Friday, March 5, 2010

Beware the idiots of March.

Or is it the march of the idiots?

You can always depend on the Pandagonians to mask their hoplophobia with misandry. Someone really should tell them that covering up bigotry with more bigotry doesn't work. Naturally, like all anti-gun screeds, there is no legitimate argument put forward, so they resort to references of penises. If you have the time, it's an interesting read and a textbook example hoplophobia.

In case my comment gets lost in the black hole of Reasoned Discourse®, here it is:

I have to admit this post is funny in some ways and flat out disturbing in others. And in between very few people have a grasp on what is actually happening.

The only reason people are open carrying in Starbucks (or any place in California) is because under California's current laws concealed carry permits are only given at the local sheriff's discretion. As a result, only the white, wealthy, and well connected have permits. If you're a person of a dusky complexion, no permit for you. You didn't make a nice big donation to the sheriff's campaign to get reelected? No permit for you either. So open-carry is essentially the only legal way most people can carry a gun for self-defense.

These open carry sit-ins aren't designed to scare the liberals so much as they are designed to show that carrying a gun doesn't magically transform one into a criminal, no more than wearing a badge magically makes on into an "Only One" trusted/skilled enough to carry a gun. Like someone else said, it's essentially normalization campaign. It's not like the people carrying guns into Starbucks are wearing camo and rifles over their shoulders. They're just regular people. People who if they weren't carrying a gun, you'd never notice them.

And with this country's rich history of police brutality and police shooting not only innocent people, but themselves, it's pretty laughable that anyone would think that the only people who should be allowed to openly carry guns are police. If you're going to criticize those who openly carry a gun, at least criticize the most blatant and dangerous offenders: The Police.

Starbucks has done the pragmatic thing and decided to not take a side in the battle by acquiescing to local law. Like any good corporation, their goal is to make money, not political statements.

There’s not much reason to be scared of armed robbers - they don’t want to kill you, they just want the money.

If they just wanted the money, they could take it without being armed.

No one but the gun owner knows if they are carrying an unloaded piece to make a statement, if they are coming to kill one of the workers for personal reasons, or if they just want to stick the place up.

You could say that about everyone who walks through the door. The reality is that we live in a country where you don't know who has a gun and who doesn't. Anyone who walks through the door of a Starbucks could be potential murderer or robber.

Either way, these people aren’t engaged in a “peaceful protest” and they are definitely not safe or responsible gun owners.

If they weren't peacefully protesting, the police would detain them for disturbing the peace. As for being safe, they're being as safe as someone carrying a gun can be. They are no more dangerous than the thousands of police officers who walk among us with loaded guns. As for being responsible, that's a matter of opinion. They aren't waving the guns around, pointing them at anyone, are behaving in any way that would pose a danger to those around them. That's responsible to me.

Because carrying a weapon is an implicit threat and an immediate raising of the stakes. With nothing, you can can deescalate confrontations if they can be. There’s room for negotiations or escapes.

Incorrect. Having a weapon does not preclude deescalating a situation.

If you’re carrying a gun you are going into a situation saying “I expect for this to turn into a situation where I will want/need to kill someone”

Same as above. Carrying a gun doesn't mean you're forced to use it.

Maybe it’s a failure of imagination, but I can’t imagine being scared by someone just because they’re carrying a gun.

Once you get outside of places like California and the Northeast, most people aren't afraid of someone who is just carrying a holstered firearm. Not only are most people not afraid, most people don't care.

How would you feel if someone walked up to you in a store and the first thing they did was announce how many black belts they had and did you know that they could kill you by opening up your carotid artery with the plastic forks available in the small bin on the counter?
That is exactly the equivalent of civilian open carry in that social setting, only allowing the iron on your hip proclaim how you can fuck someone up instead of needing to explain it to them verbally.

Not even close. Believe it or not, guns can't talk. Any perceived message you get from them is purely your own creation. Now if the person with the gun was talking about how they could pop your head from 50 yards, then i'd agree with your analogy.

As for the talk of anxious masculinity and penises, it's neither new nor novel. I think it's only logical that if the open carrying of a gun is an expression anxious masculinity then the criticism of an openly carried gun is anxious femininity, fear of penises, and maybe even a bit of penis envy. Hence all those feelings of intimidation.

No comments:

Post a Comment