Time to grow up and put your guns away

[Alonzo]

My 20-month-old nephew loves Elmo and Dora. He also has started making explosion and gunfire noises.
I get the inevitability of little boys' fascination with guns.
What I can't figure out are the men and sometimes women who don't grow out of the gun-crazy stage of childhood, who need to have a handgun on their hips at all times, who need their neighbors to notice.
Ten of them stormed the West Valley City Council meeting last week to back up Travis Deveraux, a 36-year-old credit card company worker, who was detained by police in December while exercising with his Smith & Wesson.
"I don't blame them for being a little bit extra careful," Deveraux said. "But there's a line they crossed between being a little bit careful and a little bit too careful."
I thought there was no such thing as "too careful" - especially with a gun. But the OpenCarry crowd's literal interpretation of the "right to bear arms" and self-appointment as our "well-regulated militia" undercuts careful law enforcement, membership in a civil society and even reason.
It's in the Constitution, their thinking goes. They are "peaceably going about their business while armed," standing on the watchtower, the last line of defense against government tyranny and crazed criminals. We should thank them.
I understand the thrill of firing a Glock
Advertisement

(I've done it), the euphoria of hitting the center of a target (and that, too), generations of family deer-hunting weekends and the legitimate self-preservation instincts of Utah's elected concealed weapon carriers.
But the OpenCarry movement is a mystery to me. What kind of psychology - overcompensation, paranoia, antisocial personality - is behind that thinking?
Steven Gunn, an attorney and board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, believes it's pure ego.
"We have inconsiderate boors walking around on the street carrying firearms openly," says Gunn. "I don't think they are truly afraid for their safety. Most of them are trying to make a statement about the Second Amendment."
Anthropologist Charles Springwood says open carriers are trying to "naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood."
OpenCarry.org, run by two Virginia gun lovers, claims 4,000 members nationwide. According to the Legal Community Against Violence in San Francisco, just seven states prohibit packing in public and eight restrict carrying handguns openly without a permit.
Utah's OpenCarry activists put on a show for the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago, trying to appear warm and fuzzy, shopping at Costco, just like you and me - but with their handguns flapping in the breeze. They meet once a month at restaurants like Denny's and Sweet Tomatoes to socialize.
"We don't want to show up and say, 'Hey, we're here, we're armed, get used to it,' " Kevin Jensen told the Times reporter.
But that's just what the showdown in West Valley City was about. The cowed mayor and City Council members referred the case to the officers' professional standards review board.
Police are struggling to strike a balance between gun owners' rights and those of the rest of us.
"There has to be some common sense on their part, too; they have to take into consideration the concern that they cause other citizens," says Layton Police Chief Terry Keefe. "I do not walk around when I'm off-duty with a weapon displayed."
Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank would rather gun owners get concealed weapon permits than carry openly.
"In light of Trolley Square, mall shootings, school shootings, anyone walking around with a gun potentially creates a lot of phone calls for us," Burbank says. "How do you expect an officer to deal with that - other than to point a gun at them and go through the process [of elimination]? There's no other way to make that determination safely without putting officers at risk."
Utah lawmakers set up this stalemate when they wrote the state's anything-goes concealed weapon law. They deliberately left open a loophole for those who carry their guns out in the open. Under Utah law, open carriers must be 18 years old and keep their bullets out of the chamber. That's it. No training, no background check required.
"Second Amendment questions aside," says Springwood, a professor at Illinois Wesleyan University, "the real debate seems to me a cultural and social one: Do we want a society in which it is an unconscious emblem of everyday life that folks move about with 'portable killing machines' strapped to their bodies?"
Legislators already have made that decision for us; we're living in the modern heart of the wild, wild West.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9662672

I'm glads I've never seen one of these nuts waving their guns around in a place I wanted to be. I'd leave asap.

[Easy90]

I hear ya. Damned Constitution anyway!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Don't let Americas door hit ya in the tail Alonzo.....

[AlanC]

Open carry has been the law in Colorado, Utah and Arizona that I know of, as long as I've been alive. And that is awhile.

Nice to see San Francisco is finally coming to understand they have a warped view of the world.

This author uses some strange sort of description though. Guns flapping in the breeze for example. I have never seen that. Must be some strong wind in Utah.

I doubt too that anyone was observed "waving their gun around". Seems like a bit of opinion was leaking into this unbiased news report. Or were they honest and put it on the editorial page where it belongs.

[PatrickHenry]

The "nuts waving their guns around" is an Alonzo statement, Alan.

That how he views someone with a holstered pistol in plain sight.

Another lie by the leftie.

Citizens carrying guns is explicitly permitted by the Second Amendment.

If openly carrying one is a statement of support for the Constitution, wouldn't that be a good thing, not a bad one?

[Alonzo]

The "nuts waving their guns around" is an Alonzo statement, Alan.

That how he views someone with a holstered pistol in plain sight.

Another lie by the leftie.

Citizens carrying guns is explicitly permitted by the Second Amendment.

If openly carrying one is a statement of support for the Constitution, wouldn't that be a good thing, not a bad one?

So you're happy with this:

Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank would rather gun owners get concealed weapon permits than carry openly.
"In light of Trolley Square, mall shootings, school shootings, anyone walking around with a gun potentially creates a lot of phone calls for us," Burbank says. "How do you expect an officer to deal with that - other than to point a gun at them and go through the process [of elimination]? There's no other way to make that determination safely without putting officers at risk."

How exactly do you determine a threat before they're actually pointing the gun at people? It's too late then.

I for one am glad to live in a state where a guy walking into a mall or grocery store would trigger calls to 911 before he has the chance to pull the trigger on people. I've never seen anyone, other than a cop, carry a gun in public, and I doubt many wouldn't be nervous around here if they saw it. The only time I've ever seen a gun carried publicly, outside of police, were hunters in Vermont who were clearly going hunting.

According to this: http://opencarry.org/ma.html open carrying in MA may result in losing your permit.

[Easy90]

AM...don't you think someone who is carrying a gun concealed is more likely to be intent on using it in a criminal fashion? If so...how would a cop know the threat any sooner than if he were openly carrying, in a non-threatening fashion? Which would make more sense if a person were a criminal? Carrying a gun openly displayed? Or, carrying it in the pocket, out of sight? Puff! There goes your argument!

In open carry states it's quite common to see stores post a sign on the door saying they don't allow firearms on the premises. So....the people who carry openly don't come in. But those who carry covertly typically ignore the sign.

[Alonzo]

I don't agree with concealed carry laws when you haven't shown a need. Concealed carry "just because I want to" isn't a reason in my mind. I see open carry as simply providing proof that you're carrying a gun publicly.

But openly carrying is essentially "disorderly conduct" as far as I'm concerned. Even if the person has no intention of using it, it frightens and intimidates those around them who are minding their own business. Those who think walking around with a rifle on their shoulder, a handgun on their belt, isn't scaring people (at least in many areas) are kidding themselves.

[micfranklin]

If owning weapons is a right why do you need a reason to carry one Zo?

[Alonzo]

If owning weapons is a right why do you need a reason to carry one Zo?

Whether you can carry a gun publicly does not infringe on any "right" to possess one.

[GhostintheMachine]

I think it's a cultural problem, America is too obsessed with guns...
Like Johnny Cash said, "don't bring your guns to town son, don't bring your guns to town."
That being said, concealed carry seems fine to me, but why should somebody feel the need to flaunt their guns in public

[AlanC]

Whether you can carry a gun publicly does not infringe on any "right" to possess one.

The wording is: The right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms....

They go hand in hand.

As is the case often, these words are uncomfortable to some and so they try to get the courts to read them a different way or to interpret them in a fashion that they find more comfortable.

But the constitution has a mechanism by which it can be adjusted if society finds it has a need to be changed. That is called the ammendment process or, in this case, the repeal of an ammendment. It is a process that is unlikely to be successful when it comes to weapons and so the effort to back door a repeal of it by regulation and judicial fiat.

That is a tactic that is all too common these days.

[Alonzo]

Which comes after the part on a well regulated militia.

No ones stopping you from forming one.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Osborn F. Enready]

So you have no problem with militia members carrying their arms Alonzo? Membership in a militia is all that is required to satisfy you?

[Alonzo]

I have a problem, sure. But I recognize that as being a right according to the constitution. I wish it wasn't there, but it is.

But as for simply carrying your guns because you're in a militia? No. If your carrying relates to legal militia activities, then yes. For example, if you're taking your rifle to a target range that's fine. If you're taking your rifle to the mall that isn't.

[AlanC]

Which comes after the part on a well regulated militia.

No ones stopping you from forming one.

Except for the comma in there. Militias are shown as a reason for all citizens to keep arms. When the constitution was written, no one provided arms to any militia. Militias were formed by the citizens themselves and they brought their own arms.

It says the right of the individual shall not be infringed. It wasn't qualified as the right of the militia or the right of the members of the militia.

But I appreciate the suggestion. I form Alan's militia and then I can buy fully automatic weapons for all the members of my militia, right? Good idea actually.

[Alonzo]

It says "well regulated militia" that doesn't mean you can have any weapon.

But the right for individuals to keep and bear arms is a collective right based on a militia. Individuals do have that right, but in that context. If they are not militia members then they don't have that right.

That being said, the entire concept of a militia renders that as one of the most outdated sections of the constitution.

[AlanC]

Zo's excellent idea about forming our own militias reminded me of this email I got awhile ago:

The Pentagon announced TODAY the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the United States Redneck Special Forces (USRSF)


http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j201/irishred46/bubba.jpg

500 of these boys will be dropped off in Iraq and have been given only the following facts about terrorists :

1. The season opened today.
2. There is no limit.
3. They taste just like chicken.
4. They don't like beer, pickups, country music or Jesus.
5. They are directly responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt .

The Pentagon expects the problem in Iraq to be over by Friday.

[AlanC]

It says "well regulated militia" that doesn't mean you can have any weapon.

But the right for individuals to keep and bear arms is a collective right based on a militia. Individuals do have that right, but in that context. If they are not militia members then they don't have that right.

That being said, the entire concept of a militia renders that as one of the most outdated sections of the constitution.

Actually no, there was no requirement for belonging to a militia anywhere in the ammendment or in its application at any time since its adoption. It merely recognized that militia members would come from the general population. Thus the population had the right to be armed.

And didn't you just say I could form one if I wanted to? :lmao:

[Alonzo]

Alan, the only supreme court decision directly dealing with the right to bear arms agreed with the militia view:

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[Alonzo]

Actually no, there was no requirement for belonging to a militia anywhere in the ammendment or in its application at any time since its adoption. It merely recognized that militia members would come from the general population. Thus the population had the right to be armed.

And didn't you just say I could form one if I wanted to? :lmao:

Read my above post.

Also you can, well regulated of course. Shooting randomly while smashing beer cans on your head probably doesn't count.

[AlanC]

Read my above post.

Also you can, well regulated of course. Shooting randomly while smashing beer cans on your head probably doesn't count.

It will be well regulated. We won't shoot anything other than budwiser cans and even then only before they are crushed on someone's head. And we will only do so on the weekends! :love:

I've already got 5 nieghbors signed up.... ahh.. how many do we need? I didn't see the number in there anywhere. Since we are making this up as we go along...how about 10 minimum? :ponder:

[Alonzo]

10 sounds good. Just remember that, for training purposes, it's 5 on one side of the room, 5 on the other. :D

[Pookie]

Here in the south, we are so used to seeing guns in racks in the back windows of pickups that it doesn't really faze us any more. I have a CCW permit because I drive alone a lot at night, but no one ever sees my gun even when it's on me.
I don't mention I even have it unless I get stopped by a cop and then my first words are: "Officer, there is a gun in this car. Allow me to exit the vehicle verrrrry slowly and I will tell you where it is, with the CCW permit under it."
I get out slowly with hands up and in plain view, and tell the cop where it is, blah blah. I did that recently for being stopped for a brake light out. It was a friendly reminder thing, and I didn't get a ticket, but the cop said he sure did appreciate the way I handled the gun part.
What cracked me up, though, he said, "You got out so slowly I could have filled out a report and taken a nap before you were done."
I wish there was a law that said only responsible people could have guns! More and more it seems, I'm hearing about kids getting a hold of parents' guns, accidental shootings, near misses, (posted by Zo a few days ago) and I get really annoyed.
I just want to beat some sense into those who are irresponsible and careless with guns.
Grrrr!
Purrs,
Pookie the Annoyed

[Truth_and_Power]

Which comes after the part on a well regulated militia.

No ones stopping you from forming one.

I think the U.S. government has made it clear that they will surround, tear gas, and torch any militia that they or the state does not personally control. How citizens are supposed to resist tyranny with tyrranical control of militias is beyond me.

[GhostintheMachine]

I think the U.S. government has made it clear that they will surround, tear gas, and torch any militia that they or the state does not personally control. How citizens are supposed to resist tyranny with tyrranical control of militias is beyond me.

peaceful resistance, take a lesson from Ghandi perhaps?

[Pookie]

Hmmm. Well, I don't know, but many Americans take their right to bear arms very seriously, and so do the militias.
If this right were to really be taken down, I think we'd have a civil war on our hands.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Burning Giraffe]

The "nuts waving their guns around" is an Alonzo statement, Alan.

That how he views someone with a holstered pistol in plain sight.

Another lie by the leftie.

Citizens carrying guns is explicitly permitted by the Second Amendment.

If openly carrying one is a statement of support for the Constitution, wouldn't that be a good thing, not a bad one?

Well said. I'm all for gun regulations (such as, I think it should be illegal to use a gun to murder someone, I don't think guns should be registered to felons, and I don't think people should be able to buy a gun on the spur of the moment). But other than that... guns for all. :) (they are the only thing we non-liberals have to protect us from our government).

[Pookie]

But some of us are liberals who understand the Constitution and always follow the laws in gun ownership and carrying.
I have yet to ever, ever, break the law in anything, much less carrying a gun.
Purrs,
Pookie

[G.B.]

peaceful resistance, take a lesson from Ghandi perhaps?


Peaceful resistance? I wonder how the survivors of Kent State feel about that.

[Buck Laser]

Well said. I'm all for gun regulations (such as, I think it should be illegal to use a gun to murder someone, I don't think guns should be registered to felons, and I don't think people should be able to buy a gun on the spur of the moment). But other than that... guns for all. :) (they are the only thing we non-liberals have to protect us from our government).

The "only" thing you've got as a "non-liberal" to protect yourself from the gummint? The mind boggles just trying to comprehend all the ways your statement is mistaken. Let me say first that I can conceive of circumstances when guns might be a last resort. But before we get even close to that state we have: political organization, petition, free speech, elections, demonstrations, law suits, civil liberties and civil rights organizations, and a host of other mechanisms.

I don't particularly favor wholesale changes in our laws but an awful lot of gun people seem to believe that our laws are more restrictive than they were in the past, and this just isn't so. More and more states are passing laws to encourage people to carry guns, while gun advocacy groups yammer for more and more new liberties--like carrying guns to airports, churches and hospitals.

On your "spur of the moment" idea: tomorrow morning I could go to any of a dozen stores within ten miles of me and buy a gun that would let me blow anyone's head off. I wouldn't get a handgun, because it takes skill and a cool head to shoot accurately at more than arm's length. I'd get a 12 ga. shotgun and a couple of boxes of buckshot. I could do that in most states of the union.

So just maybe you ought to think a bit more about just how you want your regulations to be.

[Burning Giraffe]

But before we get even close to that state we have: political organization, petition, free speech, elections, demonstrations, law suits, civil liberties and civil rights organizations, and a host of other mechanisms.

What do any of those things have to do with self-defense? The government can't protect me very well, certainly not as well as I can protect myself in the heat of the moment. For the most part, our laws against force serve to dissuade people from violence and protect a general spirit of freedom in most places in America. A Gun doesn't create more freedom in this context. All a gun can do is protect your life and the lives of your family when someone decides to break our laws. And who in the world wants to rely on the Government when that happens?

I don't particularly favor wholesale changes in our laws but an awful lot of gun people seem to believe that our laws are more restrictive than they were in the past, and this just isn't so. More and more states are passing laws to encourage people to carry guns, while gun advocacy groups yammer for more and more new liberties--like carrying guns to airports, churches and hospitals.

On your "spur of the moment" idea: tomorrow morning I could go to any of a dozen stores within ten miles of me and buy a gun that would let me blow anyone's head off. I wouldn't get a handgun, because it takes skill and a cool head to shoot accurately at more than arm's length. I'd get a 12 ga. shotgun and a couple of boxes of buckshot. I could do that in most states of the union.

So just maybe you ought to think a bit more about just how you want your regulations to be.

What more is there to consider? I want there to be restrictions on spur of the moment gun sales. Let me reconsider............... Nope, I'm still for them.

[Buck Laser]

What do any of those things have to do with self-defense? The government can't protect me very well, certainly not as well as I can protect myself in the heat of the moment. For the most part, our laws against force serve to dissuade people from violence and protect a general spirit of freedom in most places in America. A Gun doesn't create more freedom in this context. All a gun can do is protect your life and the lives of your family when someone decides to break our laws. And who in the world wants to rely on the Government when that happens?

What more is there to consider? I want there to be restrictions on spur of the moment gun sales. Let me reconsider............... Nope, I'm still for them.
In your original post, you were talking about "protecting yourself from government." I listed just a few of the tools we have before it's necessary to turn to armed resistance. If you keep changing the base, then there's no possibility of discussion.

It appears from your second comment that you probably prefer stricter gun control, at least with regard to ease of acquisition. Some enforcers from the NRA will be calling on you Monday morning.:bye:

[Osborn F. Enready]

One statement from me.....


You want my guns?

Just try to take them........

Perhaps all you nanny stater, gun grabbing anti-gunners should thank us for making you safer?

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

[Buck Laser]

One statement from me.....


You want my guns?

Just try to take them........

Perhaps all you nanny stater, gun grabbing anti-gunners should thank us for making you safer?

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

Cold, dead hands...

[Osborn F. Enready]

Thats exactly right, cold dead hands, and you better check my body to make sure it ain't boobytrapped when you try to take it..... I am taking as many anti-gunners with me as I can the day they start trying to collect legally owned weapons.

[Alonzo]

Thats exactly right, cold dead hands, and you better check my body to make sure it ain't boobytrapped when you try to take it..... I am taking as many anti-gunners with me as I can the day they start trying to collect legally owned weapons.

Osborn, with your repeated threats of violence, and your violent road rage (or at least formerly violent road rage), why do you think it's safe for you to have a gun?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Because I have had arms since I was knee high to a grasshopper, have been trained to use them by the United States military, have never had a firearms accident or mishap and I use them as often as I can to stay in practice for self-defense.

...of course, its part my natural right to defense also, which makes all prior statements null and void statements as anything other than "opinion".

I have NEVER made a THREAT of violence.

I have simply made clear promises that if someone violates my rights using force, they will be dealt the same hand in overwhelming superiority.

[Alonzo]

Sure, you've never threatened violence. You've just stated you'd use them in X situations. :rolleyes:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Exactly, and those "x" situations are situations where I clearly have a Constitutional right to defend rights, vs unjust force, using force.

[Burning Giraffe]

In your original post, you were talking about "protecting yourself from government." I listed just a few of the tools we have before it's necessary to turn to armed resistance. If you keep changing the base, then there's no possibility of discussion.

It appears from your second comment that you probably prefer stricter gun control, at least with regard to ease of acquisition. Some enforcers from the NRA will be calling on you Monday morning.:bye:

I doubt the NRA would be too fiercely opposed to my views, but I'm sure we could have a rational disagreement. With regard to protection against the government, there is no protection except what they offer us themselves.

[Rage]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9662672

I'm glads I've never seen one of these nuts waving their guns around in a place I wanted to be. I'd leave asap.

My personal opinion is that we should be able to have our weapons showing when we are out. For one, I think it would be more dangerous to not know who has a gun (concealed weapon) to who has one.

I think that I should be able to walk outside of my house with a double holster belt, containing a couple of beretta's. Now stop, think, but don't think too hard.

How many people do you think would try to steal your wallet if you had weapons visible on you? A soon to be dead or wounded man, thats for sure. In Miami they passed a law that you could openly carry a weapon. Crime dropped by 80%. I wonder why.

Also with this, I think there should be an open weapons permit that works the same way a concealed one does (gov. gets your weapons registered and you get printed). Some people think that guns are dangerous, but those same dangerous things keep us safe.

Either way, no matter what is done, people will still carry deadly weapons so we might as well make it legal to openly carry it.

[Alonzo]

Exactly, and those "x" situations are situations where I clearly have a Constitutional right to defend rights, vs unjust force, using force.

And what about the drivers who pissed you off, the ones you said you used to ram with your car? Never, ever would have pulled a gun, would you?

[Alonzo]

My personal opinion is that we should be able to have our weapons showing when we are out. For one, I think it would be more dangerous to not know who has a gun (concealed weapon) to who has one.

I think that I should be able to walk outside of my house with a double holster belt, containing a couple of beretta's. Now stop, think, but don't think too hard.

How many people do you think would try to steal your wallet if you had weapons visible on you? A soon to be dead or wounded man, thats for sure. In Miami they passed a law that you could openly carry a weapon. Crime dropped by 80%. I wonder why.

Rage, want to post a link to that claim? I can't find anything about a miami open carry law.

Open carry laws in NH tends to result in a lot of police calls when people actually open carry, though I've never seen someone doing so personally.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
And what about the drivers who pissed you off, the ones you said you used to ram with your car? Never, ever would have pulled a gun, would you?

Never have, never would. Lethal force is a last resort to protect life and rights.

Also, I didn't ram them, I nudged them, just enough to get the point across that it wasn't their job, or their risk to do what they were doing, and to signify they were causing an elevation of force by forcefully holding people back when they had room to move.

[Alonzo]

Osborn, you said you "nudged" them into a ditch. Somehow that does strike me as someone who has full control over their anger and responses.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I admitted I let rage get the better part of me that day.....and took my own lessons from it.

It doesn't change the fact that there are people who insist on doing things not within their rights, in a forceful manner, that provolks other people to lose control of their thinly held limit of the balance between rational and enraged emotional states, and attempt to teach them a lesson, as wrong as the method may be, putting others at risk.

I would still argue to this day however, my actions were equally as inexcusable as the person who provoked it, which only make us both wrong and inconsiderate to the other drivers around us.

I have learned the lesson is "why be part of the problem", so have you? I don't think so, since you admitted you enjoy doing it.


And by the way.... no person, none, has FULL control over their anger and responses at all times. That would be inhuman. Rational people are in control of their anger and responses an overwhelming portion of their time around others in our society however.

You seem to be making a strawman argument about human fallibility being a reason to ignore self-ownership and responsibility?

[Alonzo]

I admitted I let rage get the better part of me that day.....and took my own lessons from it.

It doesn't change the fact that there are people who insist on doing things not within their rights, in a forceful manner, that provolks other people to lose control of their thinly held limit of the balance between rational and enraged emotional states, and attempt to teach them a lesson, as wrong as the method may be, putting others at risk.

And if you had had a gun that day how different would things have been?

And by the way.... no person, none, has FULL control over their anger and responses at all times. That would be inhuman. Rational people are in control of their anger and responses an overwhelming portion of their time around others in our society however.

And if someone always has a gun what happens when they fail to have control?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
And if you had had a gun that day how different would things have been?

None.

I had a collapsible baton and a knife, but both of those stayed where they should be.....out of sight, out of mind, until necessary.

Alonzo said:
And if someone always has a gun what happens when they fail to have control?

They are held accountable, either on the spot by other armed citizens, or through the legal system if the threat is minimized and they are detained for due process.