politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Sorry? I left it out? You replied three times to me tilling me im wrong. You saw the link.
It seems you’re being just as dishonest here as you are accusing me of.
Also… you may wish to read something
Verbally threatening some one is use of force. Threatening with a gesture is use of force. In every state I’m aware of- which is about twenty, specifically- all treat a threat to use a fire arm as the same as using a fire arm
I have always been trained to never (intentionally) expose a concealed fire arm (unless a cop is asking you to.) precisely because the gesture is easily misunderstood as a threat.
But, you’re right, this guy could probably pass it off as debate. He shouldn’t be allowed to, though.
Hey, you can't just post a link to a law and hope that nobody actually looks at it. There's nothing in the Indiana law that you linked to that supports what you claimed.
Threatening requires...an actual threat. Just showing someone a gun is not a threat. I would challenge you to show me a law that says "showing someone a gun is a threat". The laws I looked up said that threatening someone with a gun is a threat.
The police are not a great standard for what should be considered a threat, nor are there any laws out there that say, "it's a threat if a police officer would consider it a threat".
Would pointing a gun at someone be a threat? (Surely yes.) Why? Because it can intimidate someone (by a statement of intent to use force) into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do.
OK, so can the same be said for placing your hand on a gun? What about placing a gun on a table? Surely, again, the answer is yes for both of those. Why? Because purposefully displaying your weapon is displaying your intent (or a warning of possible intent) to use it.
OK, so what's the difference between those and displaying (purposefully to a group of people in opposition to you) your holstered gun? What is the possible intent? Was he just trying to show them a piece of his wardrobe or was their another motive? If the intent was to make them feel uncomfortable (and it did) then explain how it's not a threat?
Threats don't have to be words. Threats can be actions, like holding a knife to someone's throat. If the intent is coercion through an implication of danger, it's a threat. Arguments can be made that this wasn't what happened, but you'd be hard pressed to get anyone like me to see this as anything else. What could the other possible intent be?
Did you see the video of the interaction? He said something along the lines of "I want you to be able to defend yourself", then a student asks "Do you mean by carrying a gun?" and he says, "Yes, I'm carrying right now." If you did watch that video and came away saying it must have been a threat, you're not have a good faith discussion.
I still don't see a reason for it. What he said should be enough, rather than flashing his gun. Also, since it's supposedly for defence, what is he doing flashing it at them. That's somewhat implying 'I'm going to "defend" myself.' The most generous interpretation is he flashed his firearm to make a point, which is still wrong.
The argument is likely not made in good faith to start with. Statistically a firearm doesn't protect you. Frequently it just gets you killed instead, especially if you're flashing it and making yourself a target and threat (there's that word again). It almost certainly was a veiled threat (likely fake, but to make them feel uncomfortable), although it can be more than one thing at once.
It's also likely an appeal to his base, because it's seen as a virtue to carry, and also likely to confront and threaten those in favor of any form of gun control. It's an implicit endorsement to his constituents to do the same thing.
I'm entirely failing to see the "wrong" in demonstrating that he himself carries a weapon when asked about carrying a weapon. There are no doubt plenty of reasons to dislike this guy, but this example is little more than people like you trying really, really hard to make something out of nothing.
And you probably never will.
Do you know the trope of a mob boss placing his gun on his desk? What's wrong with that? It's definitely not a threat, right? (sarcasm)
If he's CC he should want it concealed I would assume. What's the point of flashing it? It's to show the people (who he doesn't like and disagrees with, as well as those other people who hear about his actions later) what he's got. Why? What does it do to further his argument? What does he gain? Consider the reasons why someone would choose to unconceal their firearm. It shouldn't be a fashion piece to just show off.
For any number of reasons, the most obvious and likely of which is that he was simply emphasizing his point about carrying a weapon for self-defense. The least likely and most ridiculous reason, the one you seem stuck on, is that he was threatening a group of kids.
Why don't you spend some time applying some of that critical thinking to why he would threaten a group of kids?
you can communicate a threat to shoot some one without ever having a gun on your possession. (Gran Torino comes to mind, even if that is fiction.) Here's the relevant text of Indiana Code Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure § 35-45-2-1. :
making threats in general is Class A misdemeanor. there's conditions that can bump it to a class 6, or 5 felony (like, you're threatening to commit a felony- aka to shoot some one.)
it goes on to say:
I've bolded the important bits, and trimmed out a few that were irrelevant or just too wordy and also irrelevant.
care to explain how calling attention to being armed, isn't on some level intended to shock or scare school kids? based on posture and what little context there was, it seems more reasonable to believe he wanted- consciously or otherwise- to scare and pressure these kids. And he used a firearm to do it.
you can use a device to intimidate without ever actually drawing or firing a weapon. on a geopolitical level, the entire premise of MAD is based on that. Simply opening his jacket was "using" in that sense. "I'm armed right now!! [SEE?]" there was absolutely zero reason, as far as legitimate policy arguments go, that flashing that pistol bolstered... and a reasonable belief, by members of this group, that he was indeed threatening them.
I am hard pressed to conceive of a scenario where the situation would be improved by such an announcement where simply drawing it would not also be a greater improvement.
Am I stretching things- a bit- ? probably. Will this guy get off because "i didn't mean it that way?" Absolutely. because he's rich(ish), white, and in a conservative stronghold that likes this sort bullshit. Does it mean he's not guilty? No... Does it mean it's okay to do? absolutely not.
Yes, ffs, just go watch the video. I shouldn't even have to explain this. He said something about self-defense, some kid goes "like carrying a gun"? He says "yes, in fact I'm carrying right now" and briefly revealed the gun on his side. A reasonable person would interpret that as him demonstrating that he does the thing that he himself advocates for. Nobody felt threatened by that. This group of kids didn't gasp at seeing the gun and run away. They didn't even take a step back. They stood there and kept arguing with him.
lol, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. I already explained the reason why he showed it and covered why it's obvious that no one standing there felt threatened.
He'll get off because he didn't do anything that anyone could even make a plausible argument is illegal. (Sorry, but your arguments here are all implausible at best.)
For fucking hell. By YOUR definition of reasonable, and YOUR interpretation.
How many ways do I need to say it? It’s not YOUR definition that matters. It’s not even mine. One of the kids even said it. “nothing about that makes me feel safe.”
There is no world in which intentionally flashing a gun does not reasonably convey a threat on some level. Showing that you are carrying, serves no purpose to that argument- the argument he’s loosing (and judging by his subsequent comments… quite salty about it.)
Now look at his posture, he’s leaning forward, in an aggressive manner (not physically aggressive, yet, but he’s leaning forward, his other hand is in an raised defensive posture. He’s squared up on them, on his toes,) He’s agitated, his face shows frustration. And he has aggressive body language.
You’re acting like a single action will always be one thing and never more than one thing. These situations are a whole lot of gray, and his whole lot of gray said he at the very least meant to scare or shock those students.
>There is no world in which intentionally flashing a gun does not reasonably convey a threat on some level.
during a bank robbery, to the people on the floor with you while the assailants have their backs turned.
Great way to get everyone killed.
There’s a reason banks just hand over the cash.
I didn't say it was wise. I said it's not a threat.