Man shopping in JC Penny in Utah with AR 15 & holstered Glock.

[irishScott]

I dont get it about not being scared of being mugged. If a guy pulls a gun on u, u can't just reach for it or he'll kill u, so seems kinda pointless. Once he takes the money & turns his back on u, can u legally pull it out & shoot him? If he doesnt have the gun pointed at u and u shoot him, are u aquitted of that? I can't imagine u would cause u just shot a man in the back! Correct me if i'm wrong, not sure how american laws work in that regard.

Oh great, armchair combat!

I never said a gun is a perfect solution to all possible crime. Situations like what you describe are where situational awareness comes into play. Once I was staying at a hotel, one with rooms that open to the outside. To get to my room I had to go up a flight of stairs. I was coming back late at night, and I saw a bunch of shady looking guys hanging out near the bottom of the stairwell closest to my room. Were they any threat? No idea, but I didn't trust them. So I took the stairwell 50 feet away instead.

To shoot someone I'd have to demonstrate fear for my life or serious injury (or the lives of others/serious injury to others) and, in some states, that there was no option to retreat. So yeah, shooting someone in the back would likely get me thrown in jail.

But not all muggings involve guns. We had one not two weeks ago in my area that involved a car stopping, 4 guys getting out, beating two guys on the sidewalk with their bare hands, taking their wallets/phones/etc and then driving off. Whole thing apparently took about 30 seconds. If one of those two guys had drawn a gun, I doubt it would have gone down the same way.

 

[poohbear]

Ok, so u can pull a gun on a guy beating u up? beloved patriot that example of the car mugging? Im guessjng u cant cause they were unarmed & just beating them up?

Im genuinely asking cause it seems the situations wherein u can actually USE ur gun are so rare (or mired in legal technicalities that would still get u arrested) that its pointless to carry one.

 

[irishScott]

Ok, so u can pull a gun on a guy beating u up? beloved patriot that example of the car mugging? Im guessjng u cant cause they were unarmed & just beating them up?

Im genuinely asking cause it seems the situations wherein u can actually USE ur gun are so rare (or mired in legal technicalities that would still get u arrested) that its pointless to carry one.

Sure you can. Fear of serious injury, and your life for that matter. It's quite easy to say, blind someone with your bare hands, and you have no idea what your attacker's intentions are. They may very well intend to beat you to death with their bare hands/feet, it happens hundreds of times a year here in the states (more than murder with assault rifles I might add).

The situations where you can use your gun are, generally speaking, if you "fear for your life" and can prove as such. These are the same circumstances required for lethal self defense by any mechanism (under US law, a blow above the shoulders with a blunt instrument is considered lethal force).

 

[yllus]

Dude was wondering how a security guard is supposed to tell the difference between a person open-carrying and a robber.

This is not about prevention, it's about identification. My point is if a security guard wants to determine who a robber might be he needs to observe behaviors that indicate someone is trying to rob the place. Like if you wanted to ID who a drunk driver might be, you should probably look for behaviors that indicate someone is driving drunk. You can't just assume someone with a gun on their hip is going to rob the place or a person drinking in a bar will drive drunk. I wouldn't expect a guard to accost a customer with a gun for being a robber just like I wouldn't expect someone to accost a customer at a bar for being a drunk driver.

As far as preventing robberies (or drunk driving), that's not an issue I have addressed. So stop bothering me with all your prevention garbage since I haven't even commented on that.

Especially with the recent shootings in the U.S., I'd immediately be alarmed if I saw someone strolling through the mall with a rifle on his back and would be looking to exit the mall immediately (and probably call the police). It's not a normal sight, and the mind quickly jumps to: He is either crazy in the annoying political way, or in the slightly more annoying shoot everyone way.

I would want mall security to accost and detain him immediately. The people who do mass shootings are by definition mentally unstable, so there's no guarantee that he might be smiling and polite one moment and shooting the girl who works at Jamba Juice the next. And since the amount of time it takes from the situation to go from peaceful to deadly is measured in seconds, if you have any degree of concern about your well-being you would not simply proclaim that he is innocent before being found guilty (by shooting poor Jamba Juice girl in the face).

I think the benefits of open carry are dubious (not much of a problem with concealed, though), but this action he took was completely unhelpful to his purported cause. Reasonable people do not want every person they meet to be visibly armed.

 

[cwjerome]

And my point which apparently was not made very clear, is that there can be laws that do more than just make acts illegal and they can be preventative too.

No one needs to carry a gun into a shopping mall or a school, or any number of places where danger is unlikely to happen and we shouldn't settle for a "kill people first and then react" circumstances just because a few people want to exercise their 2nd amendment because people are scared.

Yes, although it had nothing to do with the original point I was trying to make, I agree there can be laws that do more than just make acts illegal and they can be preventative too. While we're at it, I also think walking around a mall with an AR strapped to your back is needlessly provocative and generally stupid. It's attention seeking and sending the wrong message. Sometimes there are examples of a person exercising a right in a situation that's just dumb, and this was one of them.

 

[cwjerome]

Especially with the recent shootings in the U.S., I'd immediately be alarmed if I saw someone strolling through the mall with a rifle on his back and would be looking to exit the mall immediately (and probably call the police). It's not a normal sight, and the mind quickly jumps to: He is either crazy in the annoying political way, or in the slightly more annoying shoot everyone way.

I would want mall security to accost and detain him immediately. The people who do mass shootings are by definition mentally unstable, so there's no guarantee that he might be smiling and polite one moment and shooting the girl who works at Jamba Juice the next. And since the amount of time it takes from the situation to go from peaceful to deadly is measured in seconds, if you have any degree of concern about your well-being you would not simply proclaim that he is innocent before being found guilty (by shooting poor Jamba Juice girl in the face).

I think the benefits of open carry are dubious (not much of a problem with concealed, though), but this action he took was completely unhelpful to his purported cause. Reasonable people do not want every person they meet to be visibly armed.

I would leave the area too, and agree that the dude's actions were unhelpful. My earlier statements were a generalization on open carry and identifying someone as a robber. Being comfortable around guns and living in Arizona, I see open carrying in public fairly often and it doesn't bother me, but an AR in a mall is just a foolish thing to do given our social realities.

 

[Nebor]

Ok, so u can pull a gun on a guy beating u up? beloved patriot that example of the car mugging? Im guessjng u cant cause they were unarmed & just beating them up?

Im genuinely asking cause it seems the situations wherein u can actually USE ur gun are so rare (or mired in legal technicalities that would still get u arrested) that its pointless to carry one.

Yes, it's called a disparity of force. If there are more bad guys, or the bad guy is bigger than you, that disparity of force represents a threat to your life. This is why fist fights and bar fights are far, far more common in Europe and Australia than the US. You don't go picking a fight with someone because they might just kill you, and it'll likely be legal.

Also, in your mugger scenario, your best bet is to drop your wallet near their feet and use the distraction to draw and fire. Though experience has taught me that someone being held at gunpoint can usually draw and fire before the person holding them at gunpoint can react and fire a shot. I've seen in played out dozens of times with simmunitions.

 

[Nebor]

I would leave the area too, and agree that the dude's actions were unhelpful. My earlier statements were a generalization on open carry and identifying someone as a robber. Being comfortable around guns and living in Arizona, I see open carrying in public fairly often and it doesn't bother me, but an AR in a mall is just a foolish thing to do given our social realities.

Agreed. I support his right to do this, but what a terrible idea. I think there's a distinction between OCing a pistol (defensive weapon) and a rifle (offensive weapon.) Especially considering recent events. Hell, if I see the police carrying rifles, I know I'm in a place I don't want to be.

 

[Zargon]

lol wow. so, according to you guys, its "obvious" the guy is law abiding because he's walking in with a rifle around his shoulder and has a holstered gun? what PLANET are you guys living on? if i see someone walking into a store with weapons red flags IMMEDIATELY go up & its FAR from obvious that he's law abiding! This isn't the 19th century wild west, we have police & a government, not random people with no training & no people skills being armed to the teeth to protect us from who they think are "bad guys". At least the police have extensive training and i can trust them not to misuse their weapons, but private citizens i know nothing about walking around with rifles has so many variables that it'd make me uncomfortable unless i knew the guy was trained, not hot tempered, and not having a bad day. Indeed, i totally believe there are more stupid people out there than intelligent people, so NO, i don't think its obvious that this 22 yr old kid is law abiding. If anything i think he's a kid with an ego and wants to give off a tough guy image.

I'm from Toronto, that guy would be tackled to the ground and arrested on SIGHT! So no, its NOT obvious he's law abiding to me.

I remember when i was in the militia here a member of our platoon with a rifle got tackled and arrested by police after falling behind during our morning PT. We were running a few blocks from our armory with our C7s (Canadian M16 variants) around our shoulders when he fell behind. People saw him running alone with a rifle around his shoulder & called the cops (despite being in uniform). 10 minutes later and he was swarmed by police. lol it was hilarious at the time but totally called for.

how was it called for? that you tink that was perfectly ok explains the rest of your 'opinion'.

the guys point was likely that 'evil assault rifles dont actualy do anything on their own' which he proved they didnt

 

[Zargon]

Agreed. I support his right to do this, but what a terrible idea. I think there's a distinction between OCing a pistol (defensive weapon) and a rifle (offensive weapon.) Especially considering recent events. Hell, if I see the police carrying rifles, I know I'm in a place I don't want to be.

I generally agree with this, hes obv doing it to make a point though

Especially with the recent shootings in the U.S., I'd immediately be alarmed if I saw someone strolling through the mall with a rifle on his back and would be looking to exit the mall immediately (and probably call the police). It's not a normal sight, and the mind quickly jumps to: He is either crazy in the annoying political way, or in the slightly more annoying shoot everyone way.

I would want mall security to accost and detain him immediately. The people who do mass shootings are by definition mentally unstable, so there's no guarantee that he might be smiling and polite one moment and shooting the girl who works at Jamba Juice the next. And since the amount of time it takes from the situation to go from peaceful to deadly is measured in seconds, if you have any degree of concern about your well-being you would not simply proclaim that he is innocent before being found guilty (by shooting poor Jamba Juice girl in the face).

eh actually if hes already snapped at the point that hes going to do this, hes probably NOT going to smily polite and normal and then BAM start mass murder

sociopaths are really really rare. and thats the kind of person that would do that stuff. if they are actualy unstable they have already snapped if they are prepped for the scenario you describe......and thus already acting off........

 

[randomrogue]

There were a few articles last year that stated that 4% of any given population is a sociopath. That's 12,463,676 Americans. I hope that the numbers are wrong.

 

[zinfamous]

This is the 2nd Amendment equivalent of burning an American flag to assert your free speech rights. It should be legal, and should also be shunned by most normal people as being the action of a self-absorbed asshole.

:thumbsup:

 

[zinfamous]

There were a few articles last year that stated that 4% of any given population is a sociopath. That's 12,463,676 Americans. I hope that the numbers are wrong.

"sociopathy" has achieved an ever-widening diagnosis in DSM, which is why those articles were published.

iirc, the most current diagnosis of sociopathy now puts the highest concentration of sociopaths in the world of CEOs.

it's a behavioral diagnosis that covers a wide range of traits. not many of those traits recognized as being inherently dangerous to others or to themselves.

 

[Nebor]

"sociopathy" has achieved an ever-widening diagnosis in DSM, which is why those articles were published.

iirc, the most current diagnosis of sociopathy now puts the highest concentration of sociopaths in the world of CEOs.

it's a behavioral diagnosis that covers a wide range of traits. not many of those traits recognized as being inherently dangerous to others or to themselves.

It's not even diagnosed in the Army anymore. From what the brigade psychologist told me, it was being far too widely diagnosed amongst soldiers mostly due to the broadened definition and the conditions that soldiers are put through.

 

[randomrogue]

"sociopathy" has achieved an ever-widening diagnosis in DSM, which is why those articles were published.

iirc, the most current diagnosis of sociopathy now puts the highest concentration of sociopaths in the world of CEOs.

it's a behavioral diagnosis that covers a wide range of traits. not many of those traits recognized as being inherently dangerous to others or to themselves.

Yeah I vaguely remember them discussing CEO's at the time but I thought they tried to make a distinction between a sociopath and someone who is narcissistic. They brought up the President of the USA since only someone with an ego the size of Mt Everest would apply to be President. I'm no expert I just remember the 4% and did the math. That 4% was with respect to people who don't have any empathy or respect for human beings. Still a big number.

I'm not sure you could put a number on how many crazy people are out there that are going to pick up a gun and go kill people. It's a pointless exercise.

 

[emperus]

Attackibg everyone who doesnt share your view, and then forcing the reader to take your view as fact... that onky works on 3yr olds dude...

I'm just attacking the crazies in this forum who think that someone open carrying an assault rifle in a mall is rational. If you fit in that group(i.e you are crazy) you can refer to my previous post.

I'm always up for good rational debate. (from your posts that I've read, I don't find you all that rational). That being said, there are times when people who don't share a certain view just deserve derision. This is one of them.

 

[sigurros81]

There were a few articles last year that stated that 4% of any given population is a sociopath. That's 12,463,676 Americans. I hope that the numbers are wrong.

AT forums support this statistic.

 

[HomerJS]

Just a question, supposed someone decides to exercise his first ademdment rights and call him an asshole out loud.

If the guy proceeds to reach for his gun then what?

Calling someone an asshole is not an assault. In fact it could be called just exercising an opinion.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm just attacking the crazies in this forum who think that someone open carrying an assault rifle in a mall is rational. If you fit in that group(i.e you are crazy) you can refer to my previous post.

I'm always up for good rational debate. (from your posts that I've read, I don't find you all that rational). That being said, there are times when people who don't share a certain view just deserve derision. This is one of them.

Mortal danger can be lurking anywhere, even between Hot Topic and Sbarro.

 

[momeNt]

Just a question, supposed someone decides to exercise his first ademdment rights and call him an asshole out loud.

If the guy proceeds to reach for his gun then what?

Calling someone an asshole is not an assault. In fact it could be called just exercising an opinion.

I'll tell you exactly what should happen.

The one should have his guns taken away, the other should his vocal cords removed.

Rights is a misnomer, they are privileges that our government bestows upon us and our misuse gives the government grounds to revoke.

 

[sigurros81]

Mortal danger can be lurking anywhere, even between Hot Topic and Sbarro.

Have you ever eaten at Sbarro? The mortal danger awaits you when you get home and have to evacuate your family from your house because of the shit you just took.

 

[irishScott]

Just a question, supposed someone decides to exercise his first ademdment rights and call him an asshole out loud.

If the guy proceeds to reach for his gun then what?

Calling someone an asshole is not an assault. In fact it could be called just exercising an opinion.

Then depending on what he did with his gun after reaching for it, he may or may not be in serious trouble with the law.

But that didn't happen, and there was no apparent likelihood of it happening, so your hypothetical is meaningless. I guess since the "gunfights in the streets" haven't materialized you protectionists have started imagining them?

 

[Zargon]

Just a question, supposed someone decides to exercise his first ademdment rights and call him an asshole out loud.

If the guy proceeds to reach for his gun then what?

Calling someone an asshole is not an assault. In fact it could be called just exercising an opinion.

I beleive you can be charged if you verbally cause a situation to escalate. some states have verbal assault laws

verbally assaulting someone for doing something you disagree with that is perfectly legal puts you in the wrong, and Im sure a legal charge can be made to fit or already has

you have the right to express your opinion, sure, in no way does that allow you to try and force your opinion on others as such

its likely unless said person drew their weapon nothing would happen to them

 

[blankslate]

Not only is it legal but the store was OK with it. Lol that your opinion outweighs what is normal in Utah.

If that's the norm in Utah then thanks for letting me know. you and your ilk are welcome to the wild west. After all it only makes the gun industry richer. but then I suppose you like bending over and being a two-bit shill.

 

[sigurros81]

What's a two-bit shill?