White couple arrested for pulling gun on black woman

[Cloud_Strife]

It was a good joke, so I acknowledged it as such!

America was and still is, built upon the systemic racism.

I'm not entirely sure what the joke is, if you could just explain it to me.

 

[BCheek]

Having to interact with others in a respectable manner is systematic racism and is indicative of a civilized society.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Having to interact with others in a respectable manner is systematic racism and is indicative of a civilized society.

Are you okay, if so why are you posting this nonsense?

 

[BCheek]

Are you okay, if so why are you posting this nonsense?

I'm a straight white male. I'm doing great. How about you?

 

[IglooDame]

Maybe they should be, though?

Maybe I'm over-responding to a quip, but what the hell. Let's review the four rules, which coincidentally my 7-year-old grandson just memorized last week.

1 - Always treat the gun as if it's loaded.
2 - Do not point the gun at anything you don't wish to put a hole into.
3 - Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4 - Be certain of your target and what is beyond it.

The broad idea of the rules is to prevent accidental or negligent discharges. Particularly with the first three rules, any one rule can be violated and it's still very unlikely that anyone could get hurt.

I was going to talk about how rules 2 and 4 already have laws related to them (brandishing, and discharging within city limits and the like), but, I'm probably taking this thread too far already.

 

[Berzerker]

1) when can you clean the gun
2) how do you not point a gun

 

[cardgame]

You can clean the gun after you make sure it's unloaded

If you haven't dropped the magazine free and cycled the action to make 100% sure there's no bullets involved, you must assume that the gun is loaded. If you put the gun down, after you unloaded it, when you pick it up you should once again assume it is loaded until you check. This seems overbearing, but what if you have two pistols (like the couple here, a man and a wife, one gun each) and you pick up the wrong one and you assume it's not loaded. Bam, negligent discharge.

I was cycling my shotgun to get the +1 round in the chamber a couple years ago, had an ND. Good thing I was pointing the gun at the ground and otherwise following the rules.

 

[IglooDame]

1) when can you clean the gun
2) how do you not point a gun

Cardgame covered the first point. For the second, I'm not sure what you're getting at. When handling a gun, you keep it pointed in a "safe" direction. I explain to new shooters that they should visualize a jedi lightsaber extending from the barrel, so they're more mindful of pointing it at their feet, or having a hand or wrist wave in front of the muzzle. Obviously (let's say in an apartment building) there are times when there is no perfectly safe direction, in which case a safer direction must suffice - at an appropriate angle toward an exterior wall and preferably a window in it, for example (note rule 4 about 'beyond'), and then pay even more attention to the loaded and trigger rules.

As a practical matter, I dryfire in my basement, sort of violating rule 3 explicitly (I'm pulling the trigger, though only when pointing it at the target mark on my wall) and 2 implicitly (I don't want to actually put a round in my basement wall, either), and arguably 1 (I'm pulling the trigger which I would not do if it was actually loaded). I'm really clear on rule 4 in those cases (even with wierd richochets a bullet cannot hurt anyone else, I keep it pointed at the walls or floor), and I explicitly chamber a red plastic dummy round and don't keep any actual ammunition nearby.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'd say muh facts and science but some people only believe in those things selectively so I guess we're left with nature vs. nurture and the chicken and the egg.

To what extent do you think that racism is ongoing in the US?

 

[Commodore]

, it was easier than typing "very sane and well-adjusted woman who pulled a gun on someone due to an inconsequential altercation

But why mention race at all? You could have just said "woman" or "couple". Instead you chose "whites" which makes it seem like you have some type of racial agenda you are trying to advance.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You can clean the gun after you make sure it's unloaded.

But see rule 1.

I explain to new shooters that they should visualize a jedi lightsaber extending from the barrel, so they're more mindful of pointing it at their feet, or having a hand or wrist wave in front of the muzzle.

I'd kind of worry about someone who can only conceptualise the dangers of a very real weapon in their hands if they're told to imagine a completely different and entirely fictional weapon from a Disney film.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

America was and still is, built upon the systemic racism.

I'm not entirely sure what the joke is, if you could just explain it to me.

I got the joke the first time, don't think repeating it helps.

Are you okay, if so why are you posting this nonsense?

Ironic question.

If you haven't dropped the magazine free and cycled the action to make 100% sure there's no bullets involved, you must assume that the gun is loaded. If you put the gun down, after you unloaded it, when you pick it up you should once again assume it is loaded until you check. This seems overbearing, but what if you have two pistols (like the couple here, a man and a wife, one gun each) and you pick up the wrong one and you assume it's not loaded. Bam, negligent discharge.

It's also just not good practice to assume you know/remember something when the consequences of a mistake are so bad. It's like looking away from the road for 5 full seconds because you checked in front and everything seemed completely open. Maybe you're right most of the time when doing that, but being wrong even once inexcusably awful.

To what extent do you think that racism is ongoing in the US?

Some frequency, for all races, at the individual level. Systemically...not so much. That implies intentional arrangements and it just doesn't bear out when you look at recent immigrant performances from a particular race vs same race here for many generations. It also doesn't explain heavy disparity between sub-groups within races, unless you believe systemic racism can also reliably identify these subgroups and then only chooses to penalize some of them. To name a few issues with blanket assumptions of correlation vs causation, which is what nearly everybody uses to claim systemic racism.

 

[cardgame]

unintentional racism is still racism

 

[Lexicus]

But why mention race at all? You could have just said "woman" or "couple". Instead you chose "whites" which makes it seem like you have some type of racial agenda you are trying to advance.

Why don't you tell me more about the "racial agenda" you think I'm trying to advance?

As a side note, I have to admit it is interesting seeing the "free speech" crowd get so triggered over the mere mention of the word "whites."

Maybe I'm over-responding to a quip, but what the hell. Let's review the four rules, which coincidentally my 7-year-old grandson just memorized last week.

1 - Always treat the gun as if it's loaded.
2 - Do not point the gun at anything you don't wish to put a hole into.
3 - Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4 - Be certain of your target and what is beyond it.

The broad idea of the rules is to prevent accidental or negligent discharges. Particularly with the first three rules, any one rule can be violated and it's still very unlikely that anyone could get hurt.

Yes, my point is that I think people should have to take some sort of test to demonstrate they are capable of following these rules, as a precondition for owning a gun.

Also, I know for a fact that the US Army actually does not believe in "accidental" discharges - any unintended discharge is considered negligent. If "gun rights" advocates want to own military-grade weapons, then I don't see how it's unreasonable to hold them to military-grade safety standards.

But sure that's one way of looking at it, and if it had been worded like "the white woman" or something maybe I'd buy it (or, you know, "the one with the gun"), but I find "the whites" to be indicative of how certain types of people seem to view absolutely everything. The same type of people who are allegedly commited to ending racism, but seemingly see a person's race as their primary characteristic to the point of hardly being able to see anything else.

This is funny considering you have literally said you believe race is a biological fact

 

[Yeekim]

But sure that's one way of looking at it, and if it had been worded like "the white woman" or something maybe I'd buy it (or, you know, "the one with the gun"), but I find "the whites" to be indicative of how certain types of people seem to view absolutely everything. The same type of people who are allegedly commited to ending racism, but seemingly see a person's race as their primary characteristic to the point of hardly being able to see anything else.

I've noticed such behaviour as well, but I still think you chose a rather innocent occasion to take issue with.
Also, apparently "snowflake" is a bad word, so please accept my apologies for that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

As a side note, I have to admit it is interesting seeing the "free speech" crowd get so triggered over the mere mention of the word "whites."

No-one's triggered Lexicus, I (and I can only speak for myself here) just find it a telling indication of how you view the world, in a way that isn't particularly healthy. Also, no-one is trying to censor you or stop you from talking, which is all that support for free speech signifies. I know that you think supporting someone's right to speak means you also endorse what they're saying, so I can see how in your mind this appears to be a contradiction, but it really isn't one.

 

[Commodore]

Why don't you tell me more about the "racial agenda" you think I'm trying to advance

I didn't say you were. I said your choice of words makes it seem like you were. You are smart enough to know that the words you choose to use matters when it comes to how others interpret your message. So if you don't want people to think you are advancing a racial agenda, then don't use racially-oriented words.

As a side note, I have to admit it is interesting seeing the "free speech" crowd get so triggered over the mere mention of the word "whites."

The right to free speech does not protect your words from criticism or analysis by others. Also, as Manfred said, no one is stopping you from saying what you are saying or calling for you to be "cancelled" over your words. So to cry foul about your freedom of speech in this situation is a bit...odd to say the least.

Also, I know for a fact that the US Army actually does not believe in "accidental" discharges - any unintended discharge is considered negligent

Yes this is true. In fact, negligent discharges usually result in significant disciplinary action. I've seen people lose rank over a negligent discharge.

The Army believes that any negligent discharge is the result of some failure on the part of the weapon's operator. Even if it is caused by some mechanical malfunction in the weapon itself, the Army will say you should have noticed it when doing regular preventative maintenance on your weapon and taken it to the unit armorer for repair when you noticed the defect.

Yes, my point is that I think people should have to take some sort of test to demonstrate they are capable of following these rules, as a precondition for owning a gun.

The problem with that, at least in the US, is that gun ownership is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. As such, imposing those types of requirements as a precondition for gun ownership runs into the same legal hurdles that you would run into with putting those requirements on any other right (poll taxes or "voter IQ" tests for example).

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I got the joke the first time, don't think repeating it helps.

It wasn't a joke, it was an observable fact.

But if you could explain how you could interpret it as a joke, it would help.

 

[IglooDame]

Yes, my point is that I think people should have to take some sort of test to demonstrate they are capable of following these rules, as a precondition for owning a gun.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, as Commodore alludes to, that requirement would pretty quickly get twisted by people in positions of local or regional authority that don't want anyone to have any guns at all. As it is, permits in different states and in some cases different counties in different states have vastly different bars to clear, I'm familiar with circumstances in Massachusetts and New York State where some counties are extremely selective about granting permits because the chief of police or other local/county authority doesn't think anyone should have them, and others regard them as essentially "shall-issue" despite overarching state law.

Also, I know for a fact that the US Army actually does not believe in "accidental" discharges - any unintended discharge is considered negligent. If "gun rights" advocates want to own military-grade weapons, then I don't see how it's unreasonable to hold them to military-grade safety standards.

The US Army isn't alone in that; in the competitive pistol groups (local and forums) I've always heard it referred to as an ND, as well.

 

[Lexicus]

I didn't say you were. I said your choice of words makes it seem like you were. You are smart enough to know that the words you choose to use matters when it comes to how others interpret your message. So if you don't want people to think you are advancing a racial agenda, then don't use racially-oriented words.

The only "racial agenda" I'm pushing is in fact the end of racial inequality and the abolition of race as such. I'm perfectly open about this.

The right to free speech does not protect your words from criticism or analysis by others. Also, as Manfred said, no one is stopping you from saying what you are saying or calling for you to be "cancelled" over your words. So to cry foul about your freedom of speech in this situation is a bit...odd to say the least.

I'm not claiming my freedom of speech is being impinged on whatsoever, and I think you know me better than to think I'm not ready willing and eager to argue with people who criticize anything I have to say.

I'm just noting that some of the same people whose position on actual racial hate speech is, basically, that its victims ought to toughen up and stop complaining so much are sure getting worked up about the word "whites".

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, as Commodore alludes to, that requirement would pretty quickly get twisted by people in positions of local or regional authority that don't want anyone to have any guns at all.

I do not recognize any individual right to own firearms and so am not concerned about this at all.