Ar15 style weapon brought into council meeting. And no, it did not jump up and kill anybody.

[Mr Spinkles]

Virginia city official brings AR-15-style rifle to council meeting – triggering some colleagues

Oh my God! The horrors.

I love it when the socialist Democrats are put in their place.

Guns don't kill people people kill people.

It's now proven established fact.

You do realize that the criticism was not that he lawfully displayed an assault weapon, but that he didn't tell his fellow council members he was going to do that, ahead of time. Right?

It sounds like this is the first time he has brought the weapon into a council meeting. How were his colleagues supposed to know he wasn't an active shooter - if only for an instant? He could have easily alleviated that concern with a simple email to let his colleagues know in advance. He chose not to do them that courtesy, which was petty and thoughtless, at a minimum.

If almost anyone else pulled a stunt like that and just brought an assault rifle to work without warning to intimidate colleagues they would be fired - and for good reason. Or almost any kind of weapon, for that matter.

By the way, not that it should matter, but I have fired assault weapons before. They are fun in the appropriate setting. That is not the issue here.

 

[tytlyf]

Also "triggering" refers to panic attacks due to PTSD, something that many war veterans and rape victims suffer from.

I hear the best way to avoid "triggers" with PTSD is to work in a stress-free environment. One of the top stress-free environments for veterans is becoming a LEO

 

[Audie]

I hear the best way to avoid "triggers" with PTSD is to work in a stress-free environment. One of the top stress-free environments for veterans is becoming a LEO

Really? I'd think it would be the opposite!

FTM, my own experience with the syndrome is that
there is no stress free place where one is safe from
(hate the word) but, "triggers".

 

[tytlyf]

Really? I'd think it would be the opposite!

FTM, my own experience with the syndrome is that
there is no stress free place where one is safe from
(hate the word) but, "triggers".

Do you think it's a possibility that LEO with PTSD might snap and overreact in a situation? Possibly shooting first, thinking second?

 

[Audie]

Do you think it's a possibility that LEO with PTSD might snap and overreact in a situation? Possibly shooting first, thinking second?

Could happen to anyone.

I had not thought about that, but rather that
police work is notoriously stressful.

 

[tytlyf]

Could happen to anyone.

I had not thought about that, but rather that
police work is notoriously stressful.

I'm sure it could happen to anyone. But wouldn't you agree that people with PTSD are much more prone to triggers and would benefit from a low-stress job fighting crime?

 

[columbus]

He exemplified a statement about 2nd amendment rights and exercised it.

How is this different from "indulging in political theater"?

Did s/he bring that gun intending to use it?
Tom

 

[metis]

Some don't seem to understand that "people with guns kill the most people".

 

[metis]

Maybe some here should tell their Republican politicians to try and get all metal detectors removed from all government buildings, including the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all state and local governmental offices, and then come back and tell us just how safe they'll be with all sorts of people walking into governmental chambers with guns.

Ever stop and think why they haven't done it but expect everyone else to do it?

 

[We Never Know]

Some don't seem to understand that "people with guns kill the most people".

Some people don't seem to understand "most people with guns don't kill anyone"

 

[metis]

Some people don't seem to understand "most people with guns don't kill anyone"

But I would suggest that most of us at least never stated nor implied that. It's statements like the above that makes it difficult to have any serious discussion on this issue with some people.

Much like we tried and made cars safer over the decades, doesn't it amount to basic common sense to try and do this with guns? And if the proliferation of guns supposedly makes us safer, then why is it that the vast majority of European nations have homicide rates times lower than here in the States? Are we supposedly genetically inferior?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some people don't seem to understand "most people with guns don't kill anyone"

Actually, everybody understands that. Literally. It's painfully obvious.

What people DON'T understand is that saying "Maybe there should be more limits on - and laws regarding - the sale and ownership of guns" does not equate to ANY of the following statements:

- "Guns magically jump up and kill people."
- "Everyone, or most people, who own a gun kill people."
- "Nobody should be allowed any kind of gun under any circumstance."

Without fail, the above arguments get trotted out as strawmen every time the pro-gun side of the debate faces any kind of challenge. It's getting tiring trying to point out this delusional behaviour every time.

 

[Audie]

I'm sure it could happen to anyone. But wouldn't you agree that people with PTSD are much more prone to triggers and would benefit from a low-stress job fighting crime?

I dont know if PTSD might affect some that way.
In my case it causes paralysis.

I looked it up, law enforcement ranks high in the top ten most
stressful jobs.

 

[Audie]

Actually, everybody understands that. Literally. It's painfully obvious.

What people DON'T understand is that saying "Maybe there should be more limits on - and laws regarding - the sale and ownership of guns" does not equate to ANY of the following statements:

- "Guns magically jump up and kill people."
- "Everyone, or most people, who own a gun kill people."
- "Nobody should be allowed any kind of gun under any circumstance."

Without fail, the above arguments get trotted out as strawmen every time the pro-gun side of the debate faces any kind of challenge. It's getting tiring trying to point out this delusional behaviour every time.

You did ok up to last two lines, then you went as far off
the rails as anyone you are trying to criticize.

And btw, the "no guns, period" thing is in fact
a goal for many of the anti people. What is one to
believe when someone denies it?

I did live in NYC where librral reign, and shockrd to the
core those I told I had once owned a gun.

So I have heard the "nobody". And the NRA IS AGAINST ALL GUN LAWS,
a lie / srawman if ever there was.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Some people don't seem to understand "most people with guns don't kill anyone"

Now that is the clincher statement as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You did ok up to last two lines, then you went as far off
the rails as anyone you are trying to criticize.

You can literally see examples of all of those strawmen in this very thread itself. This thread was STARTED with a strawman.

And btw, the "no guns, period" thing is in fact
a goal for many of the anti people. What is one to
believe when someone denies it?

The point is that debates on gun control always skew everything the anti-gun side say to mean one of three things even if what they're saying is none of those things.

Again, look at this thread.

I did live in NYC where librral reign, and shockrd to the
core those I told I had once owned a gun.

So I have heard the "nobody".

What "nobody" are you referring to?

And the NRA IS AGAINST ALL GUN LAWS,
a lie / srawman if ever there was.

Please provide an example of anti-gun people claiming this, then.

As far as I am aware, the argument has never been that the NRA are against "ALL" gun laws, but that the NRA have and continue to lobby the government to stifle research into the causes of gun violence, have a demonstrable political and financial incentive to misinform people about the safety of gun ownership and make gun ownership easier and purchasing of firearms more widespread. I'm fairly certain that they don't advocate murder, but their motivations certainly aren't noble.

 

[Audie]

You can literally see examples of all of those strawmen in this very thread itself. This thread was STARTED with a strawman.


The point is that debates on gun control always skew everything the anti-gun side say to mean one of three things even if what they're saying is none of those things.

Again, look at this thread.


What "nobody" are you referring to?


Please provide an example of anti-gun people claiming this, then.

As far as I am aware, the argument has never been that the NRA are against "ALL" gun laws, but that the NRA have and continue to lobby the government to stifle research into the causes of gun violence, have a demonstrable political and financial incentive to misinform people about the safety of gun ownership and make gun ownership easier and purchasing of firearms more widespread. I'm fairly certain that they don't advocate murder, but their motivations certainly aren't noble.

"Always skew everything"
Etc

But never mind, you had already fully
established what I said about your
being mirror image to any
extremists you are trying to criticize.
No need to double down.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Always skew everything"
Etc

Find a single example of a gun control debate on this forum where those strawmen don't come up.

But never mind, you had already fully
established what I said about your
being mirror image to any
extremists you are trying to criticize.

I really hadn't. Making an observation about the tendency people on one side of a debate have of using the same strawmen says nothing about me being an "extremist", and for you to imply it does is absurd.

 

[Audie]

Find a single example of a gun control debate on this forum where those strawmen don't come up.


I really hadn't. Making an observation about the tendency people on one side of a debate have of using the same strawmen says nothing about me being an "extremist", and for you to imply it does is absurd.

Your inaccurate and hyperboluc presentation may not
be evident to you, but if you wish to present as other
than one who rants, or be heard by anyone besides
the choir, try to review your style with an objective
eye. And content there's content probs.

I dont have a dog in you guys' fight, I live in Hong Kong.
(A place just btw where guns are banned)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your inaccurate and hyperboluc presentation may not
be evident to you, but if yoy wish to present as other
than one who rants, or be heard by anyone besides
the choir, try to review your style with an objective
eye.

It's quite ironic that your accusation of my "inaccurate" and "hyperbolic presentation" is, in fact, hyperbolic and inaccurate.

Nothing I said is false or an exaggeration. If they are, please demonstrate them to be so. Perhaps the objective eye doesn't belong to you, in this case. Until you stop jerking your knee at people who disagree with you for making simple observations, keep your tone policing to yourself.

I dont have a dog in you guys' fight, I live in Hong Kong.
(A place just btw where guns are banned)

Neither do I. I live in the UK.

But I can still make clear observations.