Thursday, June 26, 2014

How should people respond to open-carry gun-rights activists?

I have removed the original image as requested by its owner.
Please keep that in mind when you read the comments people have posted

As most people know, there are activists in Texas who are making a point of going to public places with visible firearms. They have gotten a lot of attention because some chain restaurants and stores have prohibited them from openly carrying their weapons, mostly because it frightens other patrons.

This fear is legitimate. As many have pointed out, there is no way for bystanders to know whether the people with guns are “good guys” or “bad guys.” It is rational to be afraid of someone with a weapon, especially if you know nothing about them.

Furthermore, as Jon Stewart has pointed out better than anyone else, since people are often legally permitted to use guns to protect themselves when they are legitimately afraid for their lives, there is no predicting when someone is going to see the activists and shoot before they ask questions. This will happen. It is just a matter of time. And, in many cases, it will be a legal and rational act. None of us want to be victims of the crossfire.

The questions that concerns me now is how we bystanders should react when people come into a store with guns. There really is no legitimate way of determining intent. Even if the people with guns are carrying a sign claiming to be activists (which they do not do), they could be lying, just setting us all up for slaughter. And since there is no way to know what is on their minds, all we have are our instincts, but as we all should know, our instincts are often racist, classist, and frequently mistaken. So, what should we do?

My proposal is as follows: we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast.

But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay.

Following this procedure has several advantages. First, it protects people. Second, it forces the businesses to really choose where their loyalties are. If the second amendment is as important as people claim, then people should be willing to pay for it. God knows, free speech is tremendously expensive. If it weren’t, I’d be reading this on ESPN during prime time, not posting this on Blogger.

Third, this proposal has the added advantage of taking the activists seriously. Most gun-rights activists describe a world of tremendous dangers. Guns, they repeatedly tell us, are the only thing between home invasion, rape, murder, and government intrusion. Okay, well if that’s true, then we bystanders should be equally afraid, and react instantaneously to keep away the chaos and the violence. We learned to be afraid from the gun-rights supporters. They have gotten everything they wanted.

Just one final thing. The difficulty of knowing other people’s intent is a classic philosophical problem. It is epistemological in that it involves the limits of our knowledge. We can’t really know what anyone else hopes to do, and sometimes, because of the subconscious and of self-deception, we don’t ever know what our own true intent is. It is also an example of the problem of other minds. We can never really enter into the perspective of any other person, nor can we ever really know what they think (or even if they think). We are discrete individuals and communication is unreliable.

My point: the political and economic realities of running from gun activists is, yet again, founded on classic philosophical issues, and when we take positions on issues of the day, we are really taking positions philosophically. The gun-rights activists think that their intent is obvious and that everyone knows what they hope to do. They believe their minds are transparent. But this is because they are all extreme narcissists. It baffles them that we don’t all know exactly what they are thinking. It shocks them that we don’t know that Jim is a good guy, and that Sally would never murder anyone. But they are wrong. We don’t know them and we don’t know how they think. The only thing that makes us notice them at all is that they have guns and truthfully, that’s why they carry them in the first place. They want to be celebrities, heroes, and the centers of attention.

So, let’s give them what they want. Let’s take them as seriously as possible and run like hell. They’ll feel important and if they really care about gun rights, they won’t mind paying for the hundreds of meals that they inspired the innocent bystanders to leave behind.

(Update: I respond to many of the comments here.)

(Update, 7/25/14: I was going to fix the typo in the fourth paragraph, but that would make Wonkette look bad, and why should I return such kindness by making their post inaccurate? Thanks Wonkette! I am honored by your praise.)
 

Don’t want to comment using Facebook?
Use Blogger to comment instead.

461 comments:

  1. I agree completely and thankfully I've never been put in this situation. But it seems the most rational thing to just leave. You aren't trying to take away their right to bear arms but at the same time you're protecting yourself. Because yes, guns are tools used by people to kill other people. And I don't trust strangers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only the ignorant are scared of inanimate objects, even if cars kill 30,000+ people in the US every year, but here are some FACTS:
      You are 367% more likely to be killed in a car than by any firearm in the US, and your chances of being murdered in the US are about .0028%
      http://s9.postimg.org/7tu8dvltr/REAL_GUN_MURDER_RATES.png

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use#Estimates_of_frequency WAY MORE LIKELY, so don't commit crimes.
      "Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year."
      "Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked."

      Delete
    2. Ignorance is bliss.

      Delete
    3. Right, and when a car plows through a restaurant, you run the fuck away in the opposite direction in a similar manner in which the author describes when idiot "activists" with an AR-15 waltzes in. You

      Delete
    4. The obvious reason why we fear guns but not cars:

      Cars are not designed to kill. They only cause harm when misused. Guns are designed to cause harm. Especially when used properly.

      Delete
    5. You my friend are one misguided puppy

      Delete
    6. LJA... with BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition shot in this country every year and 7 thousand murders with firearms, the idea that firearms are only for killing is idiotic at best. By far there are more targets, cans and water melons shot in this country every year then people. I shot over 100,000 rounds last year in competitions and not one round came close to hitting anyone let alone killing them. Please if you wish to have an argument against something, come up with a viable argument and not some straw argument you pulled from your hind quarters.

      Delete
    7. 100% of people who quote percentages are liars.

      Delete
    8. Anon, those "surveys" on defensive gun use, claim that approximately 300k homicides are prevented each year from defensive gun use. The ACTUAL number of homicides is 15k. If those numbers sound reasonably accurate to you, then you are a FN idiot with no capacity for rational thought, and talking to you is pointless.

      Delete
    9. He was joking. He said that people who quote percentage are liars. He quoted a percentage. Therefore...
      Yeah there lies the joke

      Delete
    10. Anonymous is correct that people are far more likely to killed by cars and many other things than they are by a gun. Which is why the treasonous radical pro gun activists can't use the argument that we all should be allowed to carry guns because we need them for self defense.

      Delete
    11. Ignorance is the bliss of the uninformed. When you see someone you don't know carrying a gun, you say you will leave. Yet, when a person wearing a Law Enforcement uniform walks in with his handguns, rifle, whatever, it is fine? Have people ever once considered that the person in uniform is NOT an officer? Simply playing into the perception of what a "safe" society would have you believe. Take your own safety upon yourself, but do not let fear of an inanimate object rule your life. If you do, I do not know how you would walk out of your safety bubble in the morning. Cars do not drive drunk, knives to not plunge themselves into people, guns do not pull the trigger. There is a person involved in those things.

      Delete
    12. I don't fear the inanimate object. I fear the person walking into restaurant or store, who is carrying the inanimate object that just happens to be really good at killing people.

      Delete
    13. See, I can post anonymous too... Because I fear standing behind my bullshit opinions. It's that easy.

      Delete
    14. Yes, clearly your argument is logical and reasoned.In a time of mass shootings in public spaces it is ridiculous to react to inbreeds with guns strutting around with their shame on display. (see small penis) You know what you are doing, you know why you do it, you can't even begin to justify it and when a child is killed as a result you will be to blame. You are everything wrong with our society.

      Delete
    15. I do not fear inanimate object. I don't fear idiots with guns..but I don't choose to hang around them either. Kind of like I don't choose to play Russian roulette. With idiots and guns its always the same. Sooner or later one of them is going to show his ass.

      Delete
    16. The car vs gun deaths argument is absurd because those stats are not normalized for exposure. We all encounter hundreds, maybe thousands, of cars per day. However, we see maybe one gun per week (month?) on average. Part of why fewer people are killed by guns is because they are rare. Clearly my chances of dying by gun are exactly 0 if I removeyself from every situation that involves guns.

      Using stats like the cars vs guns example without normalizing for exposure to guide your decision about exposure is moronic. How many people die per year due to their blood boiling in the vacuum of space? Not many because most of us don't go to space. So if I were to go to space tomorrow without a space suit, would it be any consolation that it's rare to die that way? Not even a little.

      Delete
    17. One of these days I'd like to organize my own little event in a open-carry-legal state. I'd get a group of friends and we'd go to some public place and hang out, openly carrying the following totally legal and commonly available items:

      1. Baseball bat.
      2. Sledgehammer.
      3. Scythe.
      4. Jug of muriatic acid.
      5. Chainsaw.
      6. Can of gasoline.
      7. Log chain.
      8. Axe.
      9. Propane torch.
      10. Cattle prod.
      11. Length of steel pipe.
      12. Tire iron.

      When asked to disperse, we'd point out that the gun people can carry their legal items around without being harassed. We should be able to also.



      Delete
    18. Anonymous: the only thing guns were built to do it kill. They were not built for target practice and then someone suddenly decided that they should be for killing. They were designed for war as an advantage in hand to hand combat over swords and other hand held weapons. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. You can argue all you want. It is ignorant to think they are for anything else. Just because YOU shoot targets does not mean their intended use is anything else.

      Delete
    19. "But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a [ni***r] means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the [ni***rs] pay.

      Following this procedure has several advantages. First, it protects people from black criminals. Second, it forces the businesses to really choose where their loyalties are. If [ending segregation] is as important as people claim, then people should be willing to pay for it. God knows, free speech is tremendously expensive. If it weren’t, I’d be reading this on ESPN during prime time, not posting this on Blogger."

      That's what your column really says. That's the sentiment and the bigotry and the deliberate misinterpretation and outright hostile and wilful ignorance on display here. Gun rights are civil rights. To us you look like a charicature of a 1950s segregationist up in arms over black people moving into your neightborhood, because of your idiotic misconceptions and false perception of danger.

      Unless you don't think they're a "real" civil right. The KKK used to say that about the right of blacks to vote too.

      Delete
    20. Why would one compare gun deaths to car deaths in a restaurant?

      Personally I don't make it a point to picnic on the highway.

      Are there more car deaths that happen to people when they're sitting in restaurants than gun deaths?

      I find it hard to believe that there are that many vehicular homicides inside eating establishments, but I guess the numbers don't lie...

      Delete
    21. So you think comparing African-Americans to people carrying assault rifles makes you a logical wizard, and not a racist making a sophist argument, anonymous at 6:15 p.m. Well, when I see a person of any ethnicity in a store, I think there's a person. When I see a person of any ethnicity in a store openly displaying a lethal weapon, I am logically fearful for my freaking life, whether or not an ambiguous Second Amendment exists or not. Spare me your racist claptrap.

      Delete
    22. I'm always amused by the people who compare gun deaths to car deaths as if it proves guns ought to be freely available.

      Let's apply the same standards to guns that we apply to cars: tax them, register them, require users to be licensed, require users to pass written and practical exams, require users to carry liability insurance with proof of insurance and identification whenever they have a gun in their possession. And make the gun owner responsible for any non-legitimate injury that occurs due to the use of his gun.

      Then guns and cars will be on equal footing.

      Delete
    23. Um, it's illegal to drive a car into a restaurant. And nobody in their right would do it, just like nobody in their right mind would carry an assault rifle into a restaurant. I'm not ok with being anywhere near mentally unstable people with guns, especially automatic and semi automatic weapons, and if you're carrying one into a restaurant, it's pretty obvious that you have some serious mental/emotional instability. Or you just have a painfully small penis.

      Delete
    24. Hey, dickwad gun owners. I own several guns. Concealed carry is the law in my state. I see some asshat sauntering in with an AR-15 over their shoulder and a look of manic glee on their face -- like most of the idiots with this martyr complex that they're going to be the one to prove that our rights are somehow diminished when the public wants to be safe -- first, I'm going to call the police, inform them there's an armed individual in the locale, and that I will defend myself.

      With stand your ground laws, you have to fear for your life. If this moron was carrying a shovel, bat, car keys, diagram for a tree house, swimming pool, axe, or chainsaw, I might be in trouble. But no, this idiot will be carrying a deadly weapon. I'll be within my rights to shoot them, because fools who try to provoke this kind of fear response deserve getting shot. Not by police, or federal agents (like their sociopathic martyr-based dreams hope they will be) but by me -- an overweight gamer with a gun and no time for bullshit like parading around like a soldier.

      And to the subnormal asking 'why do you let a cop wander in with a gun exposed?' Because, idiot, I know that they've been trained to the bare minimum of competency, and are going to be held to the law if something happens with that gun.

      Delete
    25. Driving is a privilege. We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It is the second amendment for a reason, could have easily been the first. The framers felt very strongly on free speech and self preservation.

      It's a good thing this gang of hoplaphobes weren't tasked with the revolution to start this great country, we would still be singing God save the queen.

      Sadly, I think somehow that would be OK with this ilk. Happy Independence Day patriots! Keep your powder dry!

      Delete
    26. Guns should be worn by law enforcement in uniform only. End of story.

      Delete
    27. Anonymous gun-nut is full of it. No one is afraid of inanimate objects. That's a very silly position. They are afraid of whackos with guns.

      Delete
    28. So what if guns are "designed to kill"? So were knives, historically. In fact, edged weapons have killed more people over the course of history than any gun ever has. Yet I (and many others) carry folding jack knives, box-cutters, and multi-tools to our workplace every day. How many times have you went to a warehouse/ industrial building and saw an employee with a boxcutter (a.k.a deadly blade meant for killing)? Did you feel threatened then? No? That's because that knife, at least in your eyes, serves said worker a useful purpose. Sure, it can be used to kill someone else, but it is highly unlikely. Same as my target rifles. So what if historically, they were "designed to kill". But they don't. My target rifles, handguns, and hunting rifles are never going to shoot a person, never even hit NEAR a person, ever. That's the way it is, that's the way it's always gonna be. As well, on a side note, I love how when the pro-gun populace brings facts to the table, anti-gunners call said progunners "unreasonable" and "irrational", and when the progunners ask why, the antigunners call them extremists. About that...

      Delete
    29. Ok so if you start running away and don't pay for what you've received when someone comes in with a gun and the owner of the establishment looses their nut what are the chances one of those idiot open carriers will start shooting. Seriously, you're the bad guy at that point in their feeble minds. Think. Cause they aren't!

      Delete
    30. To add on to my previous statement, how many people have knifes in your kitchen? Do they just fly out of your drawers and stab people? Do you ever get urges to kill when you're chopping vegetables? Do you feel like murdering innocent civilians when you slice a steak? No? Now you know how us responsible gun owners feel.

      Delete
    31. Perfect example of voluntary self-delusion from the progressives. You convince yourselves that you are in real danger so that the idea of getting a free meal is not only your entitlement but your only option. At least be honest about your intent here. This is clearly a twisted form of entitled protest. It is twisted because of its leveraged attack on a uninvolved third party (people own these restaurants/businesses by the way.) and it is so clearly a protest because fear is not the motivator here. If it was you wouldn't need to be told to rally in this fashion- it would be instinctual. You are trying to oppose their lawful right to carry and you are getting a free meal by doing so. You are disguising your contempt and selfish response as self preservation.

      Delete
    32. The argument about cars killing more people…. just goes to show there are real idiots in this world. Mindless.

      Delete
    33. Just leave without paying and get arrested for theft... that's a really smart thing to do and sets such a great example.

      Delete
    34. I am not afraid of the inanimate object, i.e., the gun. I am afraid of not knowing the intent of the person carrying it. After all, as the gun rights activist repeatedly claim: "Guns don't kill people, people [with guns] kill people." I would have no problem openly carrying a weapon in public, however, I also understand that uncertainty that others feel, and specifically refrain from making them feel that way.

      Delete
    35. This is another way for anti-gun activist to scare the crap out of ignorant people. When the crap hits the wall who are you going to be behind. Someone running from the fight or the person with the gun and no fear to use it? Knowledge is power to use gun rationally and safely. Who is exempt from being a "Bad" guy, it all in the way it appears. Terrorist to the US are patriots from another country.

      Delete
  2. Love this idea, as long as the gun holder doesn't take it upon himself to shoot a "dine & dash" group because in their warped minds they are stopping a crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to educate yourself on when a gun may be drawn. People skipping out on a bill is not a life threatening situation. He or she will not do anything. People lawfully carrying a firearm aren't police and do not think of themselves as police. Your description would lead to charges being brought against the gun owner.

      Of course there are all the crimes you've committed such as theft when you run out on the bill. Odds are the gun owner will simply pay his or her bill. I guess it's you that will be standing in front of a judge.

      Delete
    2. If the gun-carrier tries to retain the "dine-n-dasher," then that person should immediately call 911 to report a kidnapping/ hostage-taking attempt. People are supposed to try to escape when a person carrying a weapon enters the area.

      Delete
    3. @ angrywebmaster

      Cops have pulled weapons on people who've committed NO crime, ranging from carving a piece of wood with a legal knife, to being deaf. There's no reason to think these people would be any different.

      Delete
    4. true you have not reason to think of the gun carrying people as bad. there is also no evidence they are good either. be it right or wrong for a cop to pull a gun on a deaf person or a person with a pocket knife, my point is these aren't cops carrying assault rifles its citizens. (untrained John Q Public) who you have never met and don't know anything about. The news gives us tons of evidence that people coming into places with assault weapons don't usually want to protect themselves they more often start shooting.

      Delete
    5. Looking at the "responses" I see this nation has been dumbed down miserably and neutered as well. Breeding cowards and misfits. Liberalism is a cancer in this country that needs to be cut out

      Delete
    6. ^It's comments like "Liberalism is a cancer in this country that needs to be cut out" that make me wonder how someone with my belief system could possibly feel safe having people like you carrying firearms...

      Delete
    7. The realing coward is the person with the gun. I am not afraid to walk around with one.

      Delete
    8. Angrywebmaster--you just don't get it, do you? It's the NUT-JOB holding the gun that I'm afraid of. Specifically, it's WHITE people holding guns that I'm afraid of. White people hopped up on their ill-conceived superiority like a drug. Who will stop other people carrying to try and force them into an ID-check. This happened in Georgia very recently. And to be detained by someone for any reason at gunpoint, who is not in law enforcement, is not just a hostage attempt, it's terrorism.

      Delete
    9. That wasn't racist at all..... ever heard of civil arrest. That is where a citizen detains a criminal caught in the act until police arrive.

      Delete
    10. Wow Eagle Club Eric. Tell me, is there any reason why minorities can't be law abiding gun owners? You have some ill conceived idea that the Second Amendment only applies to White Guys, which you're sadly mistaken. Tell me....what is preventing a minority from legally obtaining a gun at a gun store? What's stopping them from exercising their Second Amendment Right to bear arms? Your mentality that its a white only thing reenforces the idea that minorities don't have that same right, which they do, its just that they fail to exercise it like whites do. If you want to get down to statistics: Do you feel more trustworthy with gangs that use guns in their gang warfare or individual criminals that use guns daily in their crimes against innocent people? What is it about the white man who exercises a constitutional right that scares you? Christ Almighty, people today are absolutely ignorant sheeple when it comes to their rights.....

      Delete
    11. Yes, there is an excellent reason why minorities "can't be law abiding gun owners".

      The reason is quite simple: If they walk into a public place carrying a weapon, in most areas of the country, they will most likely be shot.

      Delete
    12. In a country where the mass slaughter of people minding their own business is common place, this is the only logical thing to do. I'd rather explain to a judge why I skipped out paying a bill then explain to my offspring why their Mom is dead.

      Delete
    13. I wish people would stop giving any gun owner who doesn't share their exact beliefs the blanket statement "gun nut". Few, if any pro-gun people here are calling anti-gunners names and blanket statements. Yet every time a pro-gun person attempts to bring facts to the table, everyone just says, "go away gun-nut". Now I know there are a few legit crazy people out there who own guns, but since when does the minority outweigh the majority? Because there are a few crazy anti-gunners out there, should all us pro-gun people start using offensive blanket statements to describe you? No, because not every anti-gunner is like that. I own guns. Does that make me a gun nut? It's time to stop the name-calling and insults, and bring actual facts on to the table. A few pro-gun people have already tried, only to get told that they "just aren't seeing the big picture", "you're being irrational/ unreasonable", and even worse, stuff like "shot any innocent civilians yet, gun nut?". You call gun owners extremists, yet you are acting just as extreme, if in fact more extreme, then them. Grow up, people.

      Delete
  3. Gun people aren't "warped".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Statistics would argue that your statement is incorrect.

      Delete
    2. Statistics historically and numerically A) inherently cannot formulate argument, a type of mathematics is not opinion forming, but more importantly, B) statistics are always able to be interpreted to support any argument by modifying the information input into the calculation. Essentially, you just said nothing at all.

      I must point here to the accepted reality that claiming most anything as infinitely true is highly improbable. The author loses credibility by a) advocating for criminal behavior (you can leave without paying, but are still criminally liable even though you may have been in fear) and b) by making unsupported universal claims about all or even a large subset of gun owners. Probabilities analysis would not support your chances of that being an accurate statement.

      Now, as a psychology professional, I must also point out that every single person in america is able to be classified with a psychiatric diagnosis under the DSM IV. Does that make people warped, or the same?

      Does any strong viewpoint without factual statistical analysis of multiple aspects including peer review and repeatability merit being a fact? If you can't prove it, or disprove it, then is it true?

      Im a gun owner and I have open carried, but I do not prefer to. I'm an open holster protestor, but prefer to keep my sidearm concealed. That is my choice. It is true through the lens of history however, that a right not exercised is a right lost.

      Truly, let's ask this. You see a person in uniform wearing a gun and you don't run away, but you know you can buy police uniforms at Goodwill, uniform suppliers like Blumenthal's, and online. You assume because they look like cops they are good guys, but what if they are just using the uniform as camouflage? Do you run away from all people with guns, or just the ones that didn't reach you via 911?

      You see, in the eyes of the constitution, the law, and most people, you assess risk based on feeling and the actions of others. It is your responsibility to hone that instinct, but you live fallaciously if you believe that seeing is always believing and that the world is inherently safe.

      Truthfully, believing the world is safe and acting that way is why predators succeed in finding victims readily, and why more people fall down from height and die every single year, than die from gun violence (you can fact check that at CDC.gov nij.gov and the FBI ucr)

      Delete
    3. Gun nuts are so afraid of facts, they got the CDC banned from studying gun violence for 17 years. (I'm pro-gun, anti-nut)
      The "argument" that because you can't disprove a crazy theory (that every cop is actually a criminal in a stolen/bought uniform), you shouldn't worry about things that are obviously threatening, is just stupid.

      Delete
    4. We know that "gun people" aren't warped. Silly, it's those stupid guns that are warped!! They keep killing people.

      Delete
    5. I was reading with interest until your example with police imposters.
      How many mass shootings have been perpetuated by officer imposters? How many have been carried out by a bad regular dressed guy with a gun?
      How does the civilian tell the difference?

      I've watched open carry protestors bully and intimidate with their weapons. I've seen them chase down bystanders, harass people who disagree with them.

      When pressed for who exhibits sane behavior it is not the company you keep.

      If I saw an armed group walk into a place I was, I would leave immediately. Yes, I would in theory break the law before bullets fly.

      You see, the possibility of bullets flying was seriously decreased when no one carried arms with clips into public places.

      I wouldn't have my family anywhere near you because, like the author said, I don't know you or what your mindset is.

      Delete
    6. Gun people are nuts.

      Delete
    7. If I see a person in a uniform with a gun out, I will leave if at all possible.

      Delete
    8. Brievick in Finland... One of the most lethal mass killer of all time.
      An I agree, if a group of armed people enter a place, even if they're the good guys, what if a bad guy comes next or someone they mistake for a bad guy?) ? I wouldn't want to be in the middle of that.

      Delete
    9. If a person walks into a restaurant, sits down to eat, and slowly pulls their steak knife from their napkin do you get up and leave? Statistically more people are stabbed yearly than shot in America. As for the fake policeman statement it is just pointing out that anyone can be dangerous. Do not live in fear of what might happen because the more you fear something the more likely your subconscious is going to make it happen or you will waste your life running from it. Be prepared for eventualities and possibilities. As for the uniformed gun toting policeman, police shoot and kill more people each year than non police. But the police killings are "justifiable homicides" so they are not reported to the public as much. Since 9 11 there have been more americans killed in the U.S. by police than there have been in Iraq.

      Delete
    10. My "subconscious is going to make it happen"? Just like with rape, right? The problem isn't lax gun regulation, or the gun nuts, or for that matter the guy who said she was just "asking for it" -- it's those poor fools who can't control their subconscious thoughts. Now I get it!

      Delete
    11. In the case of gun nuts, ignorance is obvious -- and obviously bliss. FYI Anonymous, the mass shooting/killing committed by Anders Breivik occurred in Norway, not Finland. It's clear from the comments here that many gun lovers have lots of free time. Not sure that being so devoted to the church of the firearm is the ideal way to use that free time. It's probably too much to ask, but maybe some rational thought -- and thought for your fellow human beings -- would be more productive and constructive.

      Delete
  4. Agreed that open carry demos feel uncomfortable but they usually target businesses as public theater for a political reason. If you can only respond by stealing from the business you are (1) missing the message that gun owners are not second-class citizens to be discriminated against (2) helping reinforce a corporate policy of discrimination that you might not tolerate if it was targeting some other category of person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you bring your gun into a restaurant or theater, I am leaving because I don't know whether you are dangerous or not.

      Delete
    2. I'm *pretty sure* you're the one missing the message.

      Gun owners are not, currently, second-class citizens. This proposal seeks to make open-carry gun activitists into second-class citizens, and I hope it succeeds.

      Delete
    3. This isn't about "gun owners". I own guns. This is about irresponsible activity with firearms. If I see you walk into a restaurant with a firearm I'm not going worry about the food or the bill, I'm going to take you out.

      Delete
    4. With various cases regarding stand your ground and whatnot and these morons walked into a restaurant I was in...if i actually felt my life or my family's was threatened, I could pull my concealed firearm and shoot every single one of them with little or no legal retribution.

      How would i be able to understand the difference between a responsible gun owner with an assault rifle coming into the place of business that I'm in and the guy who is about to go on a homicidal rampage? "Oh! You can tell! They're being responsible!"

      Yeah that makes sense. These idiots will keep doing their demonstrations until someone puts a bullet in one of their skulls.

      Delete
    5. "This isn't about "gun owners". I own guns. This is about irresponsible activity with firearms. If I see you walk into a restaurant with a firearm I'm not going worry about the food or the bill, I'm going to take you out."

      And you have just committed a crime. Now as to "Taking out the person carrying" how are you going to do that? Pull your own gun and just open fire? Stab them with a knife? When the police start questioning you, they will ask what led you to think you were at risk. Was the person you "took out" brandishing the firearm? Was he or she pointing it at you? No? It was slung over their shoulder? Say hello to your new buddy, Rocky who thinks you have "A purty mouth."

      Delete
    6. "How would i be able to understand the difference between a responsible gun owner with an assault rifle coming into the place of business that I'm in and the guy who is about to go on a homicidal rampage? "Oh! You can tell! They're being responsible!"
      --------------------
      If you shot someone because you "felt" threatened by a gun carrying person, expect to serve jail time. Conceal Carry isn't an open license to target shoot people because you disagree with them or their Constitutional right to carry. Most Stand Your Ground laws make it clear that your life must be in danger. Someone open carrying a gun isn't a threat or a situation in which your life is in danger.

      Get real!

      Delete
    7. Zoe, your intent to make gun owners second class citizens is deplorable. How dare you take away a person's rights? I would never wish any rights bestowed upon you by our Constitution to be with held from you. You just spoke what the true intent of Moms Demand Action is and you have lost all of my respect.I was supporting MDA up to this point and now that you have admitted that your real intent is to make a group of Americans second class citizens is digusting and your organization has lost my support. You Zoe are the one all Americans should fear, not the gun owners but the tyrant who wants to take away an American's rights and make them a second class citizen. i screen shoted your admission and have posted it in as many places as I can. Above all else I support America and its Constitution.

      Delete
  5. Advocate stealing because you are intolerant. Sounds legit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is intolerant? Leave your gun home. Locked up. You don't seem to want to tolerate my safety from you.

      Delete
    2. No, actually, they propose that YOU pay for my meal. I am NOT intolerant, I have the RIGHT to feel safe in a restaurant, store, or theater. One of the few reasons to feel good about living in PA is that, even though we also have open carry gun laws, any business can deny service and remove people who are openly carrying a fire arm (as a person who has worked retail in the past - I love the fact that I could be SAFE in my workplace -- that someone UNKNOWN to me would not shoot me, or rob the business that employs me and writes my paycheck).

      Delete
    3. Interesting. What part of the Constitution deals with your feelings?

      Delete
    4. The laws of every state prohibit you from intentionally putting me in fear of my physical safety. It"s called assault and it's a crime.

      Delete
    5. "The laws of every state prohibit you from intentionally putting me in fear of my physical safety."

      This is subjective and it's bullshit. Stop watching Law & Order.

      "It's called assault"

      It's not, actually.

      "and it's a crime"

      0 for 3. Keep at it. Surely this shows you're educated enough to talk about this subject.

      Delete
    6. How you feel is pointless. Here's a little out of the box thinking: When a person with a firearm comes in, there are two possibilities. A: They want to eat. B: They want to shoot the hell out of everyone. Now then, at this point, you either walk away, or have the manager kick the person out to make you feel "safe", or nothing is done. Several possibilities: 1: You just stole food, as you didn't pay but the gun owner ate, payed, and left peacefully. Your bigotry is appreciated, have fun in court. 2: You leave, guy shoots up the store, now the store has bigger problems. You still stole. But you're alive, gratz. 3: Store owner attempts to throw the person out. He... A) Walks out, as he has no criminal intent but respects the store owner, but in the end, a law abiding citizen was denied entry into a public place and was denied a service rendered by a private company because of FEAR. (I hesitate to bring up the black civil rights thing, but... while obviously black people and gun holders are different, history should make it clear that deciding civil rights disputes based on fear is a bad idea.) B) Isn't told by the manager to leave and it turns out they're here to shoot the store up so they do.

      Now let's consider these options. Which one is the best outcome? The one where you don't leave and pay, and allow the gun owner to eat, which is MOST LIKELY what they want to do. And look at it again. Real long and hard. Consider you this: There's a store. I have a gun. I want to shoot it up. Oh look they won't let me in. Do I give a fuck? Hell no I'm about to commit a crime!

      Anti-gun laws don't save people... People who commit crimes using fire arms won't follow your gun laws, but what the gun laws WILL do is turn society into a place where people with no criminal intent are discriminated against and feared because of a vast minority of people, and all the while criminals will STILL kill people, and they will STILL use guns. And knives. And cars. And crowbars. Chainsaws. A shoe. A toy. What an item was made for doesn't matter when it is used with criminal intent. the idea that anyone with a gun is bad because guns were made for war is stupid... yeah, they're great at killing people. People are a WHOLE lot better at killing each other.

      Fear shouldn't decide laws. Specifically, YOUR fear shouldn't decide where a specific demographic is allowed to go purely because you have an unfounded fear of them. An unfounded fear is a fear without evidence to base it off. This person, who you've never met, will most likely not kill you. You don't know their criminal history or their intentions. No evidence is provided to indicate they want to kill people. But you assume they will and so decide to deny them something you are provided based NOT on an arrest-able/detain-able offense, but because you're afraid of them for holding a gun...

      Delete
    7. Kegan, you are right on the money, brother.

      No silly Gun Free Zone sign will ever stop a murderer.

      Also, I've never seen n instance, when a person, that looked liked common OCer all of a sudden gone nuts and started shooting people. Not a sinhle one. I'd agree, though, that rifle OC was never a mainstream, but if it's it just strapped behing the back, then what is there to worry about? Now, morons walking into establishments with their rifles low ready is slightly different story. I'm not sure I'm in position to judge anyone, that would considered them an imminent threat and act accordingly.

      Delete
    8. Assault

      DEFINITION

      1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.

      2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.

      3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.

      Anonymous @ 8:13pm, it looks like you owe someone an apology.

      Assault, defined | LII / Legal Information Institute | Cornell University http://j.mp/1n1sQwu

      Delete
  6. I walk down a sidewalk every day trusting that the guy driving down the street isn't going to turn his steering wheel and run me over with 2 tons of steel.

    You guys are all just talking about FEELING safe. You are no less safe with someone open carrying in that restaurant than you are with someone concealed carrying in that restaurant. But you don't FEEL safe because you just don't feel comfortable around guns and I think that is part of what these guys are trying to d.

    The problem is that these guys think they are engaging in exposure therapy when they are actually engaging in shock therapy. So they get a negative reaction from people who have an irrational fear of guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or a RATIONAL fear of nuts w/guns.

      Delete
    2. Irrational?
      Can a car KILL 40 people in less and a couple minutes? Can you drive one into a dark theatre or sandwich shop and take out 20 people?

      No. The fear is not irrational. Irrational is not looking at places that have 40 times fewer deaths and strong gun control laws. Why aren't we emulating what works?

      Delete
    3. Irrational fear of guns, in restaurants, in Texas? Do you think the 43 people shot in Luby's restaurant in Killeen Texas in 1991 a man with a gun would have left if they'd had the chance? Would they have been irrational? Should they have worried about stiffing the house for the price of a cheeseburger if they'd had a chance to get out alive?
      Of course not.
      If I'm ever in a restaurant, or coffee shop, or convenience store, when either one person or many people walk in with those rifles strapped across their chests and their fingers on the trigger-guard like the woman in the picture, you'd best believe I'm going to leave. Instantly. Without paying, without saying "sorry", without attempting to discuss anything with the gun-wielders or the store staff. Just Gone Daddy Gone without looking back, and if someone wants to put me in jail for it so much the better. I'll take it to court, and the media, and anyone else who'll listen.
      There's a mass-shooting every WEEK in this country, and if you think I'm going to worry about the correctness of walking out on my bill when somebody walks in carrying rifles, you're as crazy and stupid as everyone says you are.

      Delete
    4. "Irrational?
      Can a car KILL 40 people in less and a couple minutes? Can you drive one into a dark theatre or sandwich shop and take out 20 people? "
      Yes, and its happened. Not all the time, and I dont want to sound ignorant, but its happened to sandwich shops, bike races, parades, etc. I'm against the open carry folks with the rifles wandering Walmart or your local Applebee's. But I'm against it for the reasons stated above- its shock therapy and is going to end badly.
      What I really despise is how both sides on this are black and white. "Gun nuts are illogical", "anti gunners are whiners"...Both sides speak in absolutes. I carry concealed, occassionally as dictated by MY feeling of safety, depending on where I'm going to be at what time due to my job. This is probably less than 5% of the time. Does that make me illogical, carrying in an area where it is proven by the type and regularity of violence by non-law abiding citizens happens?
      "Gun Nuts are so afraid of facts they got the CDC banned from studying gun violence for 17 years"
      Aźtge CDC has no stellar record on good studies, just look at thr AIDS outbreak in the 80s for that.And anti-gun nuts have used skewed figures and rigged tests for decades (the experiment with the college classroom shooter where the "bad guy" always knew exactly who the armed "student" was and where they were seated) show both sides are wrong in how they portray the other.
      Maybe I'm one of the small minority that thinks there can be a happy medium, that I can legally own a gun and am willing to jump through hoops and piles of paperwork and background checks to get one. But when, and only when, Feinstein, Clinton and Bloomberg guarantee me that there will be NO more shooting deaths, that gun violence will disappear completely if I turn mine in will I consider it. In over 3decades of ownership, Ive never aimed at another person or considered pulling my weapon. I dont own "assault weapons". I'm not illogical. But Diane Feinsteins own personal security team had applied for permits to carry full auto weapons, machine guns, and most likely were approved. Doesnt that reek of hypocrisy?
      T

      Delete
    5. Dammit, NO ONE wants you to turn in your weapon. That isn't what Bloomberg or Feinstein or any of the gun extremists' bogeymen support. Universal background checks. Close the online and gun show loopholes. Store your guns locked safely away from children and teens. No open carry in retail establishments which 99 times out of 100 is done by people with little or no training with inferiority complexes and chips on their shoulders. Exactly who I'd feel unsafe around. We are not anti-gun. We are anti idiots with guns - I.e., these people. Normal gun owners don't feel the need to go waving their private parts - er, rifles - in other people's faces.

      Delete
    6. http://coldservings.livejournal.com/51731.html suggests, Anon@10:30am, that you need to pay more attention to those who hold the political views you apparently support and what they actually say. Not only do those who oppose private firearm ownership say that owners should turn in their weapons, but that they should be confiscated, and the owners should give up basic rights like the 4th Amendment (regarding search and seizure) or the right to privacy (as per various US Supreme Court rulings).

      Delete
  7. one other thing I would like to point out. While it may make you uneasy when you first see someone open carrying. Keep in mind telling that person who is not doing anything wrong they are not allowed in a store or restaurant has happened before and it was ruled discrimination by the Supreme Court. You can I hope figure this one out, but just in case For decades we had Good people who did nothing wrong refused services in our country based on a misguided belief that they were some how dirty or less than human.

    They could not sleep in hotels for fear we would then catch something from sleeping in the same beds, They could not eat in the same rooms or restaurants either, use the same bathrooms. As a result they were treated as second class citizens in their own country. Yes some Whites thought all black men would come in the stores and rape the nice white lady in the corner like the bull ape they were right? that by eating or drinking with the same cups and plates you would catch that nasty set of diseases that all blacks had to have right? oh lets not forget that you did not want them playing with your kids or learning together either. So for your feeling of safety, the fear you might be caught in a gun battle between crazies with guns trying to kill you and a citizen taking the right to protect them and there loved ones into their own hands lets go back to the decades of discrimination it is the right thing to do. After all what does it matter if a person is not doing anything wrong. if you feel bad with them near you they should be forced to get out of your sight!!! That is what this article and the OP is actually telling us to do. I will not bend to anyone's fear-mongering to push their political agenda. I sure am not going to teach my children to break the law. I hope none of you will either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Distrusting nuts w/guns is NOTHING like racism (& no, everyone reading this did NOT have the same racist feelings you express).

      Delete
    2. Normally I wouldn't dignify this logical fallacy with a response but here's the fundamental differences. 1. A person's skin color doesn't inherently make them dangerous. A weapon capable of killing 40 people in a second does. 2. You can't get around racism by leaving your skin color at home. A gun owner can get around this supposed "discrimination" by leaving their weapon at home. I do not know why this is so difficult to grasp.

      Delete
    3. Being black is not the same as voluntarily carrying a lethal weapon. If you can't tell the difference, then I'd say you really ARE twisted.

      Delete
    4. Uhhhhh -- good luck with that rationale. I live in New York, which -- for now anyway -- doesn't have these psychos open carrying. Were someone to walk in Jean Georges with visible weaponry, you bet your ass I would hightail it in a cab back downtown in a flash. You can call it bigotry, and you can call it whatever you want. I'm GONE.

      Delete
    5. I agree with gun nuts being turned away from business establishments!

      Why, every time I see a black man, I hold my baby in fear that he might rob me or commit a crime. Statistically, black males are more likely to commit a crime than anyone else. Are you saying that I should continue being afraid?! That I don't have a RIGHT to feel safe? GET BLACK MEN AND GUNS OUT OF OUR ESTABLISHMENTS! WE HAVE A RIGHT TO FEEL SAFE!

      Delete
  8. After reading what precedes, am I glad I live in Canada where all I have to fear is being run over by 2 tons of steel. I believe : 1. Hunting guns ONLY should be permitted - what does one need other guns for?... 2. They should be locked up with ammo and firing pin or any other part making it functional in other locations. Anyone carrying a gun openly in my mind is simply acting as a bully / intimidation - being a teacher, this is one thing I work hard against in my work environment. We don't let kids in school behave in this way, why should adults do as such? My name is Jean-Jacques Reigneau and I live in Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada. I am not anonymous. It will show up as my wife's name for some reason I ignore but it is not her writing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Merci bien/ Thank you.

      Delete
    2. Well said. And look at Canada's gun fatalities vs the U.S. in 2013 were 173 to the U.S. 9,146.

      Delete
  9. If they are doing so legally the best thing to do is go on with your business & leave them alone.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If would think businesses could firearms on their premisees as.they can restrict smoking and chainsaws. Perhaps a supreme court case will eventually result and a slightly more progressive and rational bench will implement the well maintained militia clause as intended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Progressive, ie, totalitarian.
      Now a few things. Whether or not a business can request that you leave the store or leave your gun outside, (Locked in your car for instances), varies from state to state.
      As to the second amendment that you are misconstruing, they said what they meant. They intended that the People have the means, if required, to remove a government that has gone out of control. Care to guess the last time this happened?

      1946 in Athens Tennessee. Google it.

      Then we have the state of New Hampshire which has in it's constitution, Article 10:

      [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

      Think about when the Second amendment was written. We had just rebelled against the lawful authority of King George the 3rd. They knew that it was possible, even likely that the need for the people to remove by force, the sitting government might happen again. (Preferred method is the ballot)

      Delete
    2. Since we're declaring what the founders intended, they INTENDED that the people be armed in place of a standing army. They INTENDED that there BE no army, or navy to speak of, just citizens as part of a WELL REGULATED militia.

      They intended that every citizen be equipped with the most high-tech firearms available at the time - single-shot muzzle loaders.

      They intended to REGULATE the ownership of those firearms, and keep track of what people were doing with them.

      They did NOT intend for people to own a single weapon capable of killing fifty people before reloading was necessary.

      They did NOT intend for people to be dragging around loaded cannons with lit tapers wherever they went.

      Open carry is not the same as "non-resistance", unless you're actively planning on shooting cops who stop you.

      Think about when the Second Amendment was written. We had no standing army. We had just rebelled against the lawful authority of King George the 3rd, largely because France helped us, and because England didn't care enough to commit their full military power to holding on to the American colonies.

      They knew that we didn't have a standing army of any kind, and that we had lost the protection, such as it was, of the British Empire.

      They knew that we were in the process of taking large amounts of land from the people who were living here when the colonies arrived, and they were perfectly willing to kill people to defend themselves.

      They knew that there was no standing law enforcement or system of defense against criminals, against native Americans, or against any other possible aggressor.

      They knew that the most lethal weapon that could be carried at the time was a rifle that had to be reloaded after every bullet fired, and that was only slightly better than a bow.

      And yes, they thought that perhaps the government would need to be overthrown, and they knew that the government had exactly the same weapons as the civilian population.

      Your description is so simplistic as to be idiotic.

      Delete
    3. In the period, the definition of "REGULATED" was "trained and equipped".

      Hence in common parlance today, the literal translation would be "A well trained and equipped Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Delete
    4. And your evidence that that was the only definition of "regulated" in use at the time would be?

      Delete
    5. Historian here:

      The evidence points to 'regulated' meaning that all citizens would muster from time to time, that we would have training on using what ever weapon we use and that we would in fact have units.

      We would all be citizen soldiers. My personal belief is that they meant each militia unit to be under the control of the individual States. I further believe that the founding fathers meant that there would be a responsibility involved in the second amendment.

      In all honesty I think the founding fathers felt that all freedoms came with responsibilities.

      If you want to see a strong militia system look to Finland or Switzerland, in both countries all men serve in some capacity (objectors can work in non fighting rolls) and continue to serve until they are 55. These men keep weapons in the home.

      Delete
    6. Historian here:

      The founding fathers intended a militia that would muster for training and emergencies. That these militias would act as units with Officers. We would all be citizen soldiers.

      The 'Well regulated" part of the second amendment gives us the responsibility that the freedom to to keep and bear arms requires.

      I believe, from reading personal writings, that the founding fathers felt that all freedoms required responsibility.

      If you wish to see an example of the sort of militia I believe the founders intended look to places like Finland or Switzerland, both counties require service of some kind and also require the people who serve keep the gun they are given in service.

      Delete
  11. Why start something, if it is legal leave them along & go about you business?

    ReplyDelete
  12. statistics show that gun owners are far more likely to be killed with a gun than none gun owners. Guns at home more often than not cause a loved one's death via accident or domestic arguments. The instances of protecting one's self with a gun from a criminal or home invader is practically nill. The justification to own a gun for protection isn't supported by facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That so called statistic has been proven wrong many times. twice in the last year within several blocks of where I live in fact.

      Delete
    2. of course your anecdotal evidence overrides large statistical studies which is why no one listens to you.

      Delete
  13. I would do the same with cops. They're murdering more Anerican's than these gun nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now, for a reality check on open carry of long guns. (Rifles and shotguns) While it mat be legal to do so, it isn't something I would do for several reasons. Those reasons are:

    Rifles are awkward. Unless you have gone through the checks for what is called an SBR, (Short Barreled Rifle), and paid the tax, you are carrying something that is 2+ feet in length.

    This rifle will weigh in at around 8 pounds or more.

    You will probably have it slung crosswise over you shoulder and across your back. If the need to use it in a lawful shooting, such as stopping someone from committing murder, you are going to have to unsling it, bring it to your shoulder and draw a bead on the criminal in question.
    This will take several seconds at best.

    Then you are going to have to check what is behind the criminal. Why?

    You are carrying a rifle that is loaded with high velocity cartridges that WILL go though the criminal, and probably the wall behind the criminal. If you have to shoot, you are also responsible for where those bullets go.

    Now someone who is carrying a pistol is generally carrying something that weighs in at 2 pounds or less. It may be concealed or in an open carry holster on that person's belt. The cartridges are probably hollowpoints designed to minimize the chances of going through the criminal.

    If a person has to use a pistol in a lawful shooting, they will have it out and aimed in 1-2 seconds. (Responsible gun carriers practice this and think about what they will do if forced to by the situation) That person will also be cognizant of of what is behind the criminal, but won't be worried about the bullet going into the next county.

    And here a are a few statistics on lawful shootings. When a police officer is forced to fire, he or she has a tendency to empty the magazine. (Up to 18 shots depending on the gun) They are also more likely to hit an innocent bystander. (See some of the NYPD shootings of late)
    The citizens average about 2 shots fired and both rounds hit the criminal, NOT bystanders. Remember, the citizen is liable for where those bullets end up.

    There are several reasons for the above stats. First, citizens tend to go to the range and practice a lot more then police officers. It isn't uncommon for some officers to only fire 100-200 practice rounds a year. Your average citizen gun owner is probably firing that a week. Practice makes perfect.

    Finally, citizens who carry never want to draw their guns. The claim that gun owners are "Looking to shoot people" is laughable. A gun owner who is lawfully carrying only wants to draw his gun to put it away or to shoot paper targets, (And the occasional watermelon) While they are prepared to defend themselves and others, including all the victim wannabes here, not one of them wants to be in that position. They have just accepted the responsibility you have chosen to forgo.

    Being willing to protect themselves, their families and others from evil doers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i think you confuse the fact that you (apparently) being a knowledgeable and skilled owner of a gun somehow implies that all these other carrying civilians are just like you. Seems like a large amount of unsupportable assumptions and therefore not likely true. frankly i care less about their marksmanship and more about their mental makeup. the people screaming the loudest on every forum about their right to wave these weapons (which they thill in detailing number and capacity) in our faces do not come across as mentally balanced or competent. Knowing they practice every day (is that so they can hit the bad guy without endangering bystanders or so they can pick off every little kindergartners head) does not really help your point.

      Delete
  15. Totally independent of the issue of privately owned firearms and the public bearing of same, as someone who has worked retail for much of his employed history, I have to thank you for suggesting that people just leave their stuff lying out and walk off.

    No, really. I soooooo enjoyed having to put entire shopping carts full of goods back on the shelves because some dingbat didn't pay attention to the location of their wallet or checkbook, instead of doing things like, say, the job I was hired to do.

    On the other hand, I'd kinda not mind being the proverbial fly on the wall when someone walks out of a restaurant without having paid for their food, which depending on the specific circumstances could get counted as theft, simply because of their hoplophobia.

    (Alright, so I did kind of dip into gun politics a bit. So sue me. :P )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you read the article right? getting one's self and family away from a potential mass shooting is just silly compared to you doing the work you get paid to do. and interestingly, if armed and feeling threatened, I can literally shoot and kill one of these losers and not only not go to jail, but make use of money from organizations set up to fund this in my legal defence ... but I can go to jail for not paying $20 bucks for a partially eaten meal when we flee. Murica!!!!!

      Delete
  16. PERHAPS STARTING WITH ALL CAPS MIGHT GET THE SLOW WITTED AMONG YOU TO PAY ATTENTION. you can not kill someone for whatever reason and just walk away. you will always be changed. i think that self defense is a wonderful reason to shoot someone, but i repeat, you will not be the same again ever. if you are at the wrong end of a gun or the mercy of someone has killed before, you will changed then too. by all means defend yourselves, your families and children, it is the right thing to do. but the remains of a bloody mess are are still a mess and people will be heartbroken and some will never heal. so please don't blather on about philosophy etc life is infinitely valuable and while i would kill a bad person to save a good person, i know this too- THE DESTRUCTION OF ANYONE IS A LOSS TO EVERYONE..

    ReplyDelete
  17. The author of this article is transparently dull and the attempt at being philosophical weak at best.why would the gun people pay for the sheeple that fled?baaaaa baaaaa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the gun people will not pay. accepting the consequences of their actions is not one of their strong suits. the restaurant will lose money (and if everyone leaves, could be a fair amount). The restaurant is unlikely to recoup their losses. If one can kill someone when threatened (stand your ground), one can certainly flee _without_ killing anyone. Said restaurant will then bar these losers from entering again. Everyone wins.

      Delete
  18. Funny how the antis are concerned about "safety" when they risk innocent lives by cresting the shooting galleries known as gun free zones.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Some of the things this article suggests are illegal. These crimes could get people arrested, land them in court, paying hefty fines or worse jail.
    An irrational fear of others engaged in a lawful activity is not a criminal defense. I fear the author of this story suffers from Joe Biden syndrome, which would be giving advice which results in criminal conduct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you miss the point. most people think avoiding a mass killing is worth a misdemeanor or two. any state with stand your ground will have a hard time allowing someone in fear to kill another human, but hold people accountable for the price of a meal if they flee a potential mass shooting. it is a media circus waiting to happen.

      Delete
    2. As a shooting range monitor, the people in the above picture are handling their firearms in a very irresponsible manner. Unless you are in "the box", a firearm should never have a magazine in place and the bolt closed. If people want to claim they are responsible gun owners, they need to behave as such. If any of these people showed up at our firing range, they would be turned away because they have already demonstrated unsafe firearm handling.

      Delete
  20. What are these guns that kill 40-50 people per second? You would be hard pressed to kill half of that with a Minigun even if they stood in a line

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sad Day when Americans dont trust each other. All of you narcissistic people are ruining our country. Add in oppressed immigrants that see firearms as a means to control others and gun owners become threats instead of fellow Americans.

    All of you need to get your head out of your asses on both sides. This is America and we don't put up with nonsense be it homegrown or foreign.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If an armed group entered a restaurant, I would leave. I would call the restaurant later and pay for my food over the phone. Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless you have a previous agreement (written in particular, "he/she said" rarely bears legal scrutiny) with the manager of the restaurant, that's still illegal.

      But by all means, feel free to try to justify to the judge your felonious actions with unwarranted paranoia and hoplophobia. Given the loads on many courts, I'm sure they could use the laugh.

      Delete
    2. Perfect solution, walk out, pay later. I was going to post if no one thought of that solution. Sure carry your gun out in the open, loaded and ready to go. I'll find somewhere else to be as you've obviously assessed a dangerous situation at the burger king and decided to come locked and loaded. I'll call them back, pay for my whopper later and never go back again. If you feel the need to have your gun out waving it in my face I'm sorry if I'm less than trusting of your peaceful nature.

      Delete
    3. Nohbody ... seriously. Any court that convicted innocent parents of protecting their children by not paying the price of a meal given the potential of a mass shooting will bring on national ridicule. No one will go to jail. Many will donate to help cover a fine while embarrassing the the stupid state legislature the whole time.

      Delete
    4. by these people. They are simply carrying long guns to argue the point that they want open carry for handguns, which many states already have. If som crazy person wants to run into a restaurant and start shooting they are going to do it and you have no control over the situation (unless you are armed of course) a bunch of goobers exercising a legal right to carry long guns while they grocery shop or order coffees is not a sufficient reason for you to commit a crime.

      Delete
  23. YES

    do this when police come in with guns, too! After all, you can't determine their intent either, can you?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I would treat people openly holding a gun in the same manner as I'd treat people openly holding their penis. By leaving.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously. It's simple and much less likely to end in puddles of bodily fluids.

      Delete
  25. "Dammit, NO ONE wants you to turn in your weapon. That isn't what Bloomberg or Feinstein or any of the gun extremists' bogeymen support. Universal background checks. Close the online and gun show loopholes. Store your guns locked safely away from children and teens. No open carry in retail establishments ...."

    So we can have guns but not access to them? Seems legit...quit nambypambying and just come out and say that you do not trust a fellow upstanding citizen with a gun that isn't working for the government, but don't insult us with some mealy-mouthed acquiescence to our constitutional right to own and carry firearms. Just be plain-spoken about your intent and your fear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are already background checks in place. In order to by a regulated firearm fom a dealer you must go through the background check. That include pistols. It is possible for a citizen to sell a gun to another citizen but the seller can not be conducting business (I.e. selling multiple guns) there is no evidence (despite what nanny Bloomberg says, that these firearms are used in any crimes.

      Criminals on the other hand simply go down to the dealer on the street and buy what they want from the black market. No background check needed.

      Delete
    2. Jim, do you have factual evidence to support those claims? They seem to contradict factual information I've previously read.

      Delete
  26. Great way to deal with this phenomenon if you're a person who is frightened by such a situation.
    Now, how do you feel about cops with guns?

    ReplyDelete
  27. This dine & dash theory is implausible. You can't use food stamps at McDonald's.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If a psychologist walked into a public place of business with an AK-47 openly displayed, I would shoot to kill, thinking I was in "Ft. Hood revisited." Most open carry advocates, like psychologists, have major issues.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Tell you what, I'm a U.S. Army Veteran. I served in Iraq on multiple deployments. I've seen people blow themselves up in a crowd. You people are so asinine. Go live in Africa or South America and tell me about violence, where people are dragged from their homes and executed because they're Christian, where dozens of people are kidnapped, women for sex, men to kill. A british soldier had his head cut off in the street while people watched. So many of you are simply dazed and confused, while others try to reason with them. I have carried concealed for 10 years, in and out of the Army, I go into banks, I brought it to school, I wear my firearm 90% of the time I'm awake. I swore an oath, that doesn't just go away because I don't wear the uniform anymore. Demonstrators who open carry rifles at Chili's and Chipotle are making themselves look foolish, while bringing negative attention to themselves. I don't ever let people know I'm carrying, and that's my choice. The reason they open carry in restaurants is because they're attention whores. The people who are really trying to change the laws write their Senators, sign petitions and don't bring negative attention to the cause. For the people who don't like guns, don't want guns in our society, and don't want me to carry guns, there's open seats on flights to England, Germany, and Australia daily. Additionally, don't look at me to interject or save you or your your family if someone tries to kill you or them. It always comes down to that choice, you don't want to be responsible to protect yourself or your family, you want someone else to do it, a cop right? I've been to combat, I shoot more, and am more proficient with firearms than most Police officers. If I could stop someone like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or any other mass shooter, I would try. However, if I knew you were a piece of shit that supports gun control, and calls firearms owners "gun nuts", I wouldn't piss in your mouth if your teeth were on fire.


    To end this rant, and to sum up what I believe is the deciding philosophy of this debate: Scared people are going to be scared. Stupid people are going to be stupid. Senseless people will be senseless. Debate will never change any of these people, or their views, because the people themselves are flawed. I have a right to protect myself and my family, you don't get to tell me when, how, or in what manner I'm "allowed" to do so. For the people who call firearms owners pussies or gun nuts, I'll do me, you do you. Hopefully you never need my help or defense, because I wouldn't piss in your mouth if your teeth were on fire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. whoa dude. you started out making sense and then went full crazy. i'd get that looked at. ignoring your predilection for pissing in people's mouths, you do realize there is a broad continuum on the subject of gun control. As far as flights available elsewhere, what makes you think you arent the one who should leave. Not just your country bro. here is the problem, you come across as mentally unhinged and heavily armed. historically not a good combination. I too am a veteran, but apparently I defended all americans not just the crazy ones. as one vet to another, seriously, get help.

      Delete
    2. I'm so freaked out by humans... WTF...

      Delete
    3. "However, if I knew you were a piece of shit that supports gun control, and calls firearms owners "gun nuts", I wouldn't piss in your mouth if your teeth were on fire."

      . . . because you don't believe in the First Amendment?

      Delete
  30. No one with a good and clear mind would do this sort of this so, YES, I will certainly do this if ever in this situation. I will also be screaming "Help POLICE!! Gun, gun, gun, person with a GUN!!!" because it IS against the law to create a public panic which they are doing!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crying wolf isn't creating public panic? Because that sounds exactly like what you're trying to do.

      Delete
    2. Actually, if you're screaming about a guy who is legally carrying a gun but not threatening anyone with it, YOU are the person who is creating a public panic.

      Delete
  31. PS - you absolutely SHOULD leave a place when you're scared. I've been a Soldier for almost 28 years and I still leave a place that makes me uneasy.

    But I go back and pay when the fear has passed. If you don't, you're just a different kind of asshole from the mouth-breathing attention whores with guns. You're just using the false claim of "I was scared" to justify NEVER GOING BACK TO PAY YOUR BILL. And that makes you an asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  32. So, just to be clear, the author believes that the most appropriate response to irritating assholes who are flaunting their LEGAL right to carry firearms in businesses who LEGALLY support that right, is to ILLEGALLY steal goods and services?

    I agree that these mouth-breathing nut-jobs shouldn't be allowed near things they could hurt themselves and others with, but they are still not breaking the law. Nor are the businesses who allow the slack-jawed idiots in. The only people breaking the law in this article will be the people who leave without paying for the goods and services they acquired. And THAT will get THEM thrown in jail.

    PS - "This will happen. It is just a matter of time." is just as much fear-mongering as the dreaded gun-toters are accused of waging. It assumes that such a high percentage of gun owners have zero discipline and self-control that a LAGO-on-LAGO (law-abiding gun owner) massacre is inevitable. And that just is not the case. The number of legal gun owners is so high and the incidence of a legal gun owner shooting "the wrong person" is so extremely rare, that when it DOES happen it makes national news.

    You are absolutely justified in fearing something dangerous you don't understand. You are absolutely justified in doing whatever you can to avoid danger. You are NOT justified in any way when you break the law under the guise of said fear as a way to "make them pay" and force your own agenda onto law abiding businesses who are legally supporting something you disagree with.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I support the second amendment. I am a legal gun owner. That said, I wouldn't even think about openly carrying a firearm into a restaurant or retail establishment. Aside from the obvious safety issues and the likelihood that it would instill fear in others- points that have already been discussed at length by others, there's another issue - one of common decency and decorum. I would go to church dressed only in a jock strap, just as I wouldn't open carry. It's about having respect for my fellow citizens. Even if you have the rigjt to do something, it doesn't mean you should. These open carry folks are just asinine, and need to grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Shoot them.... erm...

    ReplyDelete
  35. There is no way to know if someone is a nutbag open carrying or a nutbag with intent to kill--you are one in the same. The reason you are open carrying a weapon is so that you are ready to kill someone. Therefore you are a terrorist, end of story.
    http://boingboing.net/2014/06/11/tom-the-dancing-bug-how-to-te.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hilarious, you mean you can't tell the difference between a person ordering a latte and a bagel who just happens to be carrying a firearm from the thug who runs in and starts shooting the place up like the Rubys restaurant in Texas? Or the thug who runs up to you on the street and puts a knife to your throat?

      Delete
  36. Unless you've been on the wrong end of a gun, you have no idea what gun violence is like.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Guns are for pussies, everyone knows this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, very well spoken.. Straight from the heart, no facts just feelings, nothing more than feelings.

      Delete
    2. Which is why the police and military carry them? Because they are pussies? The secret service have guns because they are pussies? The guards who transport money are pussies? Is that right? The thousands of families who share the tradition of hunting are all pussies as well as the young girls and boys on the local high school rifle team? I suppose Kim Rhodes, the 17 year old girl who won the gold medal in the 1996 Olympic Games for shotgun, she's a pussy too?

      Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Clearly we need more minds like you.

      Delete
  38. just ignore them. There is 0 evidence they are dangerous. I agree that they are attention whores, but at the same time I'm not seeing the streets run red with blood, nor are they breaking any laws. people over-reacting or suggesting anyone else do the same are the ones with a problem and irrational fears, because no facts back up their behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anyone who has intent to kill or mass kill isn't going to show up in a group of people with guns pretending to be law abiding. You won't have time to leave and steal your dinner or haircut. They will walk in as discreetly as possible and open fire. Or they will come in with guns already blazing.
    And the gun will most likely not be legal, or it will be owned by someone else and not kept secure.
    And then you will wish there was someone open carrying nearby and they won't be, because your silly protests got them banned. Whoops.

    ReplyDelete
  40. It seems that the reason that the open carry advocates are using an utterly tackles and provocative display is because they think they are countering the notion that someone wants to take their guns away. I suppose there are a few who advocate the idea of banning all guns, and though that is a naive position to hold I think it is usually borne from an optimism about human potential and a disgust at the mechanism of what guns are and what they do. There heart is in the right place and for the pro gun people to perceive them as somehow hostile is myopic and demonstrative of their own inability to have some compassion. I think. I think it is entirely reasonable to allow responsible and reasonable adults the right to own and use guns, I would call into question, however just how reasonable and responsible a person is who feels the need to pull such immature and childish stunts as walk into stores with lots of weapons. It is also pointless, because there is next to no real support for the idea of taking everyone's guns away. no one with any say so is advocating that. I think the notion of every walking around with openly brandished weapons is absurd and will undoubtedly lead to trouble. if i was in a story with my child and a bunch of people came in with guns, i would instantly suspect and fear the worst. I would hide, and I would wait for a chance to strike them n the back of the head with whatever weapon I could find and I would call the police. In a modern and civilized world we do not need everyone running around with guns everywhere. I wonder very much about the other political and societal views of these open carry advocates. once they are on every street corner with guns what is to stop them from wanting to take over, or defend themselves against, oh i don't know, the homosexual menace, or the illegal immigrants. I think the whole notion of what these guys want is rude and idiotic. This is not the wild west. Take your guns home and put them away. you can get them out if you need them. Like if someone tries to teach you science or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Millions of citizens have concealed carry permit and carry every day. You just don't see them because the firearm is concealed. 43 state have "shall issue" laws. You are literally surrounded by guns everyday without incident. Armed with this knowledge are you planning on just running into stores and yelling " police! Gun! Ahhhh" and the hide under the table? You make no sense. There are certainly some nuts out there who have guns but owning a gun doesn't make you a nut.

      Delete
    2. Their tactics are failing but their goal is noble. The reason for what they are doing is to protest the law that forbids open carry of handguns. Police are abusing the law against open carrying of handguns. It you show even the smallest part of your handgun you are arrested and charged with open carry. That carries a long prison sentence. You will most likely offered a deal of a small fine. However you will then be blocked from ever owning a gun ever again for the rest of you life. You will never be allowed to own a gun, shoot a gun even at the range and you will have to give up all the guns you currently have.
      Try to reach something up high in a store and the tip of the gun is seen and you do lose your guns, forever. So, yes they are fighting for something noble. This is real science, this is facts. Something gun owners understand.

      Delete
    3. So you talk about "civilized" society, and yet you say if you saw someone carrying a gun you would hit them in the back of the head and call the police? Seriously? And what would you say when the police got there? "Yes, officer, that guy was carrying a gun, and even though he wasn't threatening anyone with it, I decided to knock him unconscious." And do you know what that officer's next words would be? "Put your hands behind your back. You are under arrest for felonious assault." The main reason that these open carry pinheads are going out of their way to flaunt their weapons is because of pinheads on the other side of the argument (like you, for instance) who write and say absolute asinine things like you wrote here.

      Delete
    4. "there is next to no real support for the idea of taking everyone's guns away. no one with any say so is advocating that." - You obviously aren't paying attention to current events and the types of bills that are being proposed in Congress by liberal politicians nearly every year.
      What the protesters are doing is called open carry. They are not "walking around with openly brandished weapons" as you stated above. Brandishing any weapon is something different entirely than open carry and will usually get almost anyone who does it arrested fairly quickly.

      Delete
  41. If there were no guns, there would be no death by gun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And people intent on killing others would still find a way to accomplish that task, perhaps with something even more deadly.

      Delete
  42. Please leave my store/restaurant without paying for items you have consumed. I'll be more than glad to press charges for theft. It would be you who are breaking the law. Are these Open Carriers dangerous? No! Are they breaking any laws? Again, NO..... They law protects their rights, just like you have the right to your Free Speech. Advocating to not pay, is advocating Theft....Just keep that in mind....

    ReplyDelete
  43. Simple solution.....move out of texas! problem solved! your welcome!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Here's my take away from all of this, for what it's worth and perhaps an overly simplified perspective: Boobs

    ReplyDelete
  45. The likelyhood of drowning in your backyard increases infinitely when you put a pool in your back yard

    ReplyDelete
  46. How do we would we know that someone open-carrying a firearm is a law abiding citizen, or someone about to engage in murder? What kind of signals should let us know if the person carrying the firearm is friend or foe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if the person who just happens to be carrying a firearm is walking down the aisle of a store with a shopping cart shopping or joking with their friend as they order caramel macchiatos minding their own business, you should as well. If someone comes into the store waving a gun or other weapon around and starts shooting then you have a problem.

      What people don't understand about the whole carry issue is that millions of people legally carry concealed every day. 43 States have "shall issue" carry laws. There are people around you every day carrying and you don't even realize it. Most of those people are good guys who follow the law, get the permit and background check and exercise their freedom to keep and bear arms.

      The few bad people are not going to be standing around in Starbucks with lattes and AR15s discussing he recent Game of Thrones episode.

      Delete
    2. If you honestly aren't able to figure this out with the power of observance during a few seconds, then seek professional help.
      The quick answer is, you don't. However, an armed society is a polite society.
      Here is a hint: A person about to engage in attempted murder will likely be hiding their weapon until they are using it. You won't realize they have it until it's too late.
      A person open-carrying a firearm is a law abiding citizen where open carry is legal.

      Delete
    3. And by the power of observation, most of these people mean race. They think you're supposed to be able to tell by race. White people are the good guys in their mind. Ignore the fact that most mass shooters are white men.

      Delete
  47. The second amendment gives you the right to be murdered by someone using a firearm.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Just a bunch of fags who want to steal their food and then justify it with a self righteous backward logic. Please, if you see a gun and it scares you, just leave... and kill yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You spend a lot of time thinking about "fags." Why do you think that is?

      Delete
  49. I find it extremely ironic and idiotic that gun protesters are choosing the most damaging method of protest to their cause. People like me who are middle of the road about guns, believe in background checks, yet feel people should be able to own guns if they want, are pretty repulsed by this behavior. I usually assume that people who own guns are generally responsible and understand when and where it is appropriate to have them out, regardless of laws. There is such a thing as etiquette. For instance, it is legal to pass gas and hang snot from your nose at a restaurant, but if a group of people walk in doing it on purpose, it is idiotic behavior that will not win support and sympathy from people like me who support the second amendment, but expect responsibility on the part of the owner. If I invite people to a party and tell them to bring friends, I don't want their friends walking in with AR-15's just because they are protesting. I don't want any kind of protests, be they liberal or conservative when I go to buy groceries or to a restaurant. I don't want anti-abortion activists or pro choice activists walking around Target as I do my shopping. I don't want a group of people with AR-15's OR anti-gun protesters with posters of murdered people walking around when I eat out. I am using my hard earned money to relax and get a meal away from the incessant political bickering or stresses of life, and I expect to pay for my meal, relax, not shove my politics in any other diners face, and expect the same for myself. The stupidity is that these protests are out of place, and turning off a lot of people who generally support people's rights to bear arms.

    Also, imagine if 10 armed protesters who do not know each other are at Wal-Mart and one lone gun men comes in and starts shooting. What next?
    Let's say these protesters are in different aisles and all pull there weapons. When one turns a corner and sees another with a gun, both of them in a defensive position, you think they are going to magically know they are the good guys? No, you'll have 10 people shooting at each other thinking that other is a criminal. Then what happens when police arrive? There is a reason why we have Police. Easily identifiable, organized so they all know who is on there team.

    So yes, you have a right to bear arms. But you do not have a right to start making believe that you are to be citizen police every time you go to get baby wipes or a burger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to your logic, there should never be any protests because you don't want your little world shattered. Boo hoo! Just because you have income to spend doesn't guarantee you anything short of what you pay for at the store or restaurant. Apparently, in addition to ignoring the 2nd amendment, you'd like to eliminate all freedom of speech as well. Good luck trying to rewrite those parts of the Constitution during your lifetime.

      Your hypothetical situation is full of faulty logic and ridiculous assumptions as well. Here's a couple of scenarios you forgot to cover during your rant: 1) The lone gun "men" (wth?) starts to walk up to the business and sees armed people out and about and decides today isn't his day and this isn't the place to shoot people because there are people here who will shoot back. 2) The lone gun "men" (wth?) starts shooting and is nearly immediately taken out by one of the others with a firearm.
      Just because a person is armed in public doesn't make them blubbering idiot. If you honestly "...usually assume that people who own guns are generally responsible", then why can't you logically assume that a person who is armed in public knows how and when to use their firearm? Most likely, they know how and when to use it better than most police officers who are responding.

      Delete
  50. Officially the dumbest article ever written and we are all dumber for having read it!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't agree more. I feel as though the article, combined with most of the comments here have lowered my IQ.

      Delete
  51. nothing says law abiding citizen like dine-and-dash

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly.. Can't wait to hear their excuse in court..

      Delete
    2. It's known as the defense of necessity, and it's been a part of legal practice for centuries.

      Delete
  52. leaving a place without paying for the meal is a crime of theft of goods / services

    ReplyDelete
  53. yes: nothing says "i'm a law abiding citizen" like advocating criminal activity, such as not paying for goods and services you have received.

    not only do you wish to deny people their rights, you're willing to break the law to do so...

    the open carry people aren't the threat to society: people like you are.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Wouldn't it be great if anonymous was just one person having a very intense argument with themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This is just an excuse for you leftists to get free shit. If you're against this, then why don't you protest in a way that's.....I duno...maybe LEGAL?!
    SMH

    ReplyDelete
  56. So, you want to ban guns, and call gun owners lawless, yet here in your own words, you are recommending theft. "Just leave. Don't pay. It don't matter if..." Typical liberal mindset.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I could feel brain cells dying as I read this. What a ridiculous thing to suggest that people should do. "Oh, yes officer, I saw a guy with a gun and I felt icky, so I decided to walk out without paying my 100.00 restaurant bill. Also, I'm making a political statement, so please make the guy who was legally carrying a gun pay my bill for me." Yeah, good luck with that.

    But with that said, I have never understood the need to carry openly. I think it's like painting a target on my back. I carry concealed, because I don't want ANYONE, good guys or bad guys) to know that I am armed. Regardless of whether I think it SHOULD make people nervous, the fact is that it DOES make people nervous. I don't want to be responsible for that. I just think it's rude.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Leave without paying for your meal? That is retail theft a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. Very good advice, steal snuff when you are fearful. I'm afraid that the moon will fall on me so I'll steal a new Aston Martin. Yeah, that works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theft is a crime of intent. I don't believe you could establish intent beyond a reasonable doubt if a person were truthfully frightened by the group of armed men who suddenly appeared in the restaurant.

      Delete
  59. How about instead of running away you just call them a FN idiot and keep eating your meal. They want a reason to use it. Let them prove they are that idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  60. You Americans are fucking retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Leaving a restaurant after you have received your food and have eaten even dome of it with out paying is stealing. Makes one thief.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Y'all are fucking stupid

    ReplyDelete
  63. So many Anonymous posters in this thread. If you can't at least take the time to create a fake online persona, why even take the time to type out a response?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Why do pro gun idiots always reference car deaths in defense of their gun rights? Deaths from cars are an unwanted side effect from their use and car manufacturer engineers are working tirelessly towards making them safer. Where as gun manufacturers are working tirelessly towards making them more efficient killing machines. That's what they are, killing machines, you're defending your right to kill other humans.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The guy who wrote this and all who agree are dumbfucks

    ReplyDelete
  66. hey anonymous- post your name meat- don't hide behind the keyboard. Coming off on some rant and can't even say ya name mate

    ReplyDelete
  67. I have a friend who is a police officer and he has said it best. If he ever has to respond to a "shooting" call, the reality is this. Anyone not in uniform with a firearm being brandished is a legitimate target. I have to agree because how are the police supposed to know who the good person or the bad person is.

    And although the honest citizen in Las Vegas a month ago was trying to do the right thing by stopping a man who had just executed two police officers, that upstanding citizen was executed by the shooters wife because the honest citizen had no idea there were multiple shooters.

    And on a final note remember this. Even if you are justified in shooting an attacker, the FACT of the matter is this. If the bullet goes through soft tissue, exits the attacker and strikes an innocent bystander, then no matter how you slice it or dice it, you are 100% criminally and civilly accountable for the harm your bullet causes. That's right, if you shoot an attacker but the bullet goes through the attacker and strikes an innocent bystander you are prosecuted and after the State is done prosecuting your behind the victim or the family of the victim may then sue you for everything you have.

    Just a reality check.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I agree with how to respond. Get up and leave.
    BUT, I will add, my only issue, is that some businesses might already disagree with the ammosexuals and not want it in their place. They just haven't had them deal their childish gun waving crap in their place, and are hoping they wouldn't have to in their restaurant or store (pay for your store stuff though lol.) And express to management/employees that you feel you and your family's lives are endangered. A mob of gun wielding people that could be potentially dangerous with violent criminal pasts, who may have no problem attacking or shooting a person if they get angry or frustrated, only to claim they "felt threatened" and shot an unarmed citizen.
    The fact that they feel the need to be about wielding weapons in a place it's not needed, knowing that it puts fear into decent people, is a sign that they get off on terror tactic intimidation on peaceful citizens. To gamble that they wouldn't attack as a mob or shoot someone who gets in their face because they're scaring their family and other families could literally lead to grave consequences.
    They've already chosen to be part of an in-group loyalty out-group intimidation and hostility situation. They know their actions are going to rile some people up. They're looking for fear and to stir up potential conflict with people who are sick of their childish behavior. They are more likely to back up and attack others who confront anyone in their in-group.
    It will be a miracle of decent people's patience if there are no deaths caused by their irresponsible show of gun fanaticism.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I agree but would add one recommendation. Call the police on them every single time which will slow them down and make the police more annoyed by these people.

    ReplyDelete