I don't care if you are quoting Randolph Scott. Start a thread on new age psychobabble and see what happens. You are proof that perception means nothing when enforcing the law. The law is based on preventing and punishing illegal "actions" and not managing perceptions.
Maybe the 4 ladies need to find more friends. Maybe the OCT folks would offer to take them to the gun range. That would be interesting for all.
And the answer still is that they had been requested in the past to notify the police because of public response - now if the public are calling the police I would say that makes it clear that their presence is seen, at least by some people, as being threatening
Four women - it still comes down to four women meeting in a coffee shop If these women had been talking of introduction of male chastity belts would you think that 40 naked males parading around in protest and ejaculating in public would be an appropriate response? On second thought - might be entertaining................ Would not a more reasonable response to have been to invite the women to talk with their group to present both sides? Or better yet ignore them - it was only four women - how many women are there in your state?
Public nudity is illegal in most municipalities. Open carry is not. One thing I have noticed is that anti gun groups are more about screaming the loudest, trying to drown out the opposition, and trying to hold up esoteric poster child to prove their point. They care not of the inane arguments or lack of substance, just that they are heard.
Poor analogy. Nothing came out of any OCT barrels and nudity in public is not legal in downtown Austin.
Thought I would get a non-humorous response I would bloody hope that the OCT crowd were not firing weapons but it still stands that if the general public's reaction to seeing this group armed is to call the police then at least SOME of the people around them feel intimidated And it is still a disproportionate and unnecessary reaction to four women talking in a coffee shop. The women did not even have brochures or placards - all they had was coffee Forbes thinks these tactics are bullying http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rize-mothers-against-guns-nra-remains-silent/ Here is someone else with a low opinion of this group http://www.forwardprogressives.com/open-carry-activists-bully-harass-threaten-texas-representative/ (boy does this one not hold back!!) Just because someone is pro gun does not make them a good guy
As has been told to you already, many people are afraid when they see open carry of guns. They call police. Police have a way to deal with the panic. They make themselves present. Did you watch their YouTube videos so you can see for yourself instead of relying on other peoples interpretations? Do these guys look like they want to intimidate? http://youtu.be/GCKKVmQ7fUY
I'll tell you the same thing I have been telling other gun haters for the last couple of days. The law is not a tool to manage perceptions and public opinions. The law is used to discourage or prevent illegal actions. Until an OCT member breaks the law, there is nothing for law enforcement to do. It doesn't matter if every person within a mile (1.6km) is offended by the site of a gun. If OCT is such a pariah, then Texans can change the law. Oh wait, They did change the law to also allow open carry of pistols starting 2016. So much for your public outrage. And how can you not get a humorous response with an analogy like that?
So if the intent was NOT to intimidate - why not carry a placard instead? (apart from the fact that they cannot spell placard......) Sorry I have no sympathy for this group whom I see as bullies Keep trucking on that social experiment over there - what was your firearm mortality rate again?
I don't support showing up at an anti gun rally armed. It sends the wrong message. That being said I have no problem with anyone showing up to a pro gun rally armed. We don't have to intimidate people on this. History, law, and morality are all on our side anyways.
Hmmmm but anyone would get a message of intimidation when someone is carrying a large weapon in a place where non is needed Like a predominantly black neighbourhood
No threatening actions, all smiles. If people want to misinterpret their intentions it is their right. Maybe they should try to overturn the law.
How would you go about proving, for the sake of discussion, that firearms are not needed in any particular location?
Legal activity is not intimidation. the united states is experiencing the lowest firearms-related homicide rate in more than twenty years, while the rate of firearms ownership has never been higher. - - - Updated - - - It is more indicative that there are still large portions of the public who are unaware that it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm openly. In simpler terms, people are stupid.
What I see is someone crutch polishing to use a politer term than the one that initially came to mind. That is not a rationale but a rationalisation ' Try this for OCT great interaction Great paranoia under pinning OCT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yubPWtYruLU And responsible citizens not out for self aggrandisement at all!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTFO3Mtd96I
Gee really? See I am an inconvenient poster - when someone makes a claim I check those facts and well..... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32995911
If they were intimidating why were there no arrests? Why didn't police break it up? You already said you don't believe the cops were conspiring with OCT. Answer: because the police saw no actions that were meant to scare the women. It was the women's choice to feel intimidated because they are afraid of guns. With police and media there I contend they were not intimidated at all. They have a political agenda and they used this terminology for the media.
Again, the ghetto statistics are used against law abiding citizen. Never the less, a spike means nothing in the context of the trajectory of the past twenty years.
- - - Updated - - - Again, the ghetto statistics are used against law abiding citizen. The words and lack of actions of our government both local and federal, have empowered the inner city gangsters. Police do not feel supported after Furgeson and Baltimore riots, and are no longer proactively policing. Criminals see our police standing down in these cases, as a victory for them. In New York, an effective policy that exponentially reduced gun violence called stop and frisk, was ended recently by the newly elected liberal governor. Now his city is under control of black on black violence again. Never the less, a spike means nothing in the context of the trajectory of the past twenty years.
New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, all of them are cities located in states with strict firearm laws. According to the narrative of supporters of strict firearm control laws, this is not supposed to be happening because it is not supposed to be legally possible for this type of development to occur. The laws of their states were sold with the promise of preventing actions such as these from occurring.
