General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAsshole heckles grieving father at gun safety rally, gets grabby with cops, ends up tazed.
If only he'd had a gun! Oh, wait.
Minutes before the arrest, Musso had approached and interrupted a speaker at the main rally, which was part of a multistate bus tour sponsored in part by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and is trying to raise awareness of gun violence and push for expanded background checks. The speaker, John Cantin, whose daughter was shot and killed by her husband in Manchester in 2009, continued speaking at a podium on the sidewalk next to the bus as Musso, standing to his right, glanced over his shoulder and asked him repeatedly about several of his talking points.
What kind of gun? Musso asked, as Cantin said that women living in homes with a gun-owning domestic abuser are hundreds of times more likely to be killed. A pellet gun, a machine gun what kind of gun, sir?
(snip)
Emotions had been high leading up to the arrest, with dozens of gun rights advocates many brandishing firearms and signs chanting loudly as gun regulation speakers talked about and read the names of victims recently killed by gun violence.
Shame on you, they repeatedly yelled at one point, as the Rev. Stephen Silver of the First Congregational Church of Lebanon called on the crowd to pray for the more than 6,000 people who have died from gun violence nationally since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., which left 20 children and six adults dead in December....
Read More: http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/7059660-95/man-subdued-arrested-at-dual-gun-rallies-in-concord
Rec
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)I generally oppose hecklers at lawful speaking events because its a clear attempt to disrupt someone else's attempts to assemble and speak freely. That goes for code pink or gun rights groups.
But this guy crossed the line into clear criminal behavior and an arrest was deserved.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)just exercising his second amendment rights to use his weapon to intimidate others. (He's defending himself, after all)
CrazyJudy
(40 posts)I hate to hack up the article, please read it if my bullets do not summarize it... Many failures that could have prevented this...
A Manchester woman who was killed by her estranged husband in October assured police two hours before her death that she would not return home without a police escort, according to a report released yesterday by the attorney generals office.
<snip>
Melissa confirmed that she knew she needed to call the police for a civil standby if she was going to go back to the house, the attorney generals report states.
<snip>
The officer asked Charbonneau if she wanted a police escort then, but Charbonneau declined.
Two hours later, Melissa Charbonneau, 29, was dead, and her father had been shot in the back. Her death later inspired a change in state law classifying attempted strangulation as second-degree assault, a felony. Previously, it was classified as simple assault, a misdemeanor, allowing Jonathan Charbonneau to get out of jail after paying $30 bail.
<snip>
The order said Jonathan Charbonneau shall refrain from possessing a firearm, but the Hillsborough County sheriff has said the box on the order form that would have ordered authorities to seize any guns was not checked
The attorney generals report concludes that Jonathan Charbonneaus primary motive in killing his wife appeared to have been jealousy; he believed she was having an affair with her karate instructor despite their denials. Possible drug use and mental health issues may also have played a role, the report says, noting that toxicology reports showed a small amount of marijuana in his bloodstream, as well as an antidepressant.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/06/18/victim_in_murder_suicide_opted_not_to_use_police_escort/
Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)because you think he has bad motives and then that excuses the nuts with guns interfering with his right to free speech.
Just trying to understand.
groundloop
(11,532 posts)Are you seriously going to try nit-picking each case where someone has lost a loved one to gun violence and tell them what they should have done differently? I'll admit that universal background checks won't solve all the gun violence in this country, but it will sure the hell be a step towards keeping weapons out of the hands of those who aren't supposed to have them.
nolabear
(42,002 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)boston bean
(36,225 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Paladin
(28,283 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)does this have to do with anyone posting here?
frylock
(34,825 posts)What kind of gun? Musso asked, as Cantin said that women living in homes with a gun-owning domestic abuser are hundreds of times more likely to be killed. A pellet gun, a machine gun what kind of gun, sir?
sound familiar? "It's a magazine, not a clip." "What's an assault weapon?" nitpicking technical details about spec to derail the conversation, every fucking time.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Can we not discuss technical aspects of a crime in a DISCUSSION FORUM?
It's a far fucking cry from yelling over some poor bastard that just lost his kid, in a highly disrespectful, confrontational manner.
If a thread fork discusses ACTUAL FACTS, and you don't care about it, don't follow the thread fork.
You're ascribing power to 'derail' conversations that, in this venue, do not exist.
frylock
(34,825 posts)of a firearm. the implication is if you don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, then you have no business advocating for common-sense gun laws. just because YOU may not engage in such techniques doesn't mean it isn't happening.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Why? If you post something not giving a shit about the facts, and someone points out a fact, you are not required to respond to it.
Yes, people will post corrections, and relevant data. I never said they wouldn't. Whether or not it is a 'derail' us up to the person that either engages or ignores the thread fork.
Some of us like well-crafted legislation that actually addresses the problem. Facts assist in that endeavor.
frylock
(34,825 posts)how many decades has Feinstein been at the helm of stricter gun laws? she still refers to a mag as a clip, and I cringe eveytime I hear say that. okay, I cringe everytime DiNo opens her mouth anyway. but really, what EXACTLY does that have to do with crafting common-sense gun laws? and, again, i'm sorry, but it is a tried and tested method of derailing the conversation, because entire threads become arguments over technical terms and specs.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Half the shit that gets 'proposed' along with those stories refer to weapons already highly controlled and in some instances, banned. Words have meaning. The details are critically important.
For instance, the 'common sense background check' proposed and voted down would have made me a criminal if I had loaned a gun to my friend from work, so he could spend an afternoon at the range with his dad. The proposed law defined 'transfer' in a highly technical, and problematic manner. It would be questionable whether I could hand one of my firearms to my own wife. It was a shitty law crafted by people who don't understand the subject matter. And for that, the legislation didn't pass.
Technical details flesh out the subject matter and inform rational laws. Sure, there are people who will engage in active derailment of issues, or just flat out trolling for the sake of, but not every poster trying to correct errors is up to something. Some of us want to see a well crafted law that has a shot at actually being passed.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)just ban them all.
In the meantime, if you want that to not happen, you and your little friends need to play nice.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I remember 1994 so I am not that concerned.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)on a TV series "Have gun, will travel"
in the 1950's or very early '60's.
Paladin was a hired killer.
Awesome.
Sorry if you didn't know that.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Because I always thought it was in reference to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin#Popular_usage
In Dungeons & Dragons, the paladin is a character class, a holy warrior with a strict code of conduct and divinely-granted powers, that resembles the archetypal knight in shining armor.
I see no mention of guns, though it may still be a hired killer, so long as it's for a holy cause.
Tyrs WolfDaemon
(2,289 posts)They are the 'Holy' warriors sent by the Vatican to deal with vampires, werewolves and other 'undesirables'.
Section XIII, The Iscariot Organization. The top secret branch of the Vatican and not to be trusted, especially by us Other-kin.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)to master in D&D. You truly have to get in character with that holier-than-thou, goody-two-shoes mentality to play a paladin. Otherwise, you just come across as a standard fighter class that has some extra pluses added.
I've never played a paladin, but the few friends I remember doing so played them like the "group asshole" and always questioning the morality of a situation
Seems like your recollection with regards to the Paladins' history was also used in that mostly forgettable movie, Jumper, and in a similar way as with other-kin
Tyrs WolfDaemon
(2,289 posts)I was thinking more of the Manga/Anime Hellsing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellsing
kentauros
(29,414 posts)It looks good, though I'm not much into that genre these days
Response to cliffordu (Reply #21)
graham4anything This message was self-deleted by its author.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)disregard.
lpbk2713
(42,774 posts)"Asshole" only scratches the surface.
mountain grammy
(26,666 posts)I think so many gun crazies are against background checks because they won't pass them, like this violent, stupid man.
sinkingfeeling
(51,493 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)I think if I'd been in the same situation, I'd have stopped and asked why I should be ashamed, because I wouldn't feel such shame, just an inability to understand their reasoning.
RitchieRich
(292 posts)never open a bucket at a job site
(because there aren't always toilets)
reasoning would be ideal of course, but the probable outcome would stink.
hack89
(39,171 posts)here is another account:
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130619/NEWS07/130619169/0/SPORTS07
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Mock people who are suffering...yell at and badger people at their most vulnerable moment...whatever you do, don't feel compassion for anyone, don't recognize our fragile, shared humanity.
It's more exciting and photogenic being an insenstive asshole.
PatSeg
(47,741 posts)about police using a tazer where it may actually have been justified.
RitchieRich
(292 posts)should have old school batman exclamation bubbles, instead of saying "boff!" or "whack!" they could say things like "irony!"
PatSeg
(47,741 posts)an overnight Internet classic.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)An all around pathetic human being, down to carrying a gun to make up for the inadequacies in his personality.
kyeshinka
(44 posts)Except in this case I would have shot the prick in the head and give his family a much needed break.
RitchieRich
(292 posts)I would say that the members of DU are a diverse group. They have differing levels of intelligence, manners, habits and views.
Given the choice between being stuck on an island with that guy, and some of the nasty people I've been exposed to here, it would be a tough choice. Like would you rather be set on fire or stabbed with 10,000 sewing needles.
It is a farce to assign the traits of a few to an entire group. Not all gun owners are hideous, just as not all Democrats possess certain negative stereotypes that I've heard repeated countless times by Republican friends.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)But you probably could have proved your point better by simply agreeing that this idiot acted inappropriately and deserved to be arrested. Or that bringing guns to a rally for victims and survivors of gun violence plus chanting and heckling while they talk about dead family is at best ignorant and at worst disgusting bully tactics.
cynzke
(1,254 posts)The real context of this situation is the lack of respect, tolerance and civility towards others as demonstrated by this man's actions and subsequent arrest. The issue of gun ownership and gun violence are circumstantial to this particular case. You can substitute this issue with many others that invoke heated emotions and diverse opinions. We all have the right to hold opinions and feel highly emotional about them. Somehow, some of us have begun to think this gives us free reign in exercising our rights over others. This does not give us the right, it does not make it right to harass, heckle, intimidate or assault those we disagree with. We read about bully tactics, heckling, disruption of public meetings, etc. This needs to change. We need to say no, this is not acceptable, we no longer tolerate it and it needs to stop.
RitchieRich
(292 posts)I did state that being stranded with him would be similar to being set on fire, which I assume illustrates his distasteful nature.
An additional point that I was making is that Pre-Judging a group of people is by definition prejudiced and should not be included in a Democrat's value system.
I wish this point didn't need to be made, but see a constant stream of examples to the contrary on this site.
The Wizard
(12,556 posts)and shouldn't even have a starter's pistol. Gun nuts will always defend the indefensible. Cognitive dissonance, loose associations and thought disorders wrapped around firearms is a deadly recipe.
Response to The Wizard (Reply #20)
Ed Suspicious This message was self-deleted by its author.
jpak
(41,760 posts)Moran
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Chanting over the names of dead children with weapons drawn; and yet some are offended that I go out of my way merely to avoid this vulgar demographic.
RitchieRich
(292 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)My direct implication being the demographic which chants over the names of dead children whilst brandishing weapons rather than a general population as a whole-- as that was the specific demographic referred to in the OP.
That you automatically inferred it as such without allowing for critical thought does tend to aptly and accurately illustrate a reason why I do indeed, avoid that demographic though: knee-jerk reactionism without allowing for all possibilities.
But regardless, if we do allow the presumption that your inference as valid-- why would anyone get offended or defensive simply because another wishes to avoid gun owners (as the majority of gun violence comes from those we know best-- family, friends, etc.)?
My grandfather told me that "insults are the easiest thing in the world to find, as we can find them even in places where they don't exist..."
RitchieRich
(292 posts)It was clearly given. That you automatically inferred it as ... (ditto)
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)That was not asking for clarification-- as the premise of your question was not implied in anything I said. Pretend otherwise should it suit you so, and life will go on.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,227 posts)Mention anything about gun crimes, and the first thing they seem to want to ask about are the specifics about the guns being used.
azureblue
(2,157 posts)Is the perfect example of a person who should not be allowed to own a gun. He had no self control, cannot perceive when he is creating a dangerous situation for himself, and does not respect the police. This is the type of person who causes gun "Accidents". A gun owner has to maintain self control and be fully aware of his environment - these are two of the basic requirements for responsible gun ownership. He is a fool. He should not own a gun.
RedCloud
(9,230 posts)Musso Lini, Benito
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Since they are so vocal about their rights to make our country's laws, why shouldn't women make the abortion laws or cannabis users make the laws regarding weed?
Gun owners through the NRA have hijacked our legislative process as evidenced by the ATF having no leader, just an acting one due to Sensenbrenner changing the language in the appointment process.
We need to take our country back!
These gun advocates have a bad image problem to go along with the death issue. The NRA logo should NOT be crossed long rifles but crossed assault weapons.
Truth in advertising!
Iggo
(47,591 posts)sarisataka
(18,895 posts)Still true
MagickMuffin
(15,976 posts)Gun rights advocate Linda Siwik, 61, of Epping said at the beginning of the rally that she opposed any new legislation that would deny gun owners their Second Amendment rights.
Here's the thing Siwik, cancer is a disease and isn't something that takes away life through a barrel of a gun. Someone who kills another is not the same as someone who has a disease.
Sheesh, it is unbelievable how people think.
What is rather a big ole' twist of irony is most of these people want to display the ten commandments in public places, yet they forget all about this the one where it declares "Thou shalt not kill", but like everything else they cherry pick what it is they choose to believe or put faith in.
Robb
(39,665 posts)There is little I can say about such people that their own words do not better illustrate.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)recently killed by gun violence."
"He's a terrorist," several protesters shouted.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130619/NEWS07/130619169/0/SPORTS07
Not the smartest thing to do.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)No video of the tazing available so far.
11 Bravo
(23,928 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)RitchieRich
(292 posts)argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the person" -- A common fallacy in which someone argues against a position or claim by assailing the proponent of it. The truth or falsehood of a position doesn't depend on who does (or doesn't) espouse it. e.g. "You can't trust Jones' theory of electromagnetic particles because he's a communist." (The theory is good or bad because it comports (or doesn't comport) with certain facts and evidence, not because the man propounding it holds a political affiliation.)
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm