MO - Off-duty firefighter stops man armed w/ 100 rounds of ammo at S Springfield Walmart, 8 Aug 2019

[Rocky1]

No. I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.

This is your post #113

Armed cops, yes. Armed citizens making me feel safer? Hell no. They could be insane. They could be evil. They could be there to erupt in a mass shooting or a robbery. They could be prone to panic and randomly shoot unintended targets. They could be bad shots and accidentally shoot me or my family when trying to shoot a perceived threat.

It's baffling to me that civilians would ever feel comforted at the thought of non-LE civilians carrying guns in a public place, knowing zero about their temperament, history, mental health, criminal history, motives for being armed and/or training.

Absolutely baffling.

The fireman was an armed citizen.... a civilian. A non LE citizen. He's no longer a fireman. We don't know about his temperament, his history, his mental health, or his motives for being armed. we don't kn0w his training. He could be evil. He could be prone to panic. He could be a bad shot and could have accidentally shot you or your family.
He looked like any other citizen.

I got the thought that you would be against what this fireman did because he could be any number of things that you posted... reasons why you'd feel uncomfortable if he did what he did if you were there.

 

[Rocky1]

Totally agree.
Time to get serious about all this. From what I saw Andreychenko was carrying his AR slung in the front. It would take him less than a second to get it to his shoulder.

True, but he didn't.
If it was strapped over his back, it would have taken him less than 3 seconds to get it to his shoulder.
Do you think if it was over his back, he would have got a different reaction?
Hanging it from the front is not illegal, and it wasn't up against his shoulder.

 

[Rocky1]

His intent to find resistance to his weapon.

Do you think that Walmart should ban guns because of this?

I think it would be in Walmarts best interest overall to ban guns. They have a right to . It may cost them business from NRA members and that may be the reason they haven't.
I think it would be rather hypocritical for them to ban weapons but still continue to sell weapons, but then again, they ban dogs from their stores (with the exception of service dogs) but still sell dog food.

I don't think that banning weapons from Walmart will be a deterrent from someone wanting to shoot people inside, but I do think overall it will make the public feel safer knowing that anyone seen inside would't just be exercising their second amendment rights.

 

[Boxer]

Well, it will need to get sorted out legally.

 

[Rocky1]

Well, it will need to get sorted out legally.

Walmart can make a corporate decision today to ban weapons if they'd like to. It's up to them. All they have to do is post a sign.
The founder of Starbucks Howard Schultz says that guns are banned in Starbucks, however, there are no signs, so you're allowed to open carry inside of a Starbucks where it's lawful to do so.

Starbucks CEO says guns not welcome in stores

 

[Boxer]

Walmart can make a corporate decision today to ban weapons if they'd like to. It's up to them. All they have to do is post a sign.
The founder of Starbucks Howard Schultz says that guns are banned in Starbucks, however, there are no signs, so you're allowed to open carry inside of a Starbucks where it's lawful to do so.

Starbucks CEO says guns not welcome in stores

That is settled law. The future legality is a door opened by Andreychenko.

 

[Boxer]

That is settled law. The future legality is a door opened by Andreychenko.

Anyway, everyone agrees by law he had a right carry the weapon, the degree his behavior leaned towards "brandishing," or intention to create conflict is the arrest issue.

Also if machine guns become legal, how should they be carried in a Walmarrt?

 

[Boxer]

dbm duplicate

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Anyway, everyone agrees by law he had a right carry the weapon, the degree his behavior leaned towards "brandishing," or intention to create conflict is the arrest issue.

Also if machine guns become legal, how should they be carried in a Walmarrt?

His gun was holstered. He didn’t brandish a weapon.

 

[gitana1]

This is your post #113

"Armed cops, yes. Armed citizens making me feel safer? Hell no. They could be insane. They could be evil. They could be there to erupt in a mass shooting or a robbery. They could be prone to panic and randomly shoot unintended targets. They could be bad shots and accidentally shoot me or my family when trying to shoot a perceived threat.

It's baffling to me that civilians would ever feel comforted at the thought of non-LE civilians carrying guns in a public place, knowing zero about their temperament, history, mental health, criminal history, motives for being armed and/or training.

Absolutely baffling."

The fireman was an armed citizen.... a civilian. A non LE citizen. He's no longer a fireman. We don't know about his temperament, his history, his mental health, or his motives for being armed. we don't kn0w his training. He could be evil. He could be prone to panic. He could be a bad shot and could have accidentally shot you or your family.
He looked like any other citizen.

I got the thought that you would be against what this fireman did because he could be any number of things that you posted... reasons why you'd feel uncomfortable if he did what he did if you were there.

Nope. I'm very careful and clear with my words. I know what I wrote.

Not feeling comforted at the thought of random civilians I know nothing about carrying weapons has nothing to do with whether or not THIS specific fireman did the right thing in holding that particular man at gun point when he saw what that man was doing and had on him at Walmart. They're unrelated. Two different issues. One is feelings. One is ethics/legal.

Frankly I'm not sure how anyone could think my lack of comfort at the thought of random people I know nothing about being armed has anything to do with whether or not the fireman did the right thing at stopping what he viewed as a potential threat.

That's not logical, IMO.

But yes, I'd be uncomfortable if I witnessed what happened with him detaining that weird kid. Anyone with sense should be. It's a volatile situation. No one can predict the outdone. And no one would know who those people were until after it ended. So? What does that have to do with whether he did the right thing or not? My feelings and what's ethical or legal are two different things.

Perhaps what you're getting at it because this civilian used his firearm safely how on earth could anyone ever feel discomfort at the sight of random civilians we don't know a thing about carrying firearms in public?

If so, I'm not sure how that makes sense either. The fact that one interaction with a civilian, (who also happens to be a professional firefighter and thus has passed psych tests and background tests and has the fortitude necessary to do a very dangerous and difficult job involving quick decisions), carrying a firearm, ended successfully, doesn't mean that every civilian with a firearm is safe, stable, has a calm temperament and doesn't panic, is sane, a good, moral person with no criminal record, is a good shot, and capable of clear thinking in tense situations.

I like logic.

 

[Rocky1]

Nope. I'm very careful and clear with my words. I know what I wrote.

Not feeling comforted at the thought of random civilians I know nothing about carrying weapons has nothing to do with whether or not THIS specific fireman did the right thing in holding that particular man at gun point when he saw what that man was doing and had on him at Walmart. They're unrelated. Two different issues. One is feelings. One is ethics/legal.

Frankly I'm not sure how anyone could think my lack of comfort at the thought of random people I know nothing about being armed has anything to do with whether or not the fireman did the right thing at stopping what he viewed as a potential threat.

That's not logical, IMO.

But yes, I'd be uncomfortable if I witnessed what happened with him detaining that weird kid. Anyone with sense should be. It's a volatile situation. No one can predict the outdone. And no one would know who those people were until after it ended. So? What does that have to do with whether he did the right thing or not? My feelings and what's ethical or legal are two different things.

Perhaps what you're getting at it because this civilian used his firearm safely how on earth could anyone ever feel discomfort at the sight of random civilians we don't know a thing about carrying firearms in public?

If so, I'm not sure how that makes sense either. The fact that one interaction with a civilian, (who also happens to be a professional firefighter and thus has passed psych tests and background tests and has the fortitude necessary to do a very dangerous and difficult job involving quick decisions), carrying a firearm, ended successfully, doesn't mean that every civilian with a firearm is safe, stable, has a calm temperament and doesn't panic, is sane, a good, moral person with no criminal record, is a good shot, and capable of clear thinking in tense situations.

I like logic.

In your initial post, you were writing about your discomfort of non LE citizens carrying guns in public places. I didn't see any mention of whether or not you thought the fireman did the right thing by stopping a threat, nor was I asking that. I agree, it wouldn't be very logical if someone were to tie the two together.
My question was...."So your opinion is that what the fireman did was out of line?" I didn't ask if it was legal. What I was asking is was whether or not you thought he was out of line in reference to your thoughts about a citizen carrying a gun around in a Walmart.
No, I wasn't wondering how anyone could feel discomfort just because this civilian used his firearm safely. I'd feel uncomfortable too.
To be clear, he's not a fireman. He's an ex fireman. We have no reasons as to why.

 

[Boxer]

dbm

 

[gitana1]

In your initial post, you were writing about your discomfort of non LE citizens carrying guns in public places. I didn't see any mention of whether or not you thought the fireman did the right thing by stopping a threat, nor was I asking that. I agree, it wouldn't be very logical if someone were to tie the two together.
My question was...."So your opinion is that what the fireman did was out of line?" I didn't ask if it was legal. What I was asking is was whether or not you thought he was out of line in reference to your thoughts about a citizen carrying a gun around in a Walmart.
No, I wasn't wondering how anyone could feel discomfort just because this civilian used his firearm safely. I'd feel uncomfortable too.
To be clear, he's not a fireman. He's an ex fireman. We have no reasons as to why.

I don't know what you mean by out of line. You asked me the question in the context of quoting an unrelated post. And you stated "so you think" as if my feelings about one thing mean I have to disagree what this fireman did.

That's not a logical nexus and I'm not going to get baited into a debate about something unrelated to what happened in this case and I have feelings that's what may be happening here.

 

[Boxer]

Attorney: Man's Walmart 'stunt' leaves woman badly injured

 

[PayrollNerd]

Attorney: Man's Walmart 'stunt' leaves woman badly injured

Well, it was just a matter of time. No legal action has been filed. Yet. This kid does not seem to comprehend what he has done, in my opinion. The court of public opinion is going to crucify him. I doubt legally much will stick but defending himself in court, is going to destroy him financially. Maybe 10 years from now it will dawn on him how immature he acted.

“SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) — An attorney says a 74-year-old woman is lucky to be alive after a Missouri police officer crashed into her vehicle while rushing to a Walmart where a man caused mass panic by walking inside wearing body armor and carrying a loaded rifle.”

 

[Boxer]

Well, it was just a matter of time. No legal action has been filed. Yet. This kid does not seem to comprehend what he has done, in my opinion. The court of public opinion is going to crucify him. I doubt legally much will stick but defending himself in court, is going to destroy him financially. Maybe 10 years from now it will dawn on him how immature he acted.

“SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) — An attorney says a 74-year-old woman is lucky to be alive after a Missouri police officer crashed into her vehicle while rushing to a Walmart where a man caused mass panic by walking inside wearing body armor and carrying a loaded rifle.”

MOO he will get a court appointed attorney or legal aide attorney. I think the cost will not be too much. He is supported by many as there is still a pent up resentment by many about any restriction on guns.
Missouri has very liberal gun laws, Andreychenko could have bought a gun somewhere else than Walmart. Being mad at them is strange because they were just following the Missouri law that regulated them.

What are the gun laws in Missouri?

 

[Rocky1]

I don't know what you mean by out of line. You asked me the question in the context of quoting an unrelated post. And you stated "so you think" as if my feelings about one thing mean I have to disagree what this fireman did.

That's not a logical nexus and I'm not going to get baited into a debate about something unrelated to what happened in this case and I have feelings that's what may be happening here.

With all due respect, in my last post I explained what I mean by "out of line." I didn't state "so you think." After reading your post about citizens carrying guns in public places, I asked in the form of a question "So your opinion is that the fireman was out of line?" It was a question, not a statement, nor did it mean you had to disagree what the fireman did.
It's all good. I'm not trying to bait you or anyone else into a debate. I was simply asking you to clarify your opinion.
My apologies for not asking in a way that would have made my question easier to understand.

 

[Rocky1]

Well, it was just a matter of time. No legal action has been filed. Yet. This kid does not seem to comprehend what he has done, in my opinion. The court of public opinion is going to crucify him. I doubt legally much will stick but defending himself in court, is going to destroy him financially. Maybe 10 years from now it will dawn on him how immature he acted.

“SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) — An attorney says a 74-year-old woman is lucky to be alive after a Missouri police officer crashed into her vehicle while rushing to a Walmart where a man caused mass panic by walking inside wearing body armor and carrying a loaded rifle.”

Where as he took video of himself the entire time, that may work in his favor. I'd like to see what's on it.

 

[Boxer]

Where as he took video of himself the entire time, that may work in his favor. I'd like to see what's on it.

MOO NZ killer filmed his massacre so its a thing at least one recent mass killer did.

 

[Gardenista]

MOO NZ killer filmed his massacre so its a thing at least one recent mass killer did.

It's typical to film yourself during a 2nd amendment audit.