do you have any proof that most people would find it ok to bring a firearm to a childrens soccer game?
No, but I have proof it's perfectly legal to do so, and enough people who think it is ok to know that claims of 'most' are either false, or doomed to the 51% tyranny of the majority flaw.
Proof/support? Threshold of 'normal'? Proof of 'rightfully'?
None. Since statistically they should NOT have an expectation of 'the worst' your statement is flawed.
so no.
as has been covered in the thread repeated, you can be 100% legally right and a 100% jackass. The dead lady is a perfect example.
to use another analogy, you have the freedom of speech, but you should yell bomb on an airplane or fire in a crowded theatre.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
That ignores my God Hates Fags question.
The point is, there's a difference between what the law allows and what a well, respectful person would do. If I choose I can spend hours talking to schoolchildren about Ted Bundy or Albert Fish, or go to a meeting of the NAACP and start throwing around the "N word." Either action would be legal, just as it's perfectly legal for the God Hates Fags people to stand at a military funeral with a signs saying "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." These actions would also be completely boorish, insensitive, and, well, crazy (just as, in my opinion, it is crazy to insist on brandishing a gun at a child's soccer game). My own view (concededly lacking in "evidence") is that anyone who'd do any of these things is an asshole of the highest order.
So first you say that the majority of people are for carrying guns to children's soccer games, but if the majority aren't ok with it then they are oppressing those who want to carry at children's sporting events. Did I get that right?
really?
lets ignore the facts and evidence for now, and use a little game theory here.
now someone shows up with a gun you can either be concerned, or not be concerned, and the person can either be peaceful or not.
in the instance where you are concerned, the gunman is either peaceful, in which case you are fine, or not peaceful, in which case you are clearly better off being concerned.
In the case where you are not concerned, the gunman is either peaceful, in which case you are fine (equal result) or not peaceful, in which case you are worse off.
clearly the optimal strategy is to be concerned.
considering the sorts of attitudes many parent bring to their children's sport events (unbridled rage) and our nations foundness for gun violence, they should statistically be concerned as well, they should be vigilant, especially since the price of not being vigilant is potentially death.
finally, judging by the communities response, bringing a gun to a childrens sporting event is not consistent with the expectations of the community.
Actually having thought more about it, yes I do. If enough people were actually against it there would probably be a law against it. However there are no laws against it. This is not perfect of course, since lawmaking is more than simply a majority rules situation. However it does support that either it isn't a significant problem, or not enough people have a major problem with it.
I don't believe I ever said the majority of people are for carrying guns to children's soccer games. I said many are, and that it was legal, logical, and did not present any kind of danger.
People can not like it all they want, but if they take any action other than just saying they're against it, or trying to change the law through standard means then they are being discriminatory and acting irrationally - and in the process inviting negativity and repercussions. For instance, I REALLY hate religious people...as in I REALLY REALLY REALLY hate overtly, zealous religious people. However, I can't call the Sheriff to arrest someone for proselytizing in public if they're not breaking any laws. I can't suspend their minister's license (or whatever). I can't refuse to employ them or their spouse any more because I heard about their religious nature. In any of those cases I will face repercussions for my choice to discriminate.
Game theory is a philosophical/psychological exercise with no real world direct application, but ok, I'll bite this one time.
In your first case if you are concerned: concern is stress and stress is immediately and directly harmful (even though it also provides certain chemical mechanisms which increase survivability in case of danger). It also encourages 'tunnel vision' which can be harmful by not allowing you proper field of awareness on other potential dangers. Even if the situation turns out to NOT be peaceful your concern is not particularly helpful since in most cases you're still going to die unless you are carrying as well.
If you are not concerned then you do not suffer stress (a better result), or you are stressed and then get shot (the same result).
The optimal strategy is to not worry about it BECAUSE you are prepared to deal with any situation - ie carry a gun but don't stress.
If you actually examine the statistics surrounding lawful carry you will see that in fact they are safer with that person there than if a police officer were there, so again there is no cause to worry. The potential for death exists merely by being alive, and is not alleviated by being aware (only by being prepared).
The community can not have expectations different than what the law allows. Or rather, they can, but they can do NOTHING when those expectations are not met.
jesus christ princeofwands...
someone suggests, that maybe, just maybe - showing up at a soccer game played by children with a gun holstered on your hip - CC permit or no - is perhaps just a bit inappropriate, and you leap to
"And I say you don't have a single fact to support that statement, and so you are advocating the overthrow of liberty and feedom, as well as completely ignoring Constitutional and statutory rule, for an emotional and ignorant outburst. "
that's a stretch, even for you.
someone suggests, that maybe, just maybe - showing up at a soccer game played by children with a gun holstered on your hip - CC permit or no - is perhaps just a bit inappropriate, and you leap to
"And I say you don't have a single fact to support that statement, and so you are advocating the overthrow of liberty and feedom, as well as completely ignoring Constitutional and statutory rule, for an emotional and ignorant outburst. "
that's a stretch, even for you.
amddude
Golden Member
- Mar 9, 2006
- 1,711
- 1
- 81
There are so many people that have a mental block when it comes to the 'I believe in gun rights but it's absurd to carry a gun <insert place here>'. Violence happens everywhere. Some say guns don't belong in churches. People get robbed in churches. Why would a soccer game be sacred? Nutjobs and criminals are everywhere. Remove head from sand.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I note you still have yet to address my point. I gather, by virtue of your failure to respond, that you believe that anyone who objects to the God Hates Fags "ministry" protesting at military funerals with a "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" sign is, to borrow your phrase, "advocating the overthrow of liberty and freedom." Can I safely assume you are 100% in favor of such protests as not only legal but unobjectionable?
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
So why does it need to sit in a holster on her hip? Sure, it might be legal, but why not just hide the thing and use it if necessary?
Bullshit. By "normal person" you mean somebody that is scared at the sight of a firearm. Does a "normal person" walking around in uniform scare people?
more completely irrelevant spew from spidey
you don't think the site of a woman, not in a police uniform - sporting a gun on her hip might cause some reactions AT A CHILDREN'S SOCCER GAME?
do you think - I don't know, I'm going out on a limb here - do you think it's possible it might - just might - alert or even scare a child or two? Is that really out of the realm of possible outcomes for you? Is that not, gasp - a possible normal reaction?
you don't think the site of a woman, not in a police uniform - sporting a gun on her hip might cause some reactions AT A CHILDREN'S SOCCER GAME?
do you think - I don't know, I'm going out on a limb here - do you think it's possible it might - just might - alert or even scare a child or two? Is that really out of the realm of possible outcomes for you? Is that not, gasp - a possible normal reaction?
PrinceofWands
We may disagree on a whole lotta shit, but I would be very happy to have you as my neighbor. I'm lucky as every neighbor within a few hundred yards feels the same as you.
We may disagree on a whole lotta shit, but I would be very happy to have you as my neighbor. I'm lucky as every neighbor within a few hundred yards feels the same as you.
In response to the God Hates Fags question, I believe in the right of the westboro church to preach their hate, I don't like those people, and I fully support your right to criticize them. However, I hate their message, not their use of their rights nor where they use their rights. If they had the same protest at the courthouse of our city, I would still hate their message and support their rights. I always believe they have the right to freedom of speech, and the only reason I don't like them preaching hate at the funerals is because they are there with the intent to use their right to cause other people distress. A critical part of my dislike of their use of their right is their intent. If there was any evidence that this woman intended to use the display of that firearm to intimidate or in any other way destroy other peoples enjoyment of this activity, I would join you in saying she was a horrible person, but I would still have to side with protecting her rights. But the fact that other people are uncomfortable with another person exercizing their rights does not make me think that person should stop exercizing them, nor should they feel any shame or compunction to give up their rights because other people have an irrational fear.
This woman also carried the firearm at many soccer games if I recall correctly. This was actually normal for her, and I wish we had more people who did this. The problem with open carry as a right is that it is being taken away from us because of lack of use. Police in states that permit open carry as a constitutional right are arresting citizens who are doing something they are allowed to do according to the states constitution. If you allow police to arrest citizens for exercising their rights, then the right ceases to exist in practice.
Also, when princeofwands said you had no evidence to support your opinion, remember you said
Perhaps the fact that she had an estranged husband who was violent was a reason. Maybe the fact that she had sought a protection order against him might be considered legitimate reason? This is off the top of my head, but I thought protection orders required that the person who asks for protection feel threatened. She may not have felt threatened when she went to the soccer game that made the news, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to see a woman who fears for their life from an estranged husband as having a "legitimate reason" to carry a weapon. Not only do you not have evidence to support your opinion of their being no reason, but I think this case demonstrates that there are indeed reasons for a person to carry a gun with them.
You also seem to believe that the soccer fields are dangerous places full of parents who become enraged, does this not strike you as a situation in which a reasonable person might be more needful of self defense? It seems to me that if a person has the right to defend himself, that your suggestion that they should not carry tools for defense in a situation because it is known to have violent irrational people to me seems to be slightly strange. What happens if another parent becomes "unhinged" at a soccer game and attacks a coach as you stated happens, if this woman believed that the parent was going to kill the coach, and did not have the gun, she would be helpless to defend him. You stated that it is much more common for people to do things like this at soccer games, therefore if she holds the same beliefs as you, it seems to me that she should be more inclined to carry the gun at the soccer game in full view than in other locations.
I know that was a little longwinded, but I seem to be seeing a very strange argument, that is somewhat like this: Soccer games are not a place where a person needs to be able to defend themselves, and you would be crazy to believe you would need it for defense, and doesn't she know how scared other parents would be because of how dangerous parents at soccer games are?
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
So, if we are to take the OP's suggestion to its logical conclusion, then it means that Columbine killers wouldn't have acted as they did if they weren't picked on....
The person said that the woman had no "legitimate reason" not that it was inappropriate. Remember this woman was murdered by a man whom she had an order of protection against. If she had the order then, and she felt her life was in danger if he showed up, I think it is perfectly legitimate to carry a firearm. If she did not have the marital problems at that point, I still don't think it is reasonable to assume that there could be no other reason. Which is a very very different from it being "inappropriate."
You said the most claim was false because so many people believed other wise, but if I misinterpreted that I apologize.
Wow, I didn't realize you could discriminate against gun owners. You really do learn something new everyday.
Well proselytizing and guns are different in the reaction they get from people. Guns make people nervous in a fight or flight way. As in, is this stranger a threat? Are they crazy or about to commit a crime? Not to mention if people carrying guns is rare in a situation people will notice it by their nature. Just like the crazy guy with glazed over eyes handing out pamphlets on the sidewalk stands out I guess.
Proselytizing isn't used to kill people as far as I know. Rob them maybe, but that's a different subject
You could fire an employee for bringing a gun into your business. Or have a customer removed. Guns aren't allowed into certain places as far as I know, like courthouses and schools. I seem to remember that one of the pedos in California that was in the news for kidnapping a girl was busted initially for proselytizing on a college campus.
That was covered when she initially did it. PA is a 'brandishing' state. If anyone sees an imprint, or catches a glimpse of the gun, she can go to jail and lose her firearm rights. She chose open carry to prevent that from happening.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter