A video taken by a high school student shows Indiana state Rep. Jim Lucas flash a holstered gun to students who were visiting the statehouse to talk to lawmakers about gun control
No, that’s not how it works. Merely showing someone a gun is not “brandishing”. A very simple example demonstrates how silly your claim is. Gun stores exist and involve the employee handling and showing people many guns. No one would call that “brandishing”.
I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point. Like I said, simply showing someone a weapon is not brandishing. There has to be an intent to intimidate. The video of this interaction makes it plainly obvious that there was no intention on the part of this politician to intimidate anyone.
I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point. How is it that you can cite that and yet your brain competely glosses over that there was obviously no attempt to intimidate anyone in this instance?
Let’s use knives instead. If you’re bothering me on the street, and I flash a large knife at you in response, what would be your interpretation of that gesture? Am I just getting my knife some air? Am I inviting you back to mine for a night cap? Or am I telling you to back off because I have a weapon?
That’s not a particularly relevant example. If you and I were having a discussion about one’s right to self-defense, and I ask you “like by carrying a knife”, and you say “yes, in fact I’m carrying a knife right now” and you show me, I’m not going to feel threatened. (Which is actually exactly what happened in this instance.)
I assume to emphasize the point about having a weapon to defend oneself. You don’t have to agree with that point, but you don’t get to automatically jump to it being some kind of threat.
Don’t drag us knife owners into it. Mine is a tool for cutting things, a gun has no useful purpose (outside a range). A tool can be misused but a gun’s primary purpose is to make living things dead.
You’ve lived a sheltered and privileged life if you think there is no useful purpose in a tool which has the primary purpose of making living things dead.
Maybe so but I doubt I am alone. How often do you find yourself needing a penis-enhancer to survive? What do you got a story about something that may or may not have happened from ten years ago?
We write laws for the society we are in not for the society that could exist. So yeah you are free to view me as domesticated or whatever foul word for weakness you have ready to go, but to me you are same except one of us is aware of what life is actually like.
Have you thought about video games or joining the Guard? Good way to get solider boy out of your system.
So yeah you are free to view me as domesticated or whatever foul word for weakness you have ready to go, but to me you are same except one of us is aware of what life is actually like.
Oh yes, I have a very descriptive epithet for you: Future victim
I don’t have the privilege of living somewhere with a sub-minute police response, and even if I did, the police have no obligation to protect me. When seconds count, a bullet is faster than dialing 911.
I mean, I kinda get where you’re coming from. Though I’ll say I could take that to an extreme to show how flawed it is.
I will say however, when someone is actively saying “we want knife control, things are unsafe if everyone is just walking around with knives” and someone else goes “what are you talking about I have this knife right here” it does have a bit more sinister a vibe in my mind.
If I walk into a gun store a reasonable person would conclude that I consent to see guns. If I express an opinion about the government to my elected official a reasonable person would not conclude that I consented to be shown a gun.
It isn’t the action alone, it is the context, and the context includes consent.
No, that’s not how it works. Merely showing someone a gun is not “brandishing”. A very simple example demonstrates how silly your claim is. Gun stores exist and involve the employee handling and showing people many guns. No one would call that “brandishing”.
https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/1007
You’re missing the point. Its not the display that is brandishing, it is display with intent to intimidate.
I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point. Like I said, simply showing someone a weapon is not brandishing. There has to be an intent to intimidate. The video of this interaction makes it plainly obvious that there was no intention on the part of this politician to intimidate anyone.
assault, menacing, intimidation, all crimes that involve the threat of violence.
I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point. How is it that you can cite that and yet your brain competely glosses over that there was obviously no attempt to intimidate anyone in this instance?
That’s for a jury to decide.
Let’s use knives instead. If you’re bothering me on the street, and I flash a large knife at you in response, what would be your interpretation of that gesture? Am I just getting my knife some air? Am I inviting you back to mine for a night cap? Or am I telling you to back off because I have a weapon?
That’s not a particularly relevant example. If you and I were having a discussion about one’s right to self-defense, and I ask you “like by carrying a knife”, and you say “yes, in fact I’m carrying a knife right now” and you show me, I’m not going to feel threatened. (Which is actually exactly what happened in this instance.)
What does showing the knife accomplish in this example?
I assume to emphasize the point about having a weapon to defend oneself. You don’t have to agree with that point, but you don’t get to automatically jump to it being some kind of threat.
Don’t drag us knife owners into it. Mine is a tool for cutting things, a gun has no useful purpose (outside a range). A tool can be misused but a gun’s primary purpose is to make living things dead.
You’ve lived a sheltered and privileged life if you think there is no useful purpose in a tool which has the primary purpose of making living things dead.
Maybe so but I doubt I am alone. How often do you find yourself needing a penis-enhancer to survive? What do you got a story about something that may or may not have happened from ten years ago?
We write laws for the society we are in not for the society that could exist. So yeah you are free to view me as domesticated or whatever foul word for weakness you have ready to go, but to me you are same except one of us is aware of what life is actually like.
Have you thought about video games or joining the Guard? Good way to get solider boy out of your system.
Oh yes, I have a very descriptive epithet for you: Future victim
I don’t have the privilege of living somewhere with a sub-minute police response, and even if I did, the police have no obligation to protect me. When seconds count, a bullet is faster than dialing 911.
I mean, I kinda get where you’re coming from. Though I’ll say I could take that to an extreme to show how flawed it is.
I will say however, when someone is actively saying “we want knife control, things are unsafe if everyone is just walking around with knives” and someone else goes “what are you talking about I have this knife right here” it does have a bit more sinister a vibe in my mind.
You’re right, your example isn’t a demonstration of brandishing. But it also has nothing to do with what the article describes.
If I walk into a gun store a reasonable person would conclude that I consent to see guns. If I express an opinion about the government to my elected official a reasonable person would not conclude that I consented to be shown a gun.
It isn’t the action alone, it is the context, and the context includes consent.