permanent storefronts can acquire FFL. Individual gun owners cannot legally engage in the resale of purchased firearms unless they are also willing to set up a gun shop. Their ownership of guns they sell illegally is maintained, and they retain legal liabilities for whatever is done with it, as per above.

Suggestion: Make gun sellers partially liable for any crimes done with guns they sell. A small fee is levied against the gun seller from whom the legal gun license was procured in case of crime, save in the case of reported gun theft. The fee is directly paid to victims or disinterested next-of-kin in certain crimes, or directly to the local police department where there is no disinterested next-of-kin and the victim is unable to benefit. The aim of this policy is to make gun sellers more enthusiastic about enforcing checks on who can purchase weapons, since avowed gun owners perceive enforcement to be a widespread problem.

Why should someone be culpable for a crime if their gun is stolen? I just fail to see the logic in that, sir. It is one thing if you actively supply a gun to someone with the knowledge of what it will be used for, but to have it taken from you without your consent is an entirely different issue.

I am not necessarily against the idea you espouse with regards to licenses. And having a gun shop handle the issue of gun sales would not be entirely unusual since that is how I acquired mine from another buyer across the Internet with the shop facilitating it as the FFL.

Your third suggestion, on the other hand, is really out there and I am completely against it. I just fail to see why any blame should levied against the seller for the misuse of another. There is no way you can expect for them to be able to ensure that kind of diligence with regards to customers. Anyone can break down mentally and lose it with the right circumstances.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

It's good people phoned 911. That's the correct response to bad sh*t going down.

However, if a motorist sees someone parading a deadly firearm near houses, workplaces or schools, and decides to run down said maniac, I wouldn't blame them at all.

"I was standing my ground, which is mounted on wheels and propels itself at 50 mph."

Awesome, tell me more about your pro-murder views.

ZaneRockfist:

You must first understand that my suggestions are not made from the POV of morality or of blame. I do not care whose fault it is. I do not care about which punishment is righteous or not. I only care about policies that work. These suggestions seem like policies that could work.

The point behind levying a fine if a gun owner's gun is reported as stolen is to encourage gun owners to make sure that their guns are not stolen. The monetary value of the gun is cheap so that's no deterrent, and it's often not the gun owner who pays the price in terms of life or limb, so that's not an effective motivator, either. Putting legal liability on the owner of the gun used in any crime ensures that gun owners have a direct stake in keeping their guns out of the hands of the criminal element. They can avoid criminal liability by reporting theft, which still leaves them with a fine; for failing to secure their weapons against determined thievery. All this is consistent with Jonman's suggestion of draconian measures levied against gun owners who lose control of their weapons.

The same point underlies the third suggestion. It's not about morality. It's not about blame. It's about actions and motivators. Gun owners here attest that there are many places where checks on gun sales are much too lax. Making gun shops financially liable in some way for every crime traceable to guns bought from them will ensure that only conscientious shops remain financially stable. A few small fines here and there will not materially affect successful businesses. They will incur some cost, but since that cost goes directly to added police and any possible victims, it counteracts any possible detriment guns may have in and of themselves to society at large, in terms of crime.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

Why should someone be culpable for a crime if their gun is stolen? I just fail to see the logic in that, sir. It is one thing if you actively supply a gun to someone with the knowledge of what it will be used for, but to have it taken from you without your consent is an entirely different issue.

Because firearms are dangerous and it is very reasonable for society to expect gun owners to properly and safely store their weapons.

I'll give a pass to someone who can prove they took reasonable precautions to safely stored their weapons, say by putting them in a gun safe. But if they were an idiot who just had their gun laying around their house or in the glove box of their car, then they should most definitely be held responsible for any crime committed with that weapon.

Nearly three quarters of handgun owners don't bother to lock up their firearms. Irresponsible behavior like that is how 500,000+ guns make their way to criminals each year.

Kraint wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

It's good people phoned 911. That's the correct response to bad sh*t going down.

However, if a motorist sees someone parading a deadly firearm near houses, workplaces or schools, and decides to run down said maniac, I wouldn't blame them at all.

"I was standing my ground, which is mounted on wheels and propels itself at 50 mph."

Awesome, tell me more about your pro-murder views.

tl;dr

Some anti-gun people are violent. Some aren't. It doesn't help either way.

----

There are pro-gun people who will use force to keep their guns and others who won't. Same applies to anti-gun people. Some won't use force to take other peoples guns and some will use force to take guns away from other people. Or threaten them. Or threaten some more.

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kYtB81zorCA/UIXG2454zMI/AAAAAAAAM0w/qe5tfNVZV3I/s1600/ScreenHunter_02+Oct.+22+18.20.jpg)
IMAGE(http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/hehey1.jpg)
IMAGE(http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CSGV-GOD2.jpg)
IMAGE(http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CaptureGOD.jpg)
IMAGE(http://nekocanada.smugmug.com/photos/i-Bwmq5QV/0/S/i-Bwmq5QV-S.jpg)
IMAGE(http://nekocanada.smugmug.com/photos/i-JFLbwpX/0/S/i-JFLbwpX-S.jpg)

It's a problem no matter the issue.

Edwin wrote:

There are pro-gun people who will use force to keep their guns and others who won't. Same applies to anti-gun people. Some won't use force to take other peoples guns and some will use force to take guns away from other people.

If a law was passed that banned firearms and certain gun owners refused to comply, they would be criminals. If they shot the police or government agents doing the collecting, they would be murderers. Not patriots. Not heroes.

If said gun owners decided to start an armed insurrection rather than comply with the law, they would be traitors and terrorists. If they pushed it to another civil war, I would be right next to that middle-aged mother fighting them because they do not represent the America I know nor the American ideals and values we should all be trying to live up to.

Edwin wrote:

Or threaten them. Or threaten some more.

Twitter crap.

There is no FOX News-style War on Guns and Gun Owners, Edwin. A single instance of a public figure (and a public figure who is an editor at the Washington Times who has run an entire series of editorials about her quest to get tooled up) getting a threatening phone call doesn't mean there's an organized campaign by anti-gun folks to terrorize all the poor, defenseless gun owners. And I have no idea what you were trying to prove with the second link because those people weren't saying mean things to Cogdell because of her firearms, they were saying mean things to her because they like animals and Cogdell's a trophy hunter.

As far as the Twitter images go, I don't really think you want me diving into the filth that is all the white power militia groups and the conspiracy nuts and get screen grabs of all those gun owners threatening to kill people and blow up government buildings. The primary difference is that those groups actually have the weapons needed to do the killing and, especially for the militia groups, they have a long and proven history of actually murdering people.

OG_slinger wrote:
Edwin wrote:

There are pro-gun people who will use force to keep their guns and others who won't. Same applies to anti-gun people. Some won't use force to take other peoples guns and some will use force to take guns away from other people.

If a law was passed that banned firearms and certain gun owners refused to comply, they would be criminals. If they shot the police or government agents doing the collecting, they would be murderers. Not patriots. Not heroes.

If said gun owners decided to start an armed insurrection rather than comply with the law, they would be traitors and terrorists. If they pushed it to another civil war, I would be right next to that middle-aged mother fighting them because they do not represent the America I know nor the American ideals and values we should all be trying to live up to.

I know that and never said otherwise. My point was each side threatening each other with harm isn't helping anyone. It undermines the pro-control side because the whole point of disarmament is to have a more peaceful society. Being a humanist leaning person on the pro-control side, I don't like to see anyone threatening their fellow man and I still have hope that everyone can come to a mutual agreement.

OG_slinger wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Or threaten them. Or threaten some more.

Twitter crap.

There is no FOX News-style War on Guns and Gun Owners, Edwin. A single instance of a public figure (and a public figure who is an editor at the Washington Times who has run an entire series of editorials about her quest to get tooled up) getting a threatening phone call doesn't mean there's an organized campaign by anti-gun folks to terrorize all the poor, defenseless gun owners. And I have no idea what you were trying to prove with the second link because those people weren't saying mean things to Cogdell because of her firearms, they were saying mean things to her because they like animals and Cogdell's a trophy hunter.

As far as the Twitter images go, I don't really think you want me diving into the filth that is all the white power militia groups and the conspiracy nuts and get screen grabs of all those gun owners threatening to kill people and blow up government buildings. The primary difference is that those groups actually have the weapons needed to do the killing and, especially for the militia groups, they have a long and proven history of actually murdering people.

The whole War on X thing is silly and we really should strive for something better to describe this. I'm not looking to get into a tit-for-tat thing. I just wanted to show how it's pretty common for everyone to threaten each other with bodily harm and how it doesn't serve a purpose. Everyone knows about the extreme pro-gun folks doing threatening. It's very well documented. My point with the examples was to show it wasn't just one sided and am advocating for more calm dialog between everyone. We're all in this together, however naive my outlook may be, I still want everyone to get along.

Not for nothing, but a huge issue is that many on the pro-gun side seem to have a big problem recognizing that merely carrying a gun is an implied threat, which I very much what I suspect Lovesauce was getting at, rather than being "pro-murder." It's all well and good for the NRA to puke about "Good Guys v. Bad Guys" to feed their sponsors, but when presented with armed dudes stalking around residential streets, those of us who can't see souls' auras aren't going to know if they're Good or Bad. Maybe they can add that sort of training to the agenda while they build their mental illness registry.

So any person can be just as immature as anyone else online? Got it, 10 points to Gryfindor.

Now back the the appallingly high murder rate, the states not reporting to the FBI, the dying people, and the mouthpiece for gun industry marginalizing that.

Follow up on the two guys walking around town with assault rifles yesterday.

Surprise surprise, turns out these guys are jackasses. One of them has had so many complaints filed against him for similar "protests" in southern Oregon that the Police there know him on a first name basis and have to undergo special training specifically on how to deal with him and his associates.
For some reason, possibly the mall shooting we had several weeks ago, these guys thought it would be a good idea to bring their disruptive bullying to Portland.

Edwin wrote:

I know that and never said otherwise. My point was each side threatening each other with harm isn't helping anyone. It undermines the pro-control side because the whole point of disarmament is to have a more peaceful society. Being a humanist leaning person on the pro-control side, I don't like to see anyone threatening their fellow man and I still have hope that everyone can come to a mutual agreement.

Saying you would take up arms to defend your country against an element of the pro-gun crowd that's starting an insurrection isn't threatening violence. Saying it will be 1776 all over again if a law the pro-gun crowd doesn't like is passed *is* threatening violence. And, technically under the Patriot Act, domestic terrorism.

It's extremely disingenuous to even try to say that the anti-gun crowd is actively threatening pro-gun folks.

Edwin wrote:

The whole War on X thing is silly and we really should strive for something better to describe this. I'm not looking to get into a tit-for-tat thing. I just wanted to show how it's pretty common for everyone to threaten each other with bodily harm and how it doesn't serve a purpose. Everyone knows about the extreme pro-gun folks doing threatening. It's very well documented. My point with the examples was to show it wasn't just one sided and am advocating for more calm dialog between everyone. We're all in this together, however naive my outlook may be, I still want everyone to get along.

So you have well-documented threats of explicit violence from the extreme elements of the pro-gun crowd on one hand and you have a couple of Tweets from a random guy on the other and you're trying to claim they're equal. They're nowhere near equal. Hell, the Twitter guy never actually made a threat. He just told other people they should blow themselves up if they liked things that went boom. Had he actually made a threat, like "I'm going to blow you up," then you would have some tenuous anecdotal evidence.

It is one sided. The only group actually threatening violence right now is a not insignificant portion of pro-gun crowd. And though it's couched in hackneyed phrases like "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" or "watering the tree of liberty", what they're really saying is "I'm going to kill as many of my fellow Americans as I can if things politically don't go my way."

I think there might be more than a few "issues" with an individual who feels the need to show off his right to carry weapons in a public place. This fool is doing nothing more than fishing for attention in hopes that the police over react so that he can post it to some website and cry about police states and gun rights.

It seems to me that walking around in public, creating so much anxiety that people feel the need to call the police should classify you as a public nuisance.

This clearly isn't about this guys right to own a gun, it's about his right to strut around like a wannabe SWAT member and play amateur lawyer. I'm wiling to be he gets himself shot before all is said and done.

Bear wrote:

It seems to me that walking around in public, creating so much anxiety that people feel the need to call the police should classify you as a public nuisance.

We'd say the same thing about a guy walking around in circles with an axe or samurai sword or even a kitchen knife. Weapons+unusual behavior is not a bad reason to call the cops.

Watching how he fumbled through his interview with that cop, I would give him about ten seconds in a real gunfight. I laughed at the end where the cop invites him to come and shoot "real automatics."

Edit: As I have watched and listened to this debate develop, I have found my disgust grow exponentially. I recalled an event in Iraq in which two farmers with AK's walked near the perimeter of my base. The QRF was called out and they were detained. Even in Iraq during the height of sectarian violence, if you walked around openly armed, people took notice because the natural reaction, upon seeing weapons is to assume that they are going to be used.