General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAbout the guy who walked into JC Penny's with an AR-15
Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:43 AM - Edit history (1)
Because he could and it was legal and he wanted to "educate" people?
It has been bothering me to the point of nightmares.
I am the mother of five year old boy/girl twins, and the Newtown massacre - well, I am NOT over it.
It is my job as a parent to teach my children how to behave, and I don't just mean "manners" - I teach them how to behave around potentially dangerous situations - "Don't touch a hot stove!" - and what to do if they are lost, or the house is on fire, or a tornado is coming.
And now I also have to teach them how to behave around gun wielding lunatics, because it is becoming a societal "norm" that they may have to face.
I am not happy about this, but it is now a necessity. Maybe it should have been before - the Batman massacre really started the discussion for my husband and I - but after Newtown, it is obviously not optional anymore.
We don't have guns in our house. My father had guns - a couple of hunting rifles and a pistol at one point when his work with law enforcement caused him to be threatened (he wasn't law enforcement, but he helped put bad guys in jail, and they didn't like it) - but they were kept put away, out of sight. I am not a "hunter" person, so other than sixth grade "hunter safety", guns are not a part of my life, AND I LIKE IT THAT WAY.
Guns are tools. I get that. Hunting rifles are used to hunt - so why was this fool bringing one into a JC Penny store?
My immediate response would have to be "To Hunt."
I cannot tell the difference between a random madman armed with weapons and an idiot trying to make a moronic point that BY LAW he is entitled to behave like a fool by bringing (charitably) a "HUNTING RIFLE" into a place where the only "GAME" is human beings.
For safety's sake, I would immediately flee the scene, urging everyone else to do the same, but making sure my children are safe first and foremost.
I don't care if it could be considered an over reaction by this fool and his friends. I don't have super secret telepathic powers that enable me to discern "MURDEROUS MAN ABOUT TO GO ON A RAMPAGE" versus "FREAKING MORON WITH BAD JUDGMENT TRYING TO MAKE A STUPID POINT."
He is a man openly carrying a "hunting rifle" where the only available targets are people.
Stoves are hot. Tornado sirens mean seek shelter. Guns are dangerous tools; if you see one where it doesn't belong, get away!
I love my children. That man needs his guns taken away, and if the law can't do it, I hope his family takes care of the problem.
If they don't, there is a good chance the man is going to end up shot.
I don't carry a gun, but the next "non-telepathic parent" he encounters might.
ON EDIT: This is a link to the news story prompting my post. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=23769604
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Everything I was intending to buy and get out of there as fast as possible. Because I can't read minds either, is he a "good guy" with a gun, or a "bad guy" with a gun? Lots of the "bad guys" with a gun were considered "good guys" able to legally get their guns up until they turned into "bad guys" by hunting other people..... So hard to tell them apart.
See folks openly carrying, get outta dodge as FAST and discretely as possible.
bulloney
(4,113 posts)What are you supposed to think when someone walks into such a place with a big-ass firearm strapped to their body?
Yeah, he can legally do this. I think he and people like him have some mental issues.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)before he could start killing people. But who knows how we would react? You can't discount the shock factor.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)if I saw him in the store I'd scream SHOOTER! SHOOTER! and start a panic. Seriously. You never know. Better him dead inthe lot or shot by the cops than whatever...
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)if someone had gunned it and taken him out with their car while he was on his way into the store.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)You only need to convince one person that your fear was reasonable.
LiberalFighter
(50,856 posts)Especially if you have kids in tow.
loose wheel
(112 posts)The mere fact that someone is carrying a gun, any gun, does not convey intent. That he was also perfectly within his legal limits means that someone striking him with a car deliberately is looking at a minimum: 1st degree murder (intent and prior planning), 2nd Degree murder (intent to kill, using a vehicle), Vehicular manslaughter (in case they can't prove the first two), attempted (all of the above in case they didn't kill), vehicular assault, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to cause greivous bodily harm, and probably several charges I am forgetting. The jury will return a guilty verdict on some of the above felonies, meaning you will never be allowed to vote again. This is going to cost at least $60,000 just to possibly evade the worst of the charges. Plus the jail time means that you won't have a job when you get out. A lot of business owners don't like to hire people fresh out of prison on a felony.
Also, the guy either survives or has family. Now that the state of Utah is done with you, they are going to hit you with a massive civil lawsuit that your auto insurance will not cover. All hospital costs, plus reparations due to lost earning potential, plus punitive damages, plus all lawyer fees, plus court costs. The total cost of this is going to be north of $800,000 pretty easy, and you can't declare bankruptcy to get out of it. A person's earnings would belong to the peron or estate of the person they attacked for quite a long time.
Not worth it at all.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)I said it would be an interesting case.
loose wheel
(112 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)I have no desire plow into someone with my car.
bhikkhu
(10,714 posts)...and you don't know - perhaps you have only a moment left to live before he fires on you?
That's where the question would be "interesting". Why would a person carry a bunch of military weaponry into a public place, where no one else was armed or threatening other than looking for someone to kill? How would you know?
We are allowed to kill in self defence, but that requires one of two things to be successful - we have to anticipate and preempt the deadly action of an enemy (essentially, we have to mind-read and read the situation right), or we have to be stupid-lucky - wait for the guy to shoot at you and miss. There's plenty of precedent for not requiring people to be shot at before they exercise their best judgement.
Of course, if we preempt the deadly action of an enemy. and the enemy is dead, what's left to prove one way or another but a heavily armed corpse, with enough weapons and ammunition to kill dozens of people, laid out and silent in a public place? Suggestions of disturbed mental state are easily put together after the fact, and one might wind up considered a hero.
I think it would be an interesting argument.
loose wheel
(112 posts)There is a requirement for reasonable intent. The guy has to do something that would display intent. If he is in the act of removing his weapon from it's stow, and the action does not seem to fit, then it's possible one might assume reasonable intent. In that case my first move is down and right as the best possible move to get out of the path of his first rounds, assuming they are at me. After that,then I'm running while yelling to get out of the building, I'm also putting whatever concealment and cover I can between me and him. Assuming I am unarmed of course.
If I am armed, my first move is still the same, but I have to consider what the background and the foreground of the shot are. If there is an unreasonable chance of hitting a bystander I still try to flee first. If the shot is clear, then I won't have any ammunition left in about six seconds. My first aim point will be his right waist and the gun aim will jump up and to left as I fire. After I am done I will return my weapon to it's holster and await the arrival of law enforcement, and will inform them what happened and follow their instructions.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)You have discussed your interpretation of "the law" and how you - a grown adult with family who are experienced in law enforcement, who is personally trained and comfortable with firearms - would use this to identify the guns, whether it was being properly / safely handled in a "non-threatening" manner.
I have to find a way - despite the fact I neither have nor want that type of "training" - to teach my FIVE YEAR OLDS when they should run/hide from an "active shooter" situation.
(Read more here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022006470)
I have to do this, preferably before they are targeted, despite the fact I cannot know myself. As I said in my original post:
I am frankly sickened by this necessity, but in the way of "a few bad apples", my perception of the fool as a potentially dangerous lunatic - as well as the obvious wish NOT to be caught in the middle of a potential firefight if someone else decides to view him as the threat I perceive him to be - means "gun fun" has been ruined for millions.
FYI, "Gun Fun" =
You have also said the man could be simply misunderstood. The story at the link I provided verifies he likes to do this for the attention it garners. He got mine.
As for teaching my 5-year olds to exercise appropriate judgment, we are using the following standard -
Guns are dangerous tools; if you see one where it doesn't belong, get away!
loose wheel
(112 posts)I wouldn't do it with, (probably) a ten year old. Making guns, anything really, some forbiden mysterious something or other only triggers a childs natural curiosity.
You don't need telepathy. There are tells that even police look for in that situation.
I would also think that he is known to the local police if he was after attention.
We have different point of views, and for what it's worth I think that if you think that you should remove yourself from the store, then you are right. If I determine that it's okay to stay, then I'm right.
Paladin
(28,246 posts)That's nice. Kindly stay out of my neighborhood, OK?
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)b) a wannabe George Zimmerman just itcting for an opportunity to stitch a fellow human being from right hip to left shoulder.
lolly
(3,248 posts)Is Utah a "Stand Your Ground" state?
If so--following George Zimmerman's illustrious example--we are certainly justified in running over anyone who makes us feel threatened. If a bag of skittles and a hoodie qualifies as threatening, a killing machine definitely qualifies.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)Also deliberate use of a vehicle as a weapon can be very nasty territiory, all too real a risk of colateral damage.
Absent firearms as a special case. General rule is equal force defence, with women and children given a handicap advantage on a graduated scale of, what improvised or repurposed weapon equals what.
Whilst I don't know for sure, I'd be very surprised if Utah WASN'T a SYG state.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)the posters above have been watching too much Willis. I guess the sarcasm thing is necessary.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)That you could be right, and yet anyone simply mouthing off at this arsewipe COULD trigger a SYG incident in which the shooter walks, and regardless would bring defenders of his right to shoot mouthy gun grabbers, crawling out of the woodwork.
adieu
(1,009 posts)to shoot a black teenager wearing a hoodie while walking home from a corner store after buying some candy.
A guy with a gun walking around in a mall is a threat, and stopping that threat is perfectly justified, or should we wait until he goes all Adam Lanza on the people there?
spin
(17,493 posts)However media and public attention will cause Zimmerman to face his day in court on a charge of second-degree murder.
lolly
(3,248 posts)AFTER he slaughters 20 people in the mall.
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)wouldn't have been worth it, better to drive away and ignore the guy with the guns
Kingofalldems
(38,444 posts)I'm convinced!
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,336 posts)... why you felt the need to run down a plainclothes police officer in the parking lot?
Rule 4. Always be sure of your target!
lolly
(3,248 posts)Casually carrying around a rifle slung on his back?
Um--right.
Pakid
(478 posts)walking toward my bus full of kid I would not even hesitate. I would run him down. I will not take a chance on someone like that being sane. It a safe bet that he is not warp to tight no sane person would do what he did!
nonoxy9
(236 posts)And thankfully got out ok, I would have called 911 first. Then part of me would want to take this SOB down and beat the living shit out of him whether he seemed threatening or not! Not sure if I could do that but my adrenaline is going just reading the story. What an asshole! And how many other idiots are going to imitate him and get themselves, or innocent bystanders, killed trying to make a point!?
renate
(13,776 posts)I'm very glad your child was okay--and I hope he or she is okay emotionally too. What a horror to have been through.
SouthernDonkey
(256 posts)As is anyone who thinks this is acceptable behavior. I've stood firmly on my defense of one's second ammendment rights. I have guns. But if this is the behaviour that one has to find "acceptable" because some lunatic chooses to assert his "right's" by carrying a rifle into a JC Penny's, then something needs to be done about it. EVEN IF that something is banning all guns and taking them away. This act is not the act of a sane, responsible person. If you agree that it is, you need to have your head examined. This is the very reason people have to react so extremely! With your "right's" comes a responsibility. This was not a "responsible" assertion of those rights.
duhneece
(4,112 posts)"...This act is not the act of a sane, responsible person...." is a reasonable statement, imho.
I believe that yelling 'this guy's gotta gun' is what a reasonable, responsible person would do seeing anyone walking around a store or mall armed like this should do.
LiberalFighter
(50,856 posts)If the rifle is in a case that would be different. But once the person removes the rifle from the casing all bets are off if there is no justifiable reason.
loose wheel
(112 posts)He doesn't owe you a thing. As long as he is within the law, the law will leave him alone. I have carried rifles into areas filled with people and not been viewed as a threat, nor was I or my rifle any threat.
Yelling, "He's gotta gun" is going to be viewed as about the same as yelling, "Fire" in a theater. It is a deliberate attempt to cause an unwarranted panic and it will be dealt with in the same manner.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)would that have been a deliberate attempt to cause an unwarranted panic?
When this guy entered JC Penney with his rifle and his sidearm, how were people supposed to know he wasn't there to cause trouble?
loose wheel
(112 posts)Adam Lanza was outside the law when he decided to murder his mother and steal her guns. When he entered Sandy Hook Elementary and was not identifiable as a uniformed law enforcement officer he was a clear threat, in violation of multiple state and federal laws.
I am sure someone probably did yell "he's got a gun!" for all the good that did. I am also fairly certain that he entered brandishing weapons which certainly conveys intent.
The guy in the JC Penney in Utah is not in violation of any laws. All of his weapons were stowed on his person. The pictures of him do not make him seem threatening. Apparent ability does not convey intent.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)Everybody should treat it as perfectly legal and normal until he starts to take aim?
If he walked into my school, I don't care how he is carrying it, I'm hitting him with the nearest, nastiest blunt instrument I can find, and not stopping until he is completely incapacitated.
The NRA seems to believe there should be no "Gun Free Zones"
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)Has been since 1990.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)It had to be amended after U.S. v. Lopez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
I don't think I would take the time worrying about whether the weapon was involved in "Interstate Commerce".
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)So if Adam Lanza had walked into Penneys with guns stowed all over his "person," then that would have been perfectly fine, right? No threat at all. . . .
What weird defenses we have here.
Lanza had already broken the law by killing his mother, so he doesn't count. Should we politely ask gun-toting jerks whether they've just killed somebody before we alert people in the vicinity that a nut with a rifle is in the area?
As for shouting fire in a theater--it's only a problem if THERE ISN'T REALLY A FIRE. If you do see a fire, I would hope you would alert people. If you do see someone with a gun, is it now supposed to be an offense to tell people?
klyon
(1,697 posts)I would not shop anywhere there are people with assault weapons walking around.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)Now we need "Please dont come in our store with an assault rifle strapped to your back"
I wish the world ended in December!
Wednesdays
(17,338 posts)To see stickers on front doors of businesses, with "no gun" symbol on them, and inscription "No weapons allowed."
They're everywhere... stores, restaurants, even churches.
Boy, that'll deter someone hell bent on a shooting rampage.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)from coming in and scaring paying customers away. But I'm pretty sure you knew that.
I don't have a sign like that in my cat hospital, but if this crap keeps up you'll see one.
xmas74
(29,673 posts)who work in retail. The point of the sticker is so that someone doesn't come in with a weapon just because they can or to make a point, as the person did at Penney's. If you enter a store with a weapon you can be shown out the door. If you refuse then you are trespassing and the police will be notified.
No, it won't stop an idiot hell-bent on shooting a place up but it will stop someone else from walking into Target, waving their gun around while asking about where they can buy bullets. (And yes, it has happened.)
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)xmas74
(29,673 posts)I have family working in security at a Target and they've been informed that it's a no gun zone at all stores.
bulloney
(4,113 posts)and the gun(s) must be stolen? Is that what you're saying? How in the hell does anybody know that when they see Bozo brandishing his big-ass firearm?
I'm being sarcastic, but if I see someone carrying an assault rifle or whatever weapon into a public forum, I'm going to take action, especially with what has happened around this country recently. Because, I don't know what that person's intentions are, but I do know and see he's carrying a deadly weapon in an improper forum
I'm sorry, but this goof who was hauling his weapon to a mall has some mental issues. Anyone who feels like he needs to display something like that in a mall or similar setting, knowing it would intimidate and scare many of those who see this, is not mentally responsible enough to own such a piece of equipment.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)"I will instill fear in you at random to make a political point"
That's small-time terrorism.
lolly
(3,248 posts)But of course, nobody with that sort of domineering, controlling personality who thinks it's fun to terrify people to make a point would ever, ever do something stupid and dangerous with that gun.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)They would never put their sociopathic belligerence into action.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)he wouldn't have been a threat to anyone?
The same Adam Lanza who coldly mowed down dozens of Sandy Hook school children and teachers?
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Imagine if half the store left when they saw him? The business will lose money by that. Maybe they cannot bar his gun from the store, but they certainly can ban HIM from it. He is a disruption to their business.
I actually like the idea of open carry because that gives me the option of staying away from people carrying guns in public. Don't I have the right to associate with whom I choose? I choose not to with people carrying guns.
loose wheel
(112 posts)One has the right to leave. One does not have the right to attempt to cause a panic in the process.
The fact is that the clerks don't seem upset. It is a safe bet store security had moved in near to him and they didn't do anything. The reality is that the guy was not a threat. He conducted whatever business he was there for and left.
LiberalFighter
(50,856 posts)and would have no legal right for action against the store or the fool.
loose wheel
(112 posts)I would have looked at the guy to determine what threat value to assign. After assuming his actions were no different than any other customer in the store I would have made a note to watch him but not assign any threat. I am the son and nephew of a lot of law enforcement officers. I have a CCW due to those facts and I'm well aware of what I can and can not do, and I am always scanning my surroundings.
You say he is a fool, based on a picture. There is a lot of missing information that the picture simply is not giving.
LiberalFighter
(50,856 posts)They just have to post it.
Even then, the question should be whether that firearm was loaded. If so, that was illegal in Utah. I would consider reporting him as possibly crazy either under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. It is illegal in Utah to carry a firearm under those circumstances. Hassle the shit out of the guy as much as possible.
If he had on his person an unloaded rife what good does that do?
He also needs to carry his permit with him.
Would he in violation of Utah law by being in the presence of two or more persons exhibiting any firearm in "angry and threatening manner"? People can be angry without showing their emotion too. Everything I find points to a requirement that concealed carry must be out of sight or encased and unloaded. He failed on both points.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Don't you think?
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Klebold and Harris.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)out of showing off if he couldn't show off. Check out the photos on his MySpace page.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2220511
Yes, that looks exactly like what turns up after some nutjob pulls one of these massacres.
He sleeps with machetes and hatchets by the bed for protection? The nightstand at his grandparents' house is stocked with weapons?
But hey--don't call him a gun nut. Don't assume he's a threat because he walks into a shopping mall with his killing machines. And don't take away his right to brandish these in public, because then you're a freedom hater.
Response to loose wheel (Reply #122)
Post removed
loose wheel
(112 posts)No, just very reasonable. What would make you think I am scared? I also have quite a lot of self-defense training, though I didn't stick with anything enough to be considered a master.
The world is full of dangerous people. My family put quite a few of them away, these included murederers, rapists, drug dealers, and gang bangers from every race you can imagine, they even successfully identified several Cubans who were marked criminals and not eligible to be in the US. Thanks to the availability of information these days, it's possible that one of them or their friends could decide to look for them and find me. Therefore, in a may issue state, the sherriff determined that the threat to my person was enough to warrant a CCW permit. Is the democrat sherriff also a "scared little weenie"?
Wednesdays
(17,338 posts)Hmm...interesting.
loose wheel
(112 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)However, plenty on the right don't, and so call someone a "Democrat sheriff" instead of a "Democratic sheriff".
See, people like Frank Luntz think it emphasizes the "rat" on the end of "Democrat", so he's been training Republicans to say that for a while now. Using that here is about the same as changing your username to "right-wing troll".
But hey, it's not like you're giving yourself a ton of credibility in the rest of this thread.
loose wheel
(112 posts)I don't even follow closely enough to know who this Frank Luntz fellow is, though my guess is that he is unimportant. However, I have always referred to myself as a democrat. My parents refer to themselves as Democrats. I'm even pretty sure I heard the sherriff called himself a democrat. It is nothing intentional. I registered to this site a few months ago and only came back to see what was being said about gun control here.
I have uncles and aunts that were with MLK's march in DC.
It's just this. I was raised around guns. My only memories of my dad from my childhood are of him as a cop. I learned to shoot at eight and shot in my first match when I was ten. I loved it. I'm not afraid of any fool with a gun.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)My father was a cop and it wasnt a picnic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022158695
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's because you're using a noun. However, you've still got a misspelling - when referring to members of the Democratic party, you need to capitalize the D. Lower-case d is for the form of government, not the political party.
Now, if you want to describe yourself as a member of the Democratic party and a gun owner, you would call yourself a "Democratic gun-owner". "Gun-owner" is the noun, "Democratic" is the adjective that modifies the noun. Because "Democratic" is an adjective while "Democrat" is a noun.
Calling yourself a "Democrat gun owner" is wrong - you've trying to use a noun to modify another noun. If you really, really want to use the noun "Democrat" then you could call yourself "a Democrat and a gun owner".
Now that you've repeated 3rd grade, you might want to consider the effectiveness of your other posts involving your interpretation of nuances of law.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)But we are associated with the Democratic Party -- its proper name since the very beginning.
Somewhere along the way, certain Rethugs began to push the term "Democrat Party" -- but no self-respecting Democrat would. Not on purpose, anyway.
GeorgeGist
(25,318 posts)
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Btw...who was this "democrat" sheriff you speak of?
lolly
(3,248 posts)You think they'd figure this one thing out before posting.
Is it really that hard?
deutsey
(20,166 posts)you start to assume what they say is the "norm," I guess.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Yelling "Gun" when theres a gun is no different. Some of us would like to know when we're in the presence of weapons like that.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)
Hekate
(90,627 posts)Loose cannons may go off without being charged. Loose Wheels mostly just squeak.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...pileups.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)So now, the next time some asshat is bent on killing a bunch of people with his MyPrecious, now you want people to not be afraid and actually wait until people are lying dead and bleeding on the floor because if anybody sounds an alarm prior to that it's going to be viewed as stoking unecessary panic.
Can you gun nuts maybe go find another planet to live on and quit making this one so shitty?
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)One step at a time.
loose wheel
(112 posts)That I am trained and proficient in their use, and that I thoroughly enjoy a day at the range wouldn't speak to it either. I didn't say wait for dead bodies, I said look for signs of intent.
if someone causes a panic because they are yelling "He's got a gun" there might be dead bodies but it would have been caused by the words rather than any bullets, people trying to flee out of a door aren't exactly careful.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)the next time I see somebody in the shopping mall with an AR-15 draped over his shoulder, I'll just sit there and watch him for awhile and try and figure out his "intent."
If he happens to put a bullet in my head while I'm doing that, well, fantastic, now we know what his intent is!
I got no problem with you taking your gun to a range. But if you're going to walk around a shopping mall with it, you're an asshole of the highest caliber. And I'm not talking about the one you hide in your pants, I'm talking about one that everybody can see. All you're doing is causing fear and possible even terror in the people around you.
loose wheel
(112 posts)...then move from that position. Move until you feel are not afraid. That's a good rule for everyone in almost every situation.
The AR-15 truly excels as a varmint gun. I would guess target shooting and keeping pest animals out of the crop are the two primary uses of the weapon. The M16A2 was adopted partly because of the likelihood of only wounding a human.
The type gun that fits in a pocket is the weapon more likely to be used in a crime. Far more likely, in fact.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)let's get one thing straight, if I ever see anybody in a shopping mall with an AR-15, yes, I'm going to be afraid, and yes, I'm going to be leaving, and yes, I'm going to be warning others and calling the police. It's downright stupid of you or anybody else to think that in this era of mass shootings that people aren't going to be doing anything else.
If you gun nuts don't like it, well, keep your fucking gun at home or on the range where it belongs.
Oh and, move until you feel safe? That's your masterful advice to people when confronted with a possible gun wielding maniac? How about, instead of making everybody else move and be afraid, you don't bring your gun to a fucking public place to begin with?
Squinch
(50,935 posts) 
lolly
(3,248 posts)BRAVO!
When are they going to make good on all their threats to move to walled cities where everyone has a gun? I can't wait until they stop terrorizing the rest of us with their macho obsessions.
deutsey
(20,166 posts) ET Awful
(24,753 posts)to kill a cockroach.
It's far more than what's necessary.
The M16A2 (and it's predecessors the M16 and M16A1) were chosen for the fact that they were light and that their high velocity round would be more accurate and would, in fact, cause a more grievous and incapacitating injury when hitting a human target due to their propensity for rebounding off bone, etc. and causing extensive internal damage.
It's a blatant falsehood to insinuate that the military chose it's primary weapon for ground troops because if the likelihood that it would "only wounding" an enemy.
Your information is erroneous, misinformed and/or a blatant lie.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)if you kill a soldier, you remove one from the fight. If you wound that same soldier you take 3-4 out of the fight. That is the reason for that as well smaller round equals more ammo that can be carried and the distance that fighting occurred was at a much shorter range than was thought after combat studies were done.
it seems you apparently see nothing abnormal or potentially problematic about a a man shopping at JC Penny with AR-15 strapped to his back. Sorry, that's just not acceptable behavior in public, legal or not.
Trying to justify something like that really isn't helping your cause.
lolly
(3,248 posts)They'll look at the stats on gun ownership resulting in more deaths, and just know that it couldn't happen in their household because they're all highly trained, very observant, cool and calm under pressure.
They're sure they can tell the good guys from the bad guys.
They're sure when the bullets start flying, they'll be prepared and will be able to calmly avoid getting shot and take down the bad guy, then walk away.
Humility and self-awareness aren't their strong suits. Even for the "democrat" ones.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The panic isn't caused by the person shouting "He's got a gun", the panic is caused by the man walking into the store with such a gun over his shoulder. Your analogy to shouting "fire" is a crowded theater is ass-backwards.
I would feel panic by a man walking into a store with such a gun, and that is the most natural and normal reaction. The fact that most people would react the same way is why this story got such wide distribution in the first place.
There is no reason to bring a gun into a store, unless it is perhaps a gun store. It will cause panic.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)One can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when the theater is on fire.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)loose wheel
(112 posts)There were about three hundred of us there. We were all carrying rifles.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)And that's why you weren't "viewed as a threat" -- because everyone around you & your rifle had their own rifles!
That does nothing to support your argument that someone is justified in carrying an assault weapon like a woman's purse into a shopping area.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)I know it might be difficult for you, but just give it a try. It gets easier the more you do it, trust me. Do you think that maybe the reason nobody panicked is because they all knew there was a rifle range close by and they knew that's where all of you were going? I probably wouldn't freak out if I saw somebody carrying a gun in the parking lot of a rifle range or a place near a rifle range. But a JC Penny in the mall? Bit of a different story.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)And Penney's should be happy to welcome him.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2220511
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)No, it won't.
You seem like you be more far comfortable on Free Republic.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Come up with all the rationalizations you can muster, it makes no difference to me. These are the kind of arguments that will only lead to more obfuscation and inaction, which only leads to one thing: more dead people.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)manager of the store and tell him as long as you allow people with rifles in the store you will not have my business. I would remind him this isn't the wild west anymore. Then I would walk out the store until I saw a sign on the doors states no rifles allowed in the stores.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)I will not do business with a store that allows such shenanigans.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Squinch
(50,935 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Hekate
(90,627 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,856 posts)
malaise
(268,885 posts)I am terrified of all guns
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)rifle. This isn't the wild west. We need to be reasonable.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)I would leave the store immediately too and not come back. Ever.
LiberalFighter
(50,856 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The gun nut wet dream of people dueling it out in the streets just isn't historically accurate and is a reflection of B movie dramatization of the old West. People were generally ambushed in some way. So yeah, it didn't take much of that shit before people had their fill of it. Dodge City, Tombstone, Deadwood, and many other famously mean old West towns had very strict 19th century gun control statutes that would make the NRA freak the fuck out today.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Look at what a big, brave, macho man I am. I think the majority of gun owning men think they are. Women? They think they are sexy babes and it makes them attracrive to the aforementioned men.
I agree with the other posters. I would leave that store, but not before I told the Manager exactly why I was leaving.
marew
(1,588 posts)Exactly right!-- "Look at what a big, brave, macho man I am." What a turn off!
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)All people would have to do is complain to the manager and walk out until they put signs up that guns of any type are not welcome in their stores or malls. When they see it is effecting their business you watch what will happen. I read this guy called the local police to tell them what he was doing and that the rifle wasn't loaded. But people who are shopping with little children and their friends don't know that.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)
jillan
(39,451 posts)Squinch
(50,935 posts)They appear to be getting some calls on this.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)that my particular store is in a mall and I will not go into a mall unless I know it will be a gun free zone. I will speak with my dollars.
madokie
(51,076 posts)My sentiments exactly.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)exit as quietly and quickly as I could.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)"Better Fled than Dead" is good advice...
I'm not going to hang around to see what happens.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)You would blast a deer to bits with an AR-15.
justanidea
(291 posts)"Be unable to quickly take it down due to the fact the .223 round is too weak for big game" then you are correct.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)has only one available target.
I have not noticed a deer infestation at the Mall...
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)the M-16 style assault rife, using a .223 round was designed specifically to kill people by a shooter who could carry several hundred rounds for use in an assault rifle. Many states permit the use of the .223 for deer hunting.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)you would fire one round as it is a semi automatic rifle just like all hunting rifles. Chambered in 5.56 or .223, it is not the best choice because of its low power and small round. Chambered in 7.62 it could make a very good hunting rifle. The AR-10 would be better choice, it looks identical but has a larger round.
the guy is definitely an idiot and looking for attention and got it. I would have left the store.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)And the howling would be the laughter of other hunters, not the wolves.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I've noticed that, roughly, the over-50 crowd wants nothing to do with AR-15's when hunting and the under-50 crowd is kind of into them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)raidert05
(185 posts)Aren't blowing a deer to bits with a AR-15 .223, maybe a Barret .50 cal
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)Are we talking about killing deer or blowing planes out of the sky?
Well if I wanted it to be blown to bit but still use a gun, that's what I would use, as for blowing planes out of the sky....they make missiles for that kind of thing.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)No, really. Nicely put.
I think that much of this type of thing will end once the idiots don't feel they have to prove their "rights", or whatever. But even after any new laws are made, they will still be able to open carry a side arm.
I'm not thrilled about that anymore. They talk a lot about responsible gun owners and stuff like that, but what we hear about is the fool who dropped his gun on the floor and it goes off, or the fool who discharges his weapon getting out of his car, or the fool who knew for sure it was unloaded, but it wasn't. As long as our general population is filled with fools, I don't want them armed.
I no longer trust that the average gun owner is not a flaming loon.
I do believe we have a right to own a gun. For protection, for hunting, for the collector even. And sometimes I can see why one would want to carry it in public. Like if you are the guy who has to take the cash to the bank. Or if you know you have to be in a especially dangerous area. I get that.
But we tried letting them have their way. Letting them self regulate, more or less. THings just kept getting worse and worse. We are becoming a more violent society. It will only get worse if not curbed.
I think, it will be we, as a society, that has to say, carrying your gun where my family are having our breakfast is no longer cool. Carrying your gun where we are shopping, is not cool.
It's not cool, It's not ok.
I posted yesterday that I would have left that store bitching profusely, letting the store understand that if they let guns into their store, then I will not be there. Some giggled at my response. But truly if we the people, let the stores know that we won't be shopping in their open carry stores, then that sign on the front door will also say NO GUNS ALLOWED.
Either serve the guy with a gun, or the rest of us. I will no longer stay in any store with anyone with a gun who is not obviously the store security or a shopping cop. If lots of people let the store management know that THEY will have to take a stand on this, then maybe we can at least do our shopping without worrying if some asshole is going to start shooting, or just accident ly shoot us. Or at least worry a little less about it.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)We have Fixed News & hate-talk radio to blame for this. Fixed News has a political agenda to keep the hatred brewing & people like Alex Jones & Limpballs need the hatred to keep the self-loathing people tuning in. They're hurting this country &, as I was taught in school, there's a word for that: treason.
If I had been in that store when this guy walked in with that assault weapon, I would have immediately gone to the store manager, too.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)I think it is all of our media that is guilty of reporting that has been lies and have damaged this country beyond repair. They are little more than propaganda readers.
Faux and their crowd hope to stir up shit. They want to keep the teabillies riled up hoping one will actually kill the president. They have gone beyond allowing the corporate takeover of this country by purposely fostering hate and violence.
Many on this board will way it does not amount to treason, but I don't see how it does not.
Purposefully they plot the very downfall of this country.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)To purposefully plot the downfall of our country, as you so aptly put it, is the very definition of treason.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Paladin
(28,246 posts)How about it, DU gun lovers? Aren't any of you going to voice any support for Mr. Open Carry's efforts to "educate" the good folks at J.C. Penny's? Any of you have a response to IdaBriggs' well-crafted OP, here?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)attention is what he wanted and he got it.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)And that's coming from a person who wouldn't drop all my goods and go running from the store in fear.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)
Squinch
(50,935 posts)
Skittles
(153,138 posts)you seem clueless
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He exercised his legal rights in a way that he knew would piss people off. I usually consider that "trolling". What word are you looking for?
Squinch
(50,935 posts)store had any way of knowing why he was there with that gun, and in light of recent events and the NRA rhetoric of "one good guy with a gun" there was every possibility that someone was going to start shooting in response to his "making a statement."
This was a lot more than unwise, inconsiderate, trollish or mean spirited.
This put every person in his vicinity in danger. He went into that store with the intention of inciting people, and it's just very lucky he didn't.
This is what sets the rest of us off. This guy has no judgment. He is simply stupid. His act was grossly irresponsible. And he is an example of the "responsible gun owners" we are all supposed to be trusting to do the right thing.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think this is a tribalist thing, with their tribe guffawing in contempt that our tribe is viscerally upset and frightened at the mere presence of a firearm. But then again we *do* flip out way too easily around firearms, for the most part. He's being an asshole; that's my judgement and I'm sticking with it.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)You know, the one who wants to prove that one good guy with a gun can be the hero of the day.
Yeah. He's an asshole. With no judgment. And a gun. And he's one of many.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)You don't think that when a gun is seen openly that it would trigger the fight or flight reflex in many people?
This fool is lucky he didn't get shot or at least walk around a display and find a pistol stuck in his face, very lucky.
With all of your wisdom tell us how you can tell the "good guy" from the "bad guy", because I can't tell. And tell me how this "good guy" is going to react if confronted by another "good guy" with a gun that thinks he is a "bad guy".
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Or at least none of the bad guys to date have.
Yes, I'm more familiar with guns than a lot of people (so I'm "used to" seeing them and they aren't alien to me), but I'm also kind of phlegmatic in general; I do make fun of friends for driving in their cars to the airport and then worrying about the plane crashing. But, I recognize a lot of people aren't like me. Like I said, the guy is an asshole, but the whole point of mass shooters is that they stay under the radar until they actually start firing. But, then again, I recognize that being reminded how much more dangerous driving a car is than riding in a plane doesn't actually make nervousness go away, so yeah, that was very irresponsible of him.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)walk around a corner and see this fool, how do I know he walked into the store that way?
If many more of these fools open carry, perhaps to the point of making it common, then the "bad guys" will just open carry and start shooting when they feel like they are in a good spot for it.
I remember when people were smart enough to carry their rifles in cases while in public. Everybody knew it was a rifle but it was not a threat. I think we should take a closer look at open carry.
lolly
(3,248 posts)Surely we have nothing to fear from the guy who posts this on his MySpace page:
"My nightstand at my grandparents."
[link:
|]
(Never mind--image link doesn't work)
And that's just one--this guy is a walking paranoia infestation. What could possibly go wrong with him bringing killing machines into a crowded mall?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2220511
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)Squinch
(50,935 posts)DeschutesRiver
(2,354 posts)call the cops? Did anyone try to "take him down"? Why were there people still waiting there in line with him to pay for their purchases, as though it was no big deal to them? I see more of a reaction online than at that store - the photos show people being pretty casual, rather than running for the parking lot.
I didn't see a photo with cops in it, but I have dialup which has been impossibly slow lately so I probably missed the outraged reactions of his fellow shoppers.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and in places where this would cause a stampede. Maybe it's closer to the former.
DeschutesRiver
(2,354 posts)out here in the slightest. Which is probably why no one is doing it. That is why I don't get the guy in Utah, in that if no one (gun owners or not) cares, then what point is he trying to make and to whom? None to his fellow shoppers, apparently.
When we lived in a small town outside of Portland full time, we did have a elderly neighbor who open carried, because she hated some of her neighbors who were from "the big city". Mrs. E open carried everywhere, and while it didn't cause a stampede, it caused a ton of talk amongst newcomers who were former Portland city dwellers when she was grocery shopping at the little store there. She also threatened to burn down the mountain if she ever left, I believe so that no one more from "the city" could live there. This in the 80s, and this place was an area of culture clash, for lack of a better expression.
She basically got a lot of enjoyment out of how upset the former big city people living there got about the holstered gun under her arm; whereas the locals didn't care a bit.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Although his rifle, as it looked in a photo I saw, was not set up to be a "hunting" rifle, it looked to be set up for "tactical" use. This would include self-defense use, but of course this is a double-edged sword; what works well for self-defense also works well for your typical nightmare public-area massacre.
Open carry is needlessly provocative. Utah has concealed-carry permits. They're not arbitrarily assigned, unlike NY and CA, so the guy should get one, leave the rifle at home, and tuck his pistol and his magazines under his jacket.
Robb
(39,665 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)This stuff is inflammatory and useless. First off, he's parading around with $2,500 worth of hardware on his body. Stuff that a criminal might well kill him for. Second off, he's creating a scene and maybe even a panic.
Robb
(39,665 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)...except in an appropriate context, such as hunting or camping or whatever.
I have no problem with that.
BainsBane
(53,027 posts)and to demonstrate how entitled they are to do anything their twisted minds want. Is there some reason that should surprise you? They are backed by one of the one of the most powerful and evil corporate lobbies in human history, the same one whose position's you echo on a daily basis.
Martin Eden
(12,862 posts)The fool has it slung behind his back. One quick slice with a sharp knife cuts the strap, then a criminal or psychopath has an assault rifle (presumably loaded).
malaise
(268,885 posts)about to open fire on other shoppers.
It's effin' crazy.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Oh wait, this is an "open carry" state? DON'T CARE. 911. And if the cops get annoyed they can lobby to have the law changed.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I thank you for saying that because it tripped a synapse, that allowed me to find a way to characterize the level of discourse driving the desire to keep guns out of the hands of more mentally ill people...
Many folks, from the near illiterate in chatrooms to well educated high paid lobbyists and politicians are falling back on appeals to myth and astrology to explain multiple homicides.
Until I read what you wrote I hadn't really found words that contrasted the reality of popular sentiment with the the careful and appropriate consideration that should lie at the base of contemplation of this problem.
Thanks. It was something of a break thru moment for my writer's block.
malaise
(268,885 posts)because you are correct - I didn't mean lunatic in that sense - I meant delusional gun-loving goon who slaughters for whatever reason he chooses.
Truthfully we all ought to be more careful when discussing this topic because many of these people are not lunatics, but are spiteful, evil human beings out to make their statement by killing others.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)And the result is sufficiently true to be of value.
malaise
(268,885 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)At least in the mass shootings so far.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Let's say moron boy here is actually in a homicidal rage and plans to shoot the woman who done wronged him, and she happens to work at the customer service counter. But he's also got enough of his sanity left to realize that if he opens fire at the door, it'll be hard to find his target.
So, stroll in teaching people "a lesson". "No, I'm not gonna hurt anyone! Honest!". Then teach his target "a lesson" involving a few perforations. Then show everyone else just how angry he was with a few more "lessons" involving perforation.
When talking about "lunatics", you can't count on any specific behavior. So the fact that he didn't start shooting in the parking lot really doesn't eliminate the "he's crazy" possibility.
Martin Eden
(12,862 posts)... but I think it's relevant to point out that other lunatics and criminals would have opportunity to snatch the assault weapon that idiot slung over his shoulder in JC Penney's.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I would not feel safe at all and would get out of there. And how do we know he isn't a nut who might start shooting? Or start shooting someone he thinks is a danger but who is not really a danger?
I don't have super secret telepathic powers that enable me to discern "MURDEROUS MAN ABOUT TO GO ON A RAMPAGE" versus "FREAKING MORON WITH BAD JUDGMENT TRYING TO MAKE A STUPID POINT."
Nay
(12,051 posts)rifle and now is about to mow down shoppers with it? I'm a gun owner, and I'D be running out of that store in a hurry. And then I'd call Penney's and tell them I would never be back.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)if we do this, the attraction for this gun will disappear and the threat of high volumes of masacres will fade away. Without high capacity magazines, this gun is actually a gun that isjust too costly onammujnition for target shooting and too inaccurate at distance for hunting. It then becomes the rifle that with its short stock and lack of high recoil lets ladies protect their home, which is what the NRA media wants to use to keep them in existence.
We should not get into discussions of the exact characteristics of one gun versus the other but rather ban the features of the gun which changes it from a valid home and family asset usable by most weapon and men to the weapon that can fire over a hundred rounds per minute into a classroom of children. That characteistic is just not available without magazines which hold more than five rounds. So lets lower Feinsteins offer of 10 rounds -obviously proposed as compromise to the NRA to 5 rounds which actually protects both our families and those of others too. Five not ten. It makes a big difference.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)rounds makes such a difference.
What is it about the 5 rounds that makes it impossible that would not be in Feinstein's regulation? I'm a non gun person and have not heard this before.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)different from guns with 10 round magazines. It seemed like daybranch was talking about differences in their ability to be turned into something that can be modified to "fire over a hudred rounds a minute into a classroom"
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If a gun can accept detachable magazines than somebody can make a magazine that holds 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, or whatever rounds. If the magazines he had were five round magazines vice ten, he would have to reload twice as often. As far as what practical effect that would have in a mass shooting, I'm not sure.
Ashgrey77
(236 posts)That has to be one of the funniest things I've heard all day.
Robb
(39,665 posts)This. Righteous rant.
Snarkoleptic
(5,997 posts)Savvy businesses that are sensitive to the needs and attitudes of the majority of their customers often post signs.
As these incidents are on the rise, it's time to begin a letter-writing campaign to retailers and mall operators.
MH1
(17,595 posts)the mace or pepper spray that someone carries in their purse as defense against mugging, is a "weapon". The multi-tool that some guy (or gal) carries on their belt for work purposes, probably has a knife blade and would qualify as a "weapon".
The sign with "weapons" on it is appropriate for certain facilities, like kindergarten and elementary school. But for most places adults go, certain "weapons" (such as I mentioned) are reasonable and acceptable.
Also, if a person has a concealed-carry permit and they are carrying appropriately, the store probably wouldn't be able to refuse them service (if it's concealed how would they know? but even if they found out).
Just adding nuance ... I agree with your basic point.
hunter
(38,309 posts)... as do many other businesses.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts) xoom
(322 posts)He broke no laws, you just dont like what he is doing and thats fine for your personal opinion.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... simply put, just another cowardly bully, which seems to quite common to people of his ilk.
In truth, he did make a very loud statement, just not the one he thought it was.
Doesn't that make you the Second Amendment is the only one that counts people proud?
RVN VET
(492 posts)"Stoves are hot. Tornado sirens mean seek shelter. Guns are dangerous tools; if you see one where it doesn't belong, get away!"
The JC Penny guy is a scary example of just how stupid gun nuts actually are. And I don't mean to tar all gun owners and enthisasts with that same brush. If you learn how to use a weapon, how to respect a weapon, and what constitutes appropriate use of a weapon, you don't walk into a public place brandishing one. Period.
On the other hand, if you're just a simple minded dumb ass too stupid to know the danger of his own ignorance, you shoulder a rifle and walk into a department store.
(And let me be the first to say it: if the dude was African American, he would have been shot dead by the local gendarmerie.)
Beartracks
(12,806 posts)This would've been a very different story with a different news spin had it been a black guy "making a point" at a local retailer.
==============
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)He accomplished one thing, no doubt. All the concealed carries in the mall were keeping an eye on him and ready to open fire.
on point
(2,506 posts)raidert05
(185 posts)and that personal weapons system is definitely not pointed in a safe direction in case of accidental discharge...a open carried retention holstered fire arm doesn't bother me, this guy with an AR slung over his back like a gorilla would have warranted my anger for not maintaining muzzle discipline and positive control of the weapon and for making gun owners look like douches...regardless of whether it was loaded or not....he was breaking the first universal rule of gun safety....Treat every weapon as if it is loaded.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)you could pull your CC gun and shoot him dead...and have a reasonable excuse for doing it...I thought he was a mass murder and felt threatened with bodily harm.
csziggy
(34,135 posts)Is Utah a SYG state? If not, that may be the only reason he didn't get shot.
SYG versus "right to openly carry" - that would be an interesting court case!
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)You can only claim "stand your ground" after you claim self defense. In this case you cannot reasonably claim self defense.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That someone armed with an AK 47 walking into a department store is up to something?
How about if I had a CC gun and I drew it on him and made him drop it...and if he went for his gun I shot him dead...would that be self defense?...and would not my actions of trying to disarm someone who was doing something strange with an assault rifle be unreasonable?
If that person had that AK slung like he had this AR you would be going to jail for homicide.... he has no positive control of that weapon and his side arm was properly holstered....if you drew down on him he would have you dead to rights if he shot and killed you. Beside if he is not presenting a credible threat, I.E. physically aiming the gun "brandishing", then merely displaying a firearm "properly holstered" or "slung" in the case of the rifle out in the open does not constitute a reasonable threat it would be unreasonable in the "eyes" of the law if you shot him.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)If he was going into a school would it be reasonable to see it as a threat?
And if you said you saw him going for his gun could you shoot him then?...and who could say otherwise?
it is YOUR perception that counts.
Which points out just how silly these laws are....including one that allows people to bring an assault rifle into a store full of people.
raidert05
(185 posts)Going into a school building I would definitely perceive him to be a threat, he is already breaking the law, even if he has a cc permit, it regulates the firearm to the vehicle in school zones.
At that point it is the police that have to decide if you were truly justified.
If he physically was carrying the gun in his hands, you would be justified in shooting him all day long, having a loaded gun in your hand is the display of deadly force and it doesn't even have to be pointed at you.
That being said I'm of the opinion long guns belong in three places.
1.On the shooting range
2.In the woods
3.In the home
not in JCpennys
zeemike
(18,998 posts)You confronted him and said "what are you doing"
And he said "none of your business punk" and he went for his gun...but you drew quicker and killed him...is that legal?
With no witness you could murder someone and get away with it...just get them to strap on a gun.
Are we at JCpenny or the school or just out in public, did i confront him with a drawed gun, or did I just walk up to him and say "wtf dude"?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And the rest is the story you get to tell, cause he is dead and can't tell his.
But if I were telling it I guess I would say I asked him what he was doing and he became agitated and went for his gun....I was quicker and shot him before he could shoot me.
raidert05
(185 posts)The case then you would be in my opinion, but then again one would question your intentions of confronting him in the first place if he wasn't brandishing his weapon or doing anything illegal in the first place, you technically initiated the situation by questioning him. IMHO if you merely asked out of concern and he tried to shoot you then you would be in the right, if you did so aggressively and were trying to start a confrontation you would be in the wrong. There are no winners in a fire fight just survivors.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Sense he is dead.
And where does it say I don't have the right to question anyone I want in a public place?
I did nothing wrong in questioning him about it...the AK gave me reason and in fact it would be considered my civic duty to do that...If he has the right to inappropriate behaviour I have the right to question it.
And when he made a move for his gun he threatened my life.
and sense there are no winners in a fire fight then it is important to get the draw on them.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)the forensic evidence and the witnesses.
> And where does it say I don't have the right to question anyone I want in a public place?
You have every right to question him as he has every right to ignore your questions.
> And when he made a move for his gun he threatened my life.
If that is what happened, sure. That is a low-odds action against an unarmed person or person who appears to be unarmed due to concealed carry.
To stay legal, you don't want to be perceived as the aggressor in this scenario.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)This is to point out the subjective nature of this law
If I am a paranoid person and I see someone coming down the hall with an AK I might just think he was out to kill me and kill him first...and from my paranoid view it was self defense.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)If the rifle is slung over his shoulder, he is not a reasonable threat to you; thus you cannot legally take any armed actions against him.
This is where training is helpful for folks who carry for self defense.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)You see this guy with a slung gun, and you put your hand on your CC gun and tell him not to make a move to unsling that gun or you will drop him where he stands.
Now as long as he makes no move to unsling then it is no threat...so the next action is his...he controls the situation...if it terns bad it is his fault.
Why is all of this drama not the gun's fault?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)You have no legal right to make any demands of him nor to take any armed action against him since he is presenting no threat to others in the first place.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I am not an aggressor...I just warned him that if he makes any aggressive moves I will stand my ground....if he makes those moves then he is the aggressor...
But probably he would walk away and if there were others that did the same to him he would probably not bring out his phallus again in public....but unchallenged he feels powerful...which is what he wants.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)> you put your hand on your CC gun and tell him not to make a move to unsling
> that gun or you will drop him where he stands.
This would be brandishing and threatening assault. (Legally YOU could be shot in most jurisdictions.)
However, you could just walk up to him and politely let him know you are displeased with his behavior, without making any threats.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)We are too polite with these fools.
If I said what I said then let him call the cops and charge me...it would be he said he said and I would lie my ass off anyway cause he would too.
Bullies intimidate because they get away with intimidation...and that is OUR fault.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Given the recent spate of shootings and the media hype around them, I think it would be reasonable for you to be afraid this person might be about to go on a shooting spree.
While it may be legal for the Penny's guy to do what he did in his state, any Joe Schmoe carrying an AK into public spaces is not the norm in most places.
raidert05
(185 posts)Does its say you can't question him, but the cops will ask and you can make what ever story you want up, after that the legal system will do what it does. What this guy at JCpenny was doing was morally inappropriate, but by virtue of the law he was within his rights. What you find to be morally inappropriate does not give you the ability pre-empt a confrontation if that persons actions fall within virtue of the law. Get what I'm saying? I think morally you would be in the right in my books because there is honest concern and then the guy escalated it to use of deadly force, but by letter of the law would you be 100% justified in your actions? Its a interesting scenario to play out in ones head.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But if it were a court case I would point out that it is more than just morally inappropriate to take an AK into a shopping mall to shop, it makes no sense at all unless you fear terrorist gunmen hiding behind the counters...and so a reasonable first take on it is you are dealing with a dangerous person....an it is in self defense you questioned him and in self defense you shot him.
But there is another thing called the spirit of the law....and that spirit is to establish peace and safety and such actions disturb that peace and safety if only the letter of the law is looked at.
Stunts like this would come to an end if we confronted it any time it took place...but like all bullies they take inaction for weakness, and so we can expect to see more of this...as they start to feel their oats and that black man is back in that white house again.
tblue37
(65,275 posts)followed by the link to the full article, then people will be less likely to assume you wrote it. I also like to use a "blockquote" tag, to set off my own note from the material I am quoting. (Actually, I also use a different font color to set off quoted material, since people often skim too fast and miss the note about its being someone else's writing.)
Putting the link after a long passage, with no note at all, though, pretty much guarantees that many will mistakenly assume you wrote it, leaving you to post endless disclaimers.
ON EDIT: Of course, even with such precautions you won't prevent every person who responds from mistaking the quote for your own writing, but you will significantly reduce the number of times you have to correct the mistake.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)at JC Penny's. Apologies for the confusion.
tblue37
(65,275 posts)To prevent fools like me from NOT giving you the credit you deserve (for what IS atruly righteous rant!), then maybe a note after the writing to let us know the link is just for background info.
Truly, the best explanation I've seen thus far for why the idiots should keep their coc--oops, sorry, I mean their gun tucked away out of sight in most public places.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Edited the original post to clarify the point.
Thank you for the compliments! 
pipoman
(16,038 posts)but at some point one must actually weigh the risks to ourselves and our children. I mean the actual odds of various dangers should have some place in the evaluation of risk. I have a slightly different life's experience which drives me to respond to specific types of threats differently than the author here.
I grew up hunting and fishing within 1/2 mile from my house. It was a great childhood filled with anticipation, oneness with my nature and nature in general. In my adult life I repossessed my first car when I was 22. After that over 20 years I repossessed over 12000. I wasn't really making friends out there, but my style was polar opposite of what people think after watching the repo series'. In addition to repossessing cars I was a licensed detective and participated in many civil and criminal cases. Part of my job required me to carry a gun. I worked with a team who worked as body guards and executed post judgement collection orders..again making enemies in a world of less than stellar citizens.
I worked on many criminal defense cases which I knew in my heart my client was guilty, but my job was to uncover evidence to assist in the person's defense, not to find evidence pointing to my client. I developed a strong advocacy for civil libertarian causes..to the point of accepting cases of the most deplorable people imaginable..people who were accused of horrible things or who had repulsive beliefs..people who even the courts couldn't find anyone willing to work on their defense. I know people who I believe have committed unspeakable acts who are not in custody. Then came the most challenging case of my career. What made this case different than the rest was the prior knowledge of details of the case because of it's proximity to me..less than 2 miles away two armed men entered a house with 3 young couples..pacifists who had done nothing but good in their lives. The 2 men repeatedly raped the women and locked the men into a closet. The 6 people ultimately submitted believing the men would eventually leave..after the men had robbed the people by taking them one by one to an ATM, they loaded them all in a vehicle and took them to a remote spot and summarily executed them by shooting them in the head.. all died but one woman survived. Her story was so very shocking it chilled me to the bone. I received the call to assist in the defense of these two animals. I couldn't do it..I declined the case and later that year quit doing criminal defense, and within 4 years was completely out of this business. I love what I do now...caring for people who love me and appreciate what I do for them. The residual of my previos life however still haunts me. I no longer carry a gun, but do remain armed in my home and likely always will.
During this time I and my wife raised 2 children. We live in tornado alley so we had a plan for tornadoes and our kids knew what to do to stay safe. We had a plan for fire, power outage, snowed in, and for home invasion. We had occasional drills for each of these risks. We didn't dwell on any of these things beyond making sure our kids knew the likelihood any of these things would happen was remote, but possible. We also made a plan for scenarios outside the home. Auto accidents and confrontation with criminals of different sorts. Again, being sure to temper the plans with the reality of the chances we would need to act on our plans. I made enemies who took what I was charged with doing very personally, so the chances we would be confronted were probably greater than others.
My life's experience has lead me to believe in keeping defensive guns in my home, and can understand the desire to carry outside the home...though I haven't for several years now. I have no problem with concealed carry..the chances of being harmed by a concealed carrier is less than the pubic in general, for the fact they are supposed to be a group who is devoid of people convicted of felonies, and have not been found mentally incompetent, or had convictions for domestic violence.
Bottom line, yes there is danger we are all subject to become victims of..we should be somewhat prepared..many dangers are far more likely than being shot at the JC Penneys...going through life scared and going through life cautious are 2 different things..don't instill fear of society in your children..teach them reality and caution..
tblue37
(65,275 posts)I live in Kansas, too, and I must admit that the case is still one of the most horrendous I have ever heard. From time to time I still think about it, though I do not want to. It just floats to the top of my mind when I am thinking about how depraved humans can be.
I am glad you refused to assist in the defense of those two guys. I don't think you woudl ever be able to get it out of your mind if you had helped their defense. I wasn't in any way involved in the case, yet I still find it disturbing my thoughts sometimes, even after all these years.
part of working these cases involved reviewing all evidence. There are some things you can't un-see. This is one of those cases. It was bad enough hearing about it.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)very well said indeed.
***I don't have super secret telepathic powers that enable me to discern "MURDEROUS MAN ABOUT TO GO ON A RAMPAGE" versus "FREAKING MORON WITH BAD JUDGMENT TRYING TO MAKE A STUPID POINT." ***
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)You raised some excellent points.
People with guns don't wear white hats or black hats so we can easily tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys." We have to assume the worst, and act accordingly to protect our children and ourselves. Failing to do so could result in death.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)And you have to jump through hoops to even buy a gun. My neighbor hunts on his upstate property and he and his friends carry their guns from their house to their truck in obviously locked cases. If ever state had laws like ours it would be a safer country and the gun industry would be bitched slapped back into place.
The gun crimes committed here are usually with weapons from down South.
The man who entered JC Pennys carrying his gun would be immediately arrested and bail would be unlikely.
mountain grammy
(26,613 posts)
Agony
(2,605 posts)thanks for the clear-eyed analysis IdaBriggs.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Bingo.
Now, what would be funny would be if another idiot decided to take him out to be the "good guy with a gun".
Nice to know we live in a country where a guy can wear a white supremacist t-shirt, shave his head, strap on firearms and probably have issues with gays coming out of the closet....
donco
(1,548 posts)he would have done if someone approached him in the parking lot, stuck a pistol in his back and said give me all of your weapons as well as your wallet?
Thav
(946 posts)this would have scared me shitless. I would have immediately felt threatened and called the police. Regardless if he was legal or not, military hardware is IMMEDIATELY threatening.
This guy's attempt at "educating people" was another person's worst nightmare come true. I would have insisted the police file charges of terrorism against him.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... this is no more likely to become a "societal norm" than ballwalking is. Please.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)His stunt, as of the First, is illegal.
We need such laws nationwide.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)AFAIK mass shooters have all tried to hide their weapons beforehand.
TinkerTot55
(198 posts)...Didn't the shooter near Milwaukee, at the Sikh Temple, walk down a long driveway, openly carrying his weapon, and shooting any people he found outside before he walked into the Temple? I believe the police officers were shot out in the open.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)walking into the mall from the parking lot with his gun in hand.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)In the case Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919), a Supreme Court case that explored the limits of First Amendment protection of free speech sraes "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
So to paraphrase, I say "The most stringent protection of the right to bear arms would not protect a man who carries a gun in a crowded place if it creating a false sense of danger and causing a panic."
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's why I get nervous when I see that phrase used.
Helen Reddy
(998 posts)Wonder what Rush or Sean's bodyguards would have done if this gentleman with the armory walked up to them?
Rush would shake his hand before or after the bodyguards messed him up?
Noone, I mean noone wants this guy around them. They would be prevaricating if they said they would.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)Ding ding ding. This is it exactly.
If gun nuts like this guy want to convince the rest of us that guns are simply tools that they use responsibly, then they should simply do that, not use them as props to shock and scare people in order to make a point.
loose wheel
(112 posts)He could have have been coming from the gun store and also needed to stop at the JC Penney's. He could have made a determination that his guns were more secure on his person than in his car. We don't know. All we have is a grainy picture and zero other information. Just carrying a gun conveys absolutely no other information than that.
Which is more likely, that he was trying to intimidate anybody, which it doesn't seem like he did, or some other scenario of which we are not aware.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Let's think of some other tools that you can flourish because you have right to, you never know when they're going to come in handy, and you want to "educate" people about their use.
How about a set of cooking utensils? Because you never know when you're going to be invited to dinner and you want your host to be properly prepared. How about a full set of ratchets, including one that's three foot long. You never know when somebody's car is going to break down. How about some hedge clippers? Because . . . well, you know.
Why would anybody leave leave his house anticipating he's going to be shot at, and not say, lock his keys in the car?
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)carrying any kind of displayed firearm in a shopping mall to be hostile. Some other law abiding citizen packing heat in the same mall could arrive at the same conclusion. The outcome might be a shoot out in a crowded store between law abiding citizens merely exercising their supposed 2nd Amendment rights to channel Rambo in a public place.
matt819
(10,749 posts)What if another gun carrier telepathically discerned that this assault weapon carrier was a threat, about to go on a murderous spree?
There's no clear indication that the police were called. Now that's sick.
And why are law enforcement officials nationwide not up in arms about this development?
DFW
(54,330 posts)If he had been an Arab in full Bedouin dress and headgear, would they have been so casual? How does anyone know the armed man doesn't have mental problems, and won't suddenly turn and open fire on the public? They don't. I don't care that he may have every legal right to walk around armed like that. That fact that he wants to is enough to make me want to not be anywhere near him, or in a state that permits him to walk around like that.
It's a fair bet that Al Qaeda won't be sending an armed man walking into an American shopping mall prepared to kill a bunch of strangers. It is a matter of recent history that armed American white males HAVE walked into public places in America and gunned down strangers. As long as no one can guarantee me that this boob isn't one of them, I want no part of a place that isn't interested in finding out until after the fact.
I think I read somewhere, here at DU maybe, that if I see two white males strolling down my suburban block with rifles or guns or whatever, that I should not call 911 unless they actually start shooting.
Bullshit.
911 it is. Why the hell would I wait to see if they are just picking out a house to attack? That would be, in my opinion, illegal and perhaps putting myself and others in danger.
CrispyQ
(36,446 posts)I am still not over Newtown. Yesterday I lost it while I was sitting out back enjoying the gorgeous weather, when I thought of those little kids. The youngest had eleven gunshot wounds. Eleven. From a fucking gun.
My immediate response would have to be "To Hunt."
I cannot tell the difference between a random madman armed with weapons and an idiot trying to make a moronic point that BY LAW he is entitled to behave like a fool by bringing (charitably) a "HUNTING RIFLE" into a place where the only "GAME" is human beings.
For safety's sake, I would immediately flee the scene, urging everyone else to do the same, but making sure my children are safe first and foremost.
That that fucking fool has the right to carry that into the public sphere . . .
Beartracks
(12,806 posts)You have the RIGHT to free speech, but you can't yell "Fire" in a theater just for the hell of it.
Similarly, you have the RIGHT to bear arms, but you shouldn't be allowed to trot them out in inappropriate, populated places just for the hell of it.
=================
Hekate
(90,627 posts)When 911 switchboards in open-carry states are flooded with calls from "non-telepathic" citizens, perhaps the legislators there will reconsider.
to you and your twins from this grandma.
Hekate
1monster
(11,012 posts)inappropriate weapon (of any kind) into a public space. Especially a weapon that will allow for the carrier to kill many people quickly and efficiently.
Last month, an entire movie theater complex was evacuated because someone saw a man tuck something up under his coat and believed it was an assault weapon.
Turns out, it was a sub, alright. A sub sandwich.
THAT was an over reaction by someone who was seriously affected by the Newtown shootings.
To react to a person openly carrying an unmistakable "hunting weapon" into a place where legally hunted animals never go is only prudent and responsible.
appleannie1
(5,067 posts)and the owners make the rules as to what they allow in their stores IE NO SHIRT NO SHOES NO SERVICE. If they allow some ass with a gun slung over his shoulder to roam free in their store, I will shop elsewhere.
War Horse
(931 posts)Great post!
ladjf
(17,320 posts)to begin a massacre or just a fool trying to "educate people". Just on the outside chance that he is a killer, is enough to remove everyone from the store.
Although I doubt that the store management would be ready to evacuate the store, it would have been a good idea, IMO.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)He brought that gun in to a store to intimidate and to make the point that he was a big man with a gun and no one could do anything about it.
This guy sounds like an asshole just like my father. If you want to know what I am talking about see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022158695
If I saw that, I would be out of that store in a heart beat and calling 911. Nobody knows if he is going to open fire and you absolutely cant give anyone the benefit of the doubt now.
He is a bully and a jerk with no interest in anything but terrorizing people so even if the police can't arrest him, maybe they can interrupt his day.
This jerk strapped on his gun and got his jollies thinking about frightening men women and children in a public place just because he feels he has the right to. The police should look in to his family because he is probably a psycho there too.
Owning a gun is a responsibility. It is a killing machine. Responsible gun owners should be up in arms over this type of behavior!
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I found it extremely powerful. I was so angry on your behalf after having read it - to be honest, it is still impacting me weeks (months?) after your posting.
Thank you for sharing your story. And thank you for having the courage to stand up and tell it.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)Like "Hey look at me" which is so NOT why I am doing it. Its just that I KNOW this type of gun nut so well and when I say things I feel like if people dont know who I am they don't know I KNOW what I am talking about.
THis post got me SO angry I didnt know what to think~!!!
I dont know if this guy has a family but if he does I hope someone looks into it.
SouthernDonkey
(256 posts)And should be placed under arrest and charged with terrorism. Then he can have his day in court, and if it all works out and he's not a threat and no laws have been broken then they can find him not guilty and let him go back to being a jerk.
That is how you deal with these kinds of dumb asses. Call the cops... arrest him for being an "armed threat" and after he sits in jail a few days awaiting his hearing, perhaps he'll learn he's not so fucking smart after all!.
Robyn66
(1,675 posts)That is exactly how these people should be handled!
lolly
(3,248 posts)Absolutely. He is NOT just happening to carry a gun because he just stopped by Gunz R Us and didn't have a shopping bag for it.
He wanted to intimidate and bully people.
People who like to intimidate and terrorize others are not "good" guys. They are the ones who will think it is funny to point the gun at the salesclerk if she won't accept his return. Or at the teenager who doesn't give him the respect he's convinced he deserves.
And a guy who's so paranoid he sleeps with machetes, axes, bayonets, and guns by his bed is not going to be calm and collected in assessing the threat from, say, a young man in a hoodie who accidentally bumps into him in the mall.
I didn't have to see the MySpace page to guess all this--the page just confirmed it. The act itself demonstrates that he's a self-centered bully.
triplepoint
(431 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:20 AM - Edit history (3)
A GUN NUT SPHINCTER SAYS WHAT???
.
.
.
.
Cedric the Clam
(35 posts)I am glad that nuts continue to do things like this guy bringing an assault rifle into a department store.
It just goes to show everyone how nuts they are and how out-of-control the gun culture has gotten.
What's the old saying.... give 'em enough rope to hang themselves?
I think most people would not like to see men with assault rifles walking around in public areas.
Everybody walking around with guns can only mean one thing... a hell of a lot more shooting.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Yours is the most sensible OP I've read on the subject! Wow! Just wow!
judesedit
(4,437 posts)
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,402 posts)If a bunch of people start emulating this guy and starts to become comfortable/desensitized to people wandering around toting guns, then there's no way that we can figure out whether or not the people carrying are just carrying because they want to (and can legally in some places) or because they're about to slaughter a bunch of people- until it's too late, of course
IMHO people should NEVER be made to feel *comfortable* around guns except for certain places/situations (i.e. hunting, gun range, etc.).
life long demo
(1,113 posts)There is no need to walk into a department store carrying a gun. I believe the guy did that just to intimidate people.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)The clerk NEVER should have served him. Call the manager, then call the police, but get the hell away from the nut who feels the need to have his "weapon" out in the open. We should treat them like flashers. File a report and get this assholes name. Some people may have a case against him for the terror he imposed on them. His gun at some point was pointed at someone's head. When lawsuits start coming their way, they will stop it.
Who's to say "Rambo" couldn't have lost his gun to someone faster and stronger. Maybe that guy has a grudge and now he has the gun. This is insanity 101.
otohara
(24,135 posts)shoppers because he could...
If he were black or brown, or looked in the least bit Muslim, that man would have been taken down.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)This guy & the two guys walking down a town street carrying assault weapons have clearly shown why the open gun-carry law is a bad idea. No one around them can possibly know what their intent or state of mind is. The public's safety outweighs their right to advertise their gun fetish.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)entering with weapons, whether guns or knives. The rational was that it still was private property even though open to the public. The owner of the business had the right to forbid access to anyone they deemed to be of danger to their other clientele. We also were required by law to forbid access to anyone not wearing shirts or shoes. So the right to enter a place of business carrying or wearing anything you want is not sacrosanct it would seem in many municipalities. Although, I knew many of my customers were sometimes in professions that allowed them to carry concealed weapons when off duty like cops, it was never cool for them to have them out in the open. My boss once actually threw out an off duty cop who showed his weapon with no reason to.
FSogol
(45,470 posts)that allows idiots to carry assault rifles openly. While guns may have a use in society, they do not have a place in a department store.
Here's their corporate address and Director of their Board (Note: This is public information about a corporation, not private info which is prohibited by DU's TOS).
JC Pennys
Attn: Director Rob Johnson
6501 Legacy Drive, Plano, TX 75024
adieu
(1,009 posts)store with a running chain saw.
Arms, as defined as a weapon, need not be guns only. Anything that can be used as a weapon is, by its use, a weapon. So if this idiot can carry a gun into the store, I should be able to carry an operating chain saw to the store. Or bring a katana to the store.
You know, to "edumacate" people.
:grrr:
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)xmas74
(29,673 posts)I'd grab my kid, drop everything including a carton of eggs or a glass vase (depends on the store I'm at), run out of the store and scream that he has a gun at the door. I'd also call 9-1-1 and let the police sort it out.
It's a perceived threat in my mind. A handgun, I can handle. Anything else-nope. No way, no day.
llmart
(15,536 posts)with his schwantz hanging out in full view, he'd have been taken into custody immediately. Where are our priorities in this country anyway?
We have allowed the crazies to dictate what the rest of us have to live with. I, for one, will never shop in a store where this is allowed and I WILL make my feelings known to the management.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)I couldn't agree more with the OP. I have two grandchidlren one 4 and one 5. They look just like those at Newtown. My grandson's school (they are with me during the day) has security issues that are finely being resolve. Look at thie below link about this guy's myspace acct and the pics on it. Scary scary stuff! I say the autorities need to be aware of this My Space account:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022220511
pipewrench
(194 posts)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)to shoot as many people in Penny's as he could, we'd be seeing these photos all over the news as evidence of his mental problems.
The movie "Taxi Driver" has become very relevant lately. Had Travis Bickle assassinated the presidential candidate he would've been condemned as a violent nutcase, but because he ends up killing the pimp, he's heralded as a hero.
The people applauding the Penny's guy now wouldn't be doing so had "the voices" told him to open fire.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)If I was the manager of that store, I would have called the police. There might be nothing illegal with carrying the weapon into a business, but there is also nothing illegal about calling the police when you feel threatened. I would then tell 'em there was a man in here with an automatic rifle and let 'em handle it.
I know someone will shoot back that this is a reasonable action - but I think this man's actions are not reasonable. So, basically, we're now going to have to wait to be shot on to react to whether the person with the gun is a good guy or a bad guy? What kind of world is that? Use common sense, people!
Warpy
(111,235 posts)who was poking fingers in eyes and telling people loudly that nobody was ever going to tell him what to do, he had a big, ugly looking gun.
While I put up with the National Guard at the local airport because it shares facilities with an air base and there's a good reason for them to be there, I don't want to put up with military style weapons being waved around by swaggering idiots when I'm buying jeans and socks.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)internet.
It's a curious kind of thing.
Semtex
(21 posts)A large buck was sighted on aisle 3!
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)His "supporters" are applauding JC Penney for this behavior!
My Opinion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022218233
Facebook Link: http://www.facebook.com/jcp
Thank you - please kick so people know about this. Obviously I want a policy change!
Link to DU thread with this information - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022222887
MellonCollie11
(6 posts)Now that we who also have a right NOT to be traumatized or shot must begin a national boycott of any business who does not respect OUR rights.
MellonCollie11
(6 posts)Any shopper who was emotionally traumatized by this repulsive and lpotentially life threatening "lesson" condoned by this corporation needs to get counseling and contact jcpenney for the name of their liability carrier....psychological pain and suffering suit will get their attention like nothing else.