Coronavirus Outbreak...

[Mountain Man]

Hold on now. So, one person revealing that they have a holstered handgun is an explicit threat, but a group carrying long guns while wearing tactical gear isn't?

Whoops, you moved the goalposts. Your scenario was not simply revealing a holstered weapon but revealing a holstered with the explicit intent of intimidating another person, the clear implication being, "If you don't do what I say, then I'll shoot you."

Is that what the protestors were doing? Not as far as I know. They were simply exercising their Constitutionally protected right to bear arms as part of a peaceful demonstration.

[DivineOb]

And so what if the psychopath's were planning to attend? Their murdering a security guard in cold blood had nothing to do with the protest itself or anybody else who managed to show up without shooting someone.

Here WW attempts to shift the conversation away from the point raised by seanD.

The Virginia protest was held up as an example how ammosexuals can protest peacefully while armed *more heavily* than the police officers asked to keep the peace. My point was that that likely only happened because the violent ones were fortunately arrested beforehand thanks for the FBI.

[DivineOb]

Whoops, you moved the goalposts. Your scenario was not simply revealing a holstered weapon but revealing a holstered with the explicit intent of intimidating another person, the clear implication being, "If you don't do what I say, then I'll shoot you."

The intimidation comes from the knowledge that the other person is armed. Revealing that one is armed is intimidating because most people know that the primary job of a gun is to kill people. Why is revealing a weapon a form of intimidation but carrying them out in the open *while wearing tactical gear* not a form of intimidation?

Let me put it differently. If you were walking down the street and on one side you saw someone openly carrying a long gun while wearing tactical gear and on the other side you saw someone unarmed wearing street clothes which side of the street would you prefer to be walking on?

[seanD]

My point was that that likely only happened because the violent ones were fortunately arrested beforehand thanks for the FBI.

You don't know that. Because they were engaging in criminal activity elsewhere doesn't mean they were planning violence at the rally.

And, again, lumping a group of pro 2A criminals in with hundreds of pro-2A noncriminals is a bit disingenuous. Almost, though not quite, as disingenuous as lumping them in with gang members in a Flint ghetto.

Nah, on second thought, the latter takes the cake when it comes to dishonesty.

[Littlejoe]

The intimidation comes from the knowledge that the other person is armed. Revealing that one is armed is intimidating because most people know that the primary job of a gun is to kill people. Why is revealing a weapon a form of intimidation but carrying them out in the open *while wearing tactical gear* not a form of intimidation?

Let me put it differently. If you were walking down the street and on one side you saw someone openly carrying a long gun while wearing tactical gear and on the other side you saw someone unarmed wearing street clothes which side of the street would you prefer to be walking on?

Whichever side I happen to be on. I wouldn't switch sides just because of it. In fact, I might inquire to what the caliber and make/model the long gun is. What optics are on it etc. I think it simply comes down to your comfort level with armed citizens. I conceal carry most of the time, I think open carry is stupid, but not intimidating or illegal...at least it's not here.

[oxmixmudd]

No, it's not. Simply carrying a gun is not threatening in and of itself. It would require the act of brandishing it, or aiming it at another person to be a considered a threat, and trying to link murderous thugs to a completely unrelated group of peaceful protestors is nothing but an attempt to smear innocent people, and I'm honestly not sure what your motivation is here.

The is no 'motivation' other than to criticize absurd acts that are ratcheting up these issues to the point they will produce violence.

Carrying guns to protest being forced to wear masks (to protect others by the way) is an act of intimidation. That gives permission to other less stable but angry folks to do the same or to take it to the next step. It is called 'imitation'.

[Mountain Man]

The intimidation comes from the knowledge that the other person is armed. Revealing that one is armed is intimidating because most people know that the primary job of a gun is to kill people. Why is revealing a weapon a form of intimidation but carrying them out in the open *while wearing tactical gear* not a form of intimidation?

Nope, you're still flailing. Your original example was a character in a television program showing his holstered weapon to another character with the explicit intent to intimidate. Now you're trying to move the goalposts to someone simply openly carrying a weapon.

Let me put it differently. If you were walking down the street and on one side you saw someone openly carrying a long gun while wearing tactical gear and on the other side you saw someone unarmed wearing street clothes which side of the street would you prefer to be walking on?

Unless the guy with the gun was doing something otherwise threatening, I would have no problem sharing the same side of the street with him.

[seanD]

The is no 'motivation' other than to criticize absurd acts that are ratcheting up these issues to the point they will produce violence.

Carrying guns to protest being forced to wear masks (to protect others by the way) is an act of intimidation. That gives permission to other less stable but angry folks to do the same or to take it to the next step. It is called 'imitation'.

I disagree. I don't think the ghetto incident had anything to do with being influenced by pro-gun rightwingers. Chances of that are pretty laughable. The group that shot the guard was probably just sick of the mandates, and they acted violently because it's the nature of the ghetto to act that way. You guys keep assuming all these protests are only rightwingers and Trump supporters, even the ones at the beaches in California and NY. That's more than likely a false assumption.

[Mountain Man]

The is no 'motivation' other than to criticize absurd acts that are ratcheting up these issues to the point they will produce violence.

Carrying guns to protest being forced to wear masks (to protect others by the way) is an act of intimidation. That gives permission to other less stable but angry folks to do the same or to take it to the next step. It is called 'imitation'.

Correlation implies causation, is that it?

[oxmixmudd]

Whichever side I happen to be on. I wouldn't switch sides just because of it. In fact, I might inquire to what the caliber and make/model the long gun is. What optics are on it etc. I think it simply comes down to your comfort level with armed citizens. I conceal carry most of the time, I think open carry is stupid, but not intimidating or illegal...at least it's not here.

Not cool on the streets of Baltimore, and I would definitely go the other way as fast as I could.

[KingsGambit]

Whichever side I happen to be on. I wouldn't switch sides just because of it. In fact, I might inquire to what the caliber and make/model the long gun is. What optics are on it etc. I think it simply comes down to your comfort level with armed citizens. I conceal carry most of the time, I think open carry is stupid, but not intimidating or illegal...at least it's not here.

Out of curiosity, what do you think about the movement where people open carry into restaurants just to demonstrate that they can?

It seems counterproductive to me because all it has done thus far is prompt several restaurants/stores to clarify their policies to ban all carrying, even concealed, whereas they had left it a grey area previously. It also seems immature; it seems like a Second Amendment version of walking around shouting profanity just to demonstrate one has First Amendment rights.

[Littlejoe]

Out of curiosity, what do you think about the movement where people open carry into restaurants just to demonstrate that they can?

It seems counterproductive to me because all it has done thus far is prompt several restaurants/stores to clarify their policies to ban all carrying, even concealed, whereas they had left it a grey area previously. It also seems immature; it seems like a Second Amendment version of walking around shouting profanity just to demonstrate one has First Amendment rights.

My personal opinion is it's stupid to make yourself a primary target in case of attack or robbery by open carrying. If someone is intent on robbing or shooting up a place, they will concentrate on the obvious objects of resistance first. I'm pretty used to guns and they don't bother me but I just think it defeats the purpose of being armed if you make yourself a primary target.

[DivineOb]

Nope, you're still flailing. Your original example was a character in a television program showing his holstered weapon to another character with the explicit intent to intimidate.

Not what I said. What I said is they revealed the gun knowing that *most people* tend to feel intimidated knowing that someone is armed.

Now you're trying to move the goalposts to someone simply openly carrying a weapon.

The useful idiot protesters we're discussing are open carrying. Even Sean Hannity said it's a bad idea to bring guns into this.

Unless the guy with the gun was doing something otherwise threatening, I would have no problem sharing the same side of the street with him.

Fine, let me ask the question differently.

How do you think *most people* would respond in that situation? Do you think the majority of people would be less comfortable around someone carrying a long gun wearing tactical gear than someone who wasn't? I can only speak for everyone I know well but I'm sure every single one of them would feel less comfortable around the armed person than the unarmed one. And many of them own / enjoy guns (I don't own one but I've fired guns enough to know that it's fun :)).

[carpedm9587]

Not what I said. What I said is they revealed the gun knowing that *most people* tend to feel intimidated knowing that someone is armed.

The useful idiot protesters we're discussing are open carrying. Even Sean Hannity said it's a bad idea to bring guns into this.

Fine, let me ask the question differently.

How do you think *most people* would respond in that situation? Do you think the majority of people would be less comfortable around someone carrying a long gun wearing tactical gear than someone who wasn't? I can only speak for everyone I know well but I'm sure every single one of them would feel less comfortable around the armed person than the unarmed one. And many of them own / enjoy guns (I don't own one but I've fired guns enough to know that it's fun :)).

I wonder what the reaction would be if the guy with the gun was black?

[DivineOb]

Whichever side I happen to be on. I wouldn't switch sides just because of it. In fact, I might inquire to what the caliber and make/model the long gun is. What optics are on it etc. I think it simply comes down to your comfort level with armed citizens. I conceal carry most of the time, I think open carry is stupid, but not intimidating or illegal...at least it's not here.

I agree, it just comes down to your comfort level with armed citizens. I think the average American is less comfortable with armed citizens than with unarmed ones. Polls seem to back that perspective up.