Second half!
How does it not guarantee a victim? The business/individual does not stop the aggressor then complies and you are unable to stop them when they make the demands of you since you are unarmed, are you not a victim (not to mention a victim of the business's/other's decision)? Then since you couldn't stop the aggressor, they go on to victimize another and another. When an aggressor attacks, it is guaranteed to have at a minimum of a 1 victim... if not, there is no crime (you can't victimize yourself, it's a literal impossibility).
Um. There were some serious logical jumps there. Let me try to parse this.
"
How does it not guarantee a victim?" --easily. Guarantee means that something definitely will happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. It doesn't do that.
"
The business/individual does not stop the aggressor then complies and you are unable to stop them when they make the demands of you since you are unarmed, are you not a victim (not to mention a victim of the business's/other's decision)?"
--Yes, you are a victim of crime. You are not a victim of the business's decision, because you willingly acceded to their business requirements. It may be a consequence, but you aren't a victim of the business. And yet, this doesn't have
anything to do with your assumption that if you can't stop a crime, you are somehow responsible for the criminal committing later crimes. So this is actually pretty unrelated.
"
Then since you couldn't stop the aggressor, they go on to victimize another and another. When an aggressor attacks, it is guaranteed to have at a minimum of a 1 victim..." --well, no, not really. Unless you assume that either:
1) Every aggressor is matched by someone who
didn't contribute to the problem (I can think of a number of occasions where both people in a an assault situation broke the law, so this is untrue) or
2) An aggressor who is handled without issue still creates a "victim" which I don't agree with. After all, "potential victim" and "victim" are two separate categories. That may be semantics on a personally emotional level, though.
Even if you disagree with #2 (which you might, that's fine), #1 still occurs frequently. And thus, there are plenty of assault cases in which both people are at fault.
And lastly: "
if not, there is no crime (you can't victimize yourself, it's a literal impossibility)" --so, I assume you disagree with the concept of a victimless crime? And, for example, you can't sell yourself? Huh. I regret to inform you that the legal system disagrees with you. Anyway, that's minor compared to the other problems with your statements. However, it is certainly true that again, this sentence has nothing to do with your main contention, which is that if a person doesn't stop a crime, that person is responsible for later crimes.
Which is still nonsense.
But what you have just said perpetuates the idea that it is better to be a victim than a defender/survivor.
Not even remotely. Again, don't put words in my mouth, or state that I'm saying concepts that I flat-out didn't say. Especially don't say that I'm saying things that have nothing to do with what I said.
"Better to be a victim than a defender/survivor" ----I said NOTHING AT ALL that could even remotely be made to even slightly relate to that topic, even if you squint your eyes, read only every third word, and use a dictionary unrelated to reality.
I said that if someone doesn't stop a crime, that doesn't make a that person responsible for any other crimes the criminal may later attempt to commit. And that's what I meant.
I'll simply say this bluntly: Attempting to claim that I said "what you have just said perpetuates the idea that it is better to be a victim than a defender/survivor" is flat-out stupid. And offensive. But mostly, it is a tactic of desperation from someone who doesn't want to discuss the issue I brought up, and instead makes up random things to attempt to argue against, claiming that I said them.
Prevention of crime can only be accomplished by each individual stopping it as it occurs, pure and simple. It can't be regulated out, it can't be done by law enforcement or government. Each individual must do it. It can't be passed on to others, it simply doesn't work.
"Can only be" is an absolute. And because of that, we can easily come up with a counter example that shows that your absolute statement is incorrect.
A little while ago, a criminal attacked a group of people. The criminal was stopped by an off-duty police officer who was nearby. That group of people did not stop the crime. Ergo, prevention of crime can indeed be stopped even if "each individual" isn't stopping it, and indeed, it CAN be passed on to others. Even law enforcement.
Your absolute (and incorrect) statement is separate from the concept that
if each person works to defend themselves and resist crime, then crime will be reduced. (For example, THAT statement makes sense to me, and also cannot immediately be logically disproven, unlike your statement.)
“The rifle[/weapon] itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles[/weapons].” ? Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle
What does that have to do with anything?
Inanimate objects, by themselves, are neither right nor wrong. So what? I realize that throwing in random quotes to make your defense sound better is something you keep doing, but when they actually have nothing to do with the topic at hand, it doesn't really help.
Legal --- perfectly fine. Stupid but legal --- not so great.
You can carry a rifle around, and be legal. You will gain significant negative attention. (Simple fact.) Do it enough with enough people, being obnoxious enough in behavior while doing it---and said negative reaction will turn into something more concrete.
Which is stupid. And goes against what we are trying to do here. If people think that said behavior will somehow magically change the world in a positive way , I urge you to look at history in terms of how many times this has worked out.
The only reason it gains "significant negative attention" is because of people perpetuating (introduced through the lies of propaganda) the idea that the mere presence of a weapon should be feared and is problem, that an object is a problem and not the person. To which your attitude and going along with such a view merely perpetuates that.
Nice job of missing the point.
Current social atmosphere regarding carrying of firearms: From neutral, through potentially alarm-causing, to actively negative.
Carrying large firearms blatantly in an in-your-face loud fashion therefore results in attention shifting from neutral to a more negative stance. As such, using this method to attempt to make firearms more socially acceptable actually manages to have the exact opposite affect.
Whether you like this or not, whether it is legal or not, and whatever the original
reason for said neutral-to-negative public perception--none of that matters. What matters is that the current social atmosphere was in one condition, and that particular choice of method/mode/behavior made it
worse.
Good job, folks. Well done, thanks a lot.
Oh, and your comment about "
To which your attitude and going along with such a view merely perpetuates that." not only is factually incorrect (I don't believe I ever said anything about "going along" nor did I ever give that attitude or impression--and I'm not responsible for how your brain ascribes attitudes and motives to me that aren't supported by anything I've said) but also again attempts to paint me in a certain light so that you can argue with me about things I've never said.
Again---it doesn't work that way. You have to actually argue against what I've said, not what your brain makes up that I haven't said.
Are they being obnoxious or stupid? No, not really. They are exercising their rights, so what if they wanted to take a picture. As long as they are not waving it around, yelling, pointing it at people, etc. there is no problem. If it insults or scares someone, oh well, there is no right not to be insulted/scared/annoyed/etc. You have right to be insulted/scared/annoyed/etc. if you so choose to be but no right to infringe on someone else's rights because of it.
And yet, if the whole point of the situation was to exercise rights in such a way as to work towards more social acceptance of open carry---then what you put in bold shows why it worked so incredibly badly.
My comments didn't say anything about right and wrong. (Matter of fact, I specifically pointed out that their actions were legal.) Their actions, however, were STUPID from the standpoint of a group of people who are trying to make firearms more socially acceptable.
They failed. Badly. And the backlash made it worse. Congrats.
But yes, escalating by now purposely going in after the announcement just to be asked to leave and such, is stupid and that should not happen. But they did nothing else before.
They did nothing else before? Hm. So---you are going to ignore the vast number of images, posts, and stories about people's open carry behavior that caused a large-scale negative reaction in the general public?
The rest of us who actually have paid attention to the situation and haven't ignored things will continue to note that the end result of the in-your-face behavior of a small-but-vocal number of open carry folks is a larger amount of negative public reaction, culminating in a large corporation (which was neutral initially) into shifting to a more negative stance.
All rights are unlimited bound only by ourselves by the chosen interactions between 2 individuals, not groups or law.
Regret to inform you that our entire legal system disagrees with you. And whether this is right or wrong doesn't change the fact that this is how it currently IS---and the entire point of the OP was that the Starbucks situation was about societal opinions and attitudes as they
are.
If you want to talk theory about what constitutes a "right" and how that should affect laws, that is certainly a good topic---but that isn't what this is about.
Is a "Starbucks" really a place to unholster/unsling for such pictures? To me, not really. Those kinds of pictures really are more for ranges, hunting, home, etc. But is there a problem taking a such a public picture either as long as they are being safe about it (which they were in those pictures and many others that have been seen)? No, not one bit.
Depends. Is their goal increasing public acceptance of open carry? If so, then they are stupid. If their goal was to celebrate being able to open-carry in a place that simply obeyed state law---then sure, go right ahead.
Is it a problem they are carrying (whether open or not) and whether a picture is taken or not? No. The reason they are doing it is because of all those stupid, ignorant idiots out there and people with the attitude you just expressed that merely perpetuates it. It is the fact it was made taboo (even under the false pretenses as it is) to carry that they are doing it so "in people's faces" (which is a good thing) in the first place. And by giving into such fears of public opinion (which means nothing when it comes to rights), you are merely perpetuating the problem, not helping to stop it.
Again with writing things and ascribing them to me, when I didn't say them.
"
Giving in to such fears of public opinion" --- so, accurately describing society's current opinion regarding open carry is the same as giving in? Wait, no.
People were carrying "
because of all those stupid, ignorant idiots out there" ---so, they were carrying to spite other people? Great, that attitude will definitely sway people in our direction!
"
it was made taboo" --- No, it wasn't. (Please look up the definition of taboo before you use it again.)
"
"in people's faces" (which is a good thing) " ---so, a good way to change people's opinions is to get in their face? Hm. I disagree strongly. As, apparently, does society. And so does Starbucks.
Wait a second---unless you meant that a good way to change people's opinions in a negative fashion is to get in their faces? Because that certainly works well.
And lastly:
"
you are merely perpetuating the problem, not helping to stop it" ---give me a break. Pointing out the simple, verifiable fact that in-your-face open carry adds to the negative reaction of society does nothing of the sort. The fact that you don't like that conclusion doesn't actually change anything, nor does making that observation on my part equate to my "perpetuating the problem".
So yet again, stop painting me as the bad guy. After all, nothing you've said in that vein so far has actually been based on anything I've said---which makes it all not only untrue, but obvious falsehood on your part.
If it wasn't made taboo, then no such pictures or negative attention would be generated at all. But just because it has became taboo, does not mean you give into it and go along with it... you exercise your rights to their fullest regardless.
...which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. (In addition to being a logically nonsensical set of statements.)
Simple summation:1) the methods of a small-but-vocal group of people who open-carried generated a significant negative reaction from society,
2) said negative reaction actually hurt our cause,
3) among other things, by causing Starbucks (previously neutral) to actually move their stance against what we want.
Your commentary about responsibility, rights, etc---none of that changes those basic facts. And nowhere does your contention that "if I don't stop I crime, then I'm responsible for any later crime that criminal commits" make any logical sense, or is supported by any logical argument. Quite the contrary, it is easy to make logical arguments disproving it.
And for the record, quit putting words in my mouth, then arguing against the illogical strawman arguments you state I am saying.
