Anti-gun folks promote 'swatting' legal gun owners who are out in the public

[Lord Teapot]

recent FBI study has been completely debunked as well:

http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-shootings/

no increase. no spike. evidence spun to fit an agenda.

 

[JSH1]

You are disproving my "nonsense" with a story from 2012? Whether we are pushing the statistical average or not, 2015 has been an active year for random shootings in public places. People are worried. Someone carrying a firearm in public will likely get some notice, especially if they are carrying a rifle where no reasonable need requires it.

My point is some of the backlash against gun owners carrying in public is a direct response to some among us doing really stupid things to provoke the general public.

 

[MEHavey]

Truth is no defense.

... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility;
because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily
corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity
of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal
untruths, and they would not believe that others could have
the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though
the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to
their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to
think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly
impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has
been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

 

[Lord Teapot]

You are disproving my "nonsense" with a story from 2012? Whether we are pushing the statistical average or not, 2015 has been an active year for random shootings in public places. People are worried. Someone carrying a firearm in public will likely get some notice, especially if they are carrying a rifle where no reasonable need requires it.

My point is some of the backlash against gun owners carrying in public is a direct response to some among us doing really stupid things to provoke the general public.

see the post above yours. you're completely debunked.
http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-shootings/

 

[JSH1]

see the post above yours. you're completely debunked.
http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-shootings/

3 years of data so far, most of which never made the national news:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

Shootings where 4 or more people are shot at once

 

[silicosys4]

3 years of data so far, most of which never made the national news:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

Shootings where 4 or more people are shot at once

Ahh....about your source.
From the main page....

"About this Project

Welcome to the world's only crowdsourced mass shooting tracker, as featured by CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The Economist and more. This tracker is proudly crowdsourced using the power of our subscribers at GunsAreCool."

"most of which wasn't reported in the national news"
So all these mass shooting, reported on a website thats featured by some of the most frenzied national anti gun news agencies in the country, and "most of which weren't reported in the national news".....sounds like "most of which" couldn't be spun into a mass shooting incident to then froth over.

Now, about this "gunsarecool"....

https://www.reddit.com/r/gunsarecool

Yea, that sounds like a trustworthy source.


How many of those are gang related? Doesn't say.
How many of those include the shooter as one of the victims? Doesn't say.
How many of those victims were killed by police? Doesn't say.'
How many of those were true mass killings where the perpetrator's goal was to kill as many people as possible? Doesn't say.
Throwing raw numbers against the wall with no details and no analysis is not going to impress anyone.
If you want to make a point, perform an analysis on those numbers that isn't biased, and get back to us.
Separate the true mass killings from the noise, and compare the amount to historical data concerning true mass killings.

 

[JSH1]

It is simply a tracking of mass shootings. If you want the detail on each shooting feel free to look at the links for each shooting. That list is raw data. Do what you want with it.

 

[silicosys4]

It is simply a tracking of mass shootings. If you want the detail on each shooting feel free to look at the links for each shooting. That list is raw data. Do what you want with it.

That's not how it works.
First off, that list is not "raw data". It is an outsourced list compiled for use by avid anti gun news outlets, contributed by avid and active anti gun activists. It is filtered, sloppy, and incomplete. It contains none of the necessary information that would indicate whether each case contributes to the list of mass killings needed to make a conclusion. It is designed to overwhelm by sheer amount of numbers, with nothing to indicate the relevance of each incident or circumstances involved.

If you are trying to make a point with raw numbers, its YOUR job to analyze the data to make sure it matches the conclusions YOU are trying to illustrate.

That data also needs to come from an unbiased source.

 

[Ed Ames]

The mass shooting thing is kinda irrelevant to the topic of this thread: an apparent organized conspiracy to abuse police resources with the specific goal of endangering law abiding citizens.

So, a reasonable question: why aren't members of these groups being charged criminally? They have conspired. They recognize that the acts they intend to report are not criminal so it is at least a conspiracy to file false police reports. Their intent is in some cases openly expressed as homicide.

If some loser with an Egyptian sounding name can be convicted of conspiring to blow up a bridge when he had no means to do so and his co-conspirators were all FBI informants, surely they can convict these people of an actual conspiracy to cause harm to innocents?

 

[barnbwt]

"Open carry a handgun in a holster and in most areas no one is going to give you a second look. Carry a AR-15 into a Starbucks and you are going to freak a lot of people out. Purposely scaring people is not helpful."
Open carry a holster where they are, when they did, and you're going to the pokey. Don't act like there's an alternative, because there isn't. I'll echo the lack of actual spike in mass shootings, especially those by open carriers shopping or protesting or both.

"Washington State Capitol building earlier this year. This was was perfectly legal at the time (it isn't now)."
Thank God you folks passed a law, right? BTW, that one frame is clearly threatening (and probably appears especially so because he was moving his face while talking or blinking at the time --you know, like those 'ugly' shots of politicians in attack ads?) and anyone with such a demeanor would cause a defensive response from most normal persons, thus likely meeting whatever WA's bar is for 'brandishing' which is doubtless already illegal. Maybe the real question should be why he was not nailed for the act of threatening others, and instead was used to make illegal the mere act of carrying weapons openly in any way, whatsoever. It's become clear over the last year or so, that in OC areas, prosecutors refuse to prosecute clear brandishing offenses so that their political bosses can push for gun control.

At any rate, nothing I do will in any way color what that guy did, so I fail to see how my open carrying, concealed carrying, or lack of carrying has any effect on anything, whatsoever. It's all on that guy, and the pols taking advantage of an ugly picture (oh, and the voters that go along with their line of thinking).

"He's done more to harm gun rights in Texas than help. Why is he open carrying a rifle through Target? Because his criminal past prohibits him from carrying a concealed handgun."
Obviously the 'criminal past' isn't enough to prevent from owning a handgun, so whatever (I see Google puts his 'arrest record' result above all others, but that the page of hits appears to only show him being repeatedly booked in the course of protest, so...I think you may be right that a non-vacated arrest in the course of political protest may be enough to disqualify the permit, but that's a poor leg to stand on if you wish to impugn his character; professional protestors tend to get arrested eventually). The other OBVIOUS reason for the openly-carried rifle is because you known darn well that open carry of a pistol is presently illegal (for now) and that conceal-carrying a pistol unseen for a publicity stunt photo-op is retarded.

Seems like nearly everyone who rags on Watkins and laments his existence takes issue with actions that are common to all professional agitators. Sorry, that's what they do, is agitate people. But none of his rallies has resulted in injury, death (by protestor or responding officer), serious crime (that I'm aware of), or any sort of negligent discharge whatsoever (that I can find), so I fail to see how this drooling, mad-dog of a human being as he always seems to be described, is as detrimental to gun rights as a single gang-banger killing a police officer on a weekday.

Whatever 'harm' Watkins caused (more like 'discomfort' all you pansies) pales in comparison to that lunatic who shot up a church or the other one that shot up a news crew on live TV --we'll see that clip from now to eternity, unlike Watkins' d-bag fedora.

Maybe I'll start a poll; "Did you first learn that open carry in Texas was illegal from a news story about scary open carriers with rifles?"

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"So, a reasonable question: why aren't members of these groups being charged criminally? They have conspired. They recognize that the acts they intend to report are not criminal so it is at least a conspiracy to file false police reports. Their intent is in some cases openly expressed as homicide."

I dunno, perhaps the pols in charge of pressing said charges on some level enjoy this abuse of their resources; gives them probable cause to hassle unpopular targets, with very little risk of blowback on their gun control aspirations (best case, a cop is shot by an evil reckless gun owner and becomes a martyr, worst case, a cop kills an evil reckless gun owner whose family quietly wins a settlement months after the incident and a sustained attack on his character). It's very much like encouraging tattling.

TCB

 

[oneounceload]

How to combat this? Do the same thing to them..........Anti-gun soccer mom, say you saw a gun, or that she was texting while driving (against the law in most cases), etc.

 

[barnbwt]

"My personal reaction to the scenarios:

- Anybody concealed carrying a handgun, no problem.

- Somebody open carrying either a handgun or a long gun in a rural area, no problem if they're not doing anything else that looks dangerous.

- Somebody (other than a SWAT team responding to an incident) open carrying a long gun in an urban environment, I would be extremely uncomfortable."

1) You can't have a 'personal reaction' to a concealed handgun
2) Add a bullet point for a poorly-concealed handgun (and another for a hood-rat with the same)
3) Split open-carried handguns into "holstered" and "hand-held" categories, so that...
4) you can properly compare to rifles carried "slung/sheated" and "forward slung (on chest)" and "at ready (mag in, bolt forward, hand on grip/at trigger)" as separate categories
5) Why on Earth would you feel 'comfortable' with a heavily-armed SWAT goon in proximity --he's there for a reason, after all (I'd be looking where he was looking, unless he looked bored and was picking his nose). Cops don't usually patrol with rifles, these days, unless they have a reason.

It'd also be nice if people would define 'rural' and 'urban' when they say stuff like this for a change, since I'll bet you actually mean "anything but a wheat field." I live in a smallish town (25k) and the most hopping area is about as active as a surburban strip-mall center; a place many would be 'uncomfortable' with the presence of firearms. However, our actual city center is further north near the rail lines, and is the closest thing to a legitimately dangerous area around here (heck, it is dangerous of late).

The best practice is to avoid the area, but let's pretend I have to be there to settle a beef with the tax assessor. Tell me again why it's a bad idea to openly carry a gun A) where I would be most likely to need it, and B) where it would be most likely to have a deterring effect on the type of rational-thinking human predator opportunist most likely to accost me?

TCB

 

[Walkalong]

How would you react if this guy showed up at the doorway to the store / restaurant that you were in?

A carbine in his hands in the ready position? Yes I would be very, very nervous. Some morons are not helping us for sure.

And yes, public shootings, whether they are up in numbers or not lately, only make people more leery of a scene like that.

But this thread is a question about the average open carry folks with handguns holstered who get called in by antis trying to cause a scene or incite stupidity that will make gun owners look bad, not the scared passerby who really thinks there might be trouble.

 

[Kaeto]

How would I react to the twit coming in the door with the carbine at low ready?

I would take cover and have a hand on my carry gun ready to draw and fire the moment he started to bring it up to shooting position. I might catch some rounds but he'd be stopping some JHP in the center mass.

 

[another pake]

Yep, of course I'd be nervous. And I would quickly move myself and those I cared about to safe perimeters. And I carry. And I'd be ready to respond. And I would have already called 911 myself.

 

[JSH1]

The mass shooting thing is kinda irrelevant to the topic of this thread: an apparent organized conspiracy to abuse police resources with the specific goal of endangering law abiding citizens.

Yes it is. Particularly since it was an offhand comment noting that the recent shootings have caused people to be worried about shootings and people carrying guns in public places. As I said above, whether the stats say mass shootings are up, down, or level doesn't matter. People are on edge.

So, a reasonable question: why aren't members of these groups being charged criminally? They have conspired. They recognize that the acts they intend to report are not criminal so it is at least a conspiracy to file false police reports. Their intent is in some cases openly expressed as homicide.

They haven't been charged because they haven't done anything criminal. People call the police about lots of things that are lega. The guy sitting in the car down the road, the kids hanging out on the corner, etc. Sometime the police respond, sometimes they don't. What has this group said? If you see someone with a gun AND they look suspicious in any way, call the police. What do the police continue to tell the public? "If you see something, say something."


Some people here don't seem to get that gun owners purposely freaking people out does not help our cause.

The guy I posted above coming through the doors of the Washington Capital building. Look to the right, notice the idiot wearing a gas mask? Here is a better shot of him below. I love the rope, apparently he is going to do some repealing on the way home. They were coming through the door so they could sit in the gallery and wave their guns around like idiots.

 

[Ed Ames]

Yes it is. Particularly since it was an offhand comment noting that the recent shootings have caused people to be worried about shootings and people carrying guns in public places. As I said above, whether the stats say mass shootings are up, down, or level doesn't matter. People are on edge.

That would be true if you were trying to explain an observed uptick in police reports, but it's irrelevant here. We aren't talking about individuals seeing something concerning and independently choosing to call the police. We are talking about activists planning to use a tactic to attack individuals whose behavior they know to be legal.

They haven't been charged because they haven't done anything criminal. People call the police about lots of things that are lega. The guy sitting in the car down the road, the kids hanging out on the corner, etc. Sometime the police respond, sometimes they don't.

Are you correct that the behavior isn't criminal?

Remember, we aren't talking about people who have observed something they find suspicious and called the police. Your list of things people report to police is fine but it isn't germane. We are talking about people who are planning what to do when they see something they know is legal.

What is being described is a conspiracy to be the criminal law equivalent of a vexatious litigant. The fact that they are discussing this intent in advance of actually observing anything suspicious ... well it doesn't support your "people are on edge" theory but it does show forethought and planning.

What has this group said?

"You see a GunFilth waving its penis substitute, exit, call police. Armed robbery in progress.”

“I see you #opencarry with a gun in public, I’m calling the cops. psycho behaving erratic. make your day.”

“Why hasn’t someone called 911 so the cops can gun him down?”

Those are from Mom's Demand Action members.

The fact that the " official" message is careful to add conditions about "and is behaving suspiciously" doesn't change the fact that the message being passed within the groups is that:

1) anyone with a gun is suspicious
2) the reports need not be factual
3) the reports are being made in the hopes of committing homicide by police.

Now, when I look at a group conspiring to misinform the police in an attempt to murder individuals engaged in an activity the group knows to be legal, I start to think that maybe your claim that they "haven't done anything criminal" should be reexamined.

 

[lemaymiami]

During my years as a cop most folks carrying a weapon (concealed or otherwise...) weren't good guys. This was well before the armed citizen movement and the reasonable concealed carry laws that were passed in many states. Even so, most of the time a "man with a gun" call turned out to be less than you expected.... Still for most young cops that kind of call isn't one that you come to in a relaxed easy going manner (not if want to go home at the end of your shift).

Here's a few thoughts for all that choose to carry legally.... If challenged by authorities "render unto Caesar" - that is be a good guy, do exactly what the officers command -letting them know that you're going to comply while stating clearly that you have a license, etc. If you end up down on the ground with guns pointing at you it will be quickly resolved and you'll be on your way (and maybe, just maybe that young officer will be a bit less fired up for his/her next "man with a gun" call...).

As far as the loons on the left trying to cause trouble for law abiding folks -every now and then one will get caught out and face some legal troubles. Not as much as they deserve - but that's life...

I don't approve of the open carry movement - particularly when it's being done deliberately to provoke ordinary folks - that sort of stuff plays right into the anti-gun propaganda efforts.

As for what to do when you're not sure the folks you're dealing with are real cops (or straight cops...) .... that's another story entirely - but in most places you're not likely to come into contact with that particular breed of really bad actor...

 

[JSH1]

Now, when I look at a group conspiring to misinform the police in an attempt to murder individuals engaged in an activity the group knows to be legal, I start to think that maybe your claim that they "haven't done anything criminal" should be reexamined.

Trying to get police to murder people open carrying? I'm sorry that is way over the top.

Yes, those tweets are stupid. It isn't illegal to say stupid stuff on the internet. People do it every day, all day long.

If people make false reports they should be prosecuted like any anyone else that makes false police reports. If someone calls the police because they are concerned about someone and gives an accurate description of events then that is fine.

 

[Ed Ames]

Trying to get police to murder people open carrying? I'm sorry that is way over the top.

Not trying to get police to murder people, trying to commit murder using the police.

If George says, "I think if we cause enough contact between Alice and X, Alice will die. Let's increase the number of interactions between Alice and X..."

How is it different if X is a hammer, a poison, or a police officer? Each is just a tool.

Iirc the elements of a crime are:

Intent, which is clear from George stating that X would endanger Alice and then calling for X.

Act, Well, if the crime is conspiracy, what George said was the actus. If you want to charge with attempted murder you would need to wait until George et al actually made a report.

Causation? George is stating that he believes there is one. Who are we to argue?

I'm assuming that open carriers are human. How is it over the top?

 

[P5 Guy]

I still say that the people pictured in post numbers 8 and 18 are on Michael Bloomburg's Moms Demand Action/Everytown Safe's payroll.

 

[gamestalker]

Being that I live in Az. where OC is a rather common sight, there have been a couple incidents I've personally encountered, none that went bad though.

Someone in a Walmart dialed 911 once, but that never turned into anything, not for me at least.

And I had a situation in a convenience store once while my son and I were carrying OC. There was a cop getting a fountain drink, and some Californian decided to go ballistic about us carrying guns, nothing happened of course, except for the person almost getting arrested for putting their hands on the cop to get him to turn around and take notice. We paid for our drinks and left, the poor cop was stuck dealing with the distraught out of stater.

GS

 

[benEzra]

You are disproving my "nonsense" with a story from 2012?
...
My point is some of the backlash against gun owners carrying in public is a direct response to some among us doing really stupid things to provoke the general public.

That Target pic isn't from this year, either.

And again, CGSV is talking about SWATing people carrying concealed pistols but get noticed, or open carrying a holstered pistol. That's potentially you, or me, if the wind makes you print or lifts your shirt/jacket in front of the wrong person. And I think it is unconscionable that churches are sponsoring a group devoted to spreading hatred; CGSV has always been the "wayyyy out there" wing of the gun control lobby, even more far-out than the VPC (and that's really saying something).

 

[JSH1]

No, CGSV is not talking about SWATing people. That would be making a false report to get an emergency response. CGSV has not told anyone to make false reports.

If you carry a gun in public you might get noticed and someone might call the cops. This is nothing new, "man with gun" calls have been happening for years / decades. I would think that most departments have a uniform response to deal with "man with gun" calls by now.