NY Times: “How are cops supposed to know who the good guy or the bad guy is with the gun?”

It’s a new year, so, the NY Times Editorial Board uses the occassion to pimp gun control with their usual flavor of hysteria

Two Ways of Dealing With Guns

This is a big day for Texans yearning to flaunt their handguns in belt and shoulder holsters. A new “open carry” law enacted by the Republican Legislature goes into effect on Friday, posing a challenge for law enforcement, businesses and other institutions that are understandably wary of how social interchange will be affected.

Got that? Flaunt their handguns. Does this apply to women who arm themselves to provide protection from assault and rape? Men average 50% higher strength than women. Men are 15 to 20% bigger. Do the NY Times and their Progressive supporters not want to allow women to protect themselves? Why do they hate women?

It’s also a big day in Seattle, where the City Council’s new “gun violence tax” takes effect, levying a $25 charge on each gun sold and an ammunition tax of 2 to 5 cents per round. The law was upheld in December by a county judge, who found it did not interfere with the right to bear arms and was a legitimate tax to finance gun violence research and help pay for its costly effects. If it survives appeal by the gun lobby, the taxation route deserves to be widely used as a tactic in battling the gun menace.

Boy, that should be a big roadblock to criminals, who tend not to purchase guns and ammo from regular gun shows.

The contrasting developments in Texas and Seattle demonstrate politicians’ tug of war over gun rights and civilian safety, which the gun lobby has been manipulating by pushing through state laws that block local governments from enacting needed ordinances. The resulting crazy quilt of clashing interests demonstrates the need for federal laws, which, of course, have been rejected by a Congress captive to the gun industry’s agenda.

How will taxes on guns and ammo provide safety? No one is ever able to provide a reason.

The effect of the industry’s power on local streets has the Houston police chief, Charles McClelland, worrying about how his officers will deal with openly armed citizens amid rising fears over mass shootings and terrorism. “How are they supposed to know who the good guy or the bad guy is with the gun?” he asks.

This is surely the favorite line for the Editorial Board, who surely think every civilian with a gun is a bad guy (and probably the police too. No word whether the armed security at the NY Times building are considered bad guys). But, hey, it’s pretty darned easy to know. The bad guy is the one whipping the gun out and pointing it at the police. The good guy is the one smiling at the police, wishing them a good day, and going about their business. The bad guy is the one hiding the gun under their very baggy shirt or jacket, or in a pocket. The good guy is the one confidently practicing their open carry capability in a holster. Interestingly, in almost every place that allows open carry (and concealed), those who are legally allowed aren’t shooting the streets up.

The confusion for the public can be considerable. A woman called 911 in Colorado Springs in October when she saw a man toting a weapon in the street. She was told the gunman had that right under the open-carry law. The man began a shooting spree outside her door and randomly murdered three innocent people.

Well, there you go, an obviously evil handgun carrier with nefarious intentions…oh, wait, the NYTEB forgot to tell us something, which we see at the provided link

On Halloween morning, Naomi Bettis called 911 to report a man with a long black rifle outside her home. The dispatcher asked her to describe what she saw.

Yeah, not a handgun. A rifle.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

21 Responses to “NY Times: “How are cops supposed to know who the good guy or the bad guy is with the gun?””

  1. GOODSTUFF says:

    The world is out of balance

  2. Jeffery says:

    How will taxes on guns and ammo provide safety? No one is ever able to provide a reason.

    Taxes on guns and ammo will NOT provide safety. Taxes and fees WILL provide a way to compensate those harmed by our expanding gun culture. Perhaps gun purchasers/owners should be required to carry liability insurance.

    How will police tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun? Like they do now. Pigmentation, tattoos, behavior and clothing. Will the occasional good guy with a gun get killed by an officer who makes a mistake? Sure. Will a good guy get shot by mistake by another good guy? Sure. Will a good guy accidentally shoot his own junk or a child. Sure. This is the price we pay for freedom.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Taxes and fees WILL provide a way to compensate those harmed by our expanding gun culture.

    So Jeffery thinks the government should tax people for the legal use of a legal product.

    Sorry, Jeffery, the Supreme Court has already ruled that to be unConsitutional.

    Perhaps gun purchasers/owners should be required to carry liability insurance.

    So now you want to insure a Constitutional right?

  4. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    The effect of the industry’s power on local streets has the Houston police chief, Charles McClelland, worrying about how his officers will deal with openly armed citizens amid rising fears over mass shootings and terrorism. “How are they supposed to know who the good guy or the bad guy is with the gun?” he asks.

    This is surely the favorite line for the Editorial Board, who surely think every civilian with a gun is a bad guy (and probably the police too. No word whether the armed security at the NY Times building are considered bad guys). But, hey, it’s pretty darned easy to know. The bad guy is the one whipping the gun out and pointing it at the police. The good guy is the one smiling at the police, wishing them a good day, and going about their business. The bad guy is the one hiding the gun under their very baggy shirt or jacket, or in a pocket. The good guy is the one confidently practicing their open carry capability in a holster. Interestingly, in almost every place that allows open carry (and concealed), those who are legally allowed aren’t shooting the streets up.

    It would seem that the editors of The New York Times want to consider everyone who is carrying a firearm a bad guy, and thus no one should be allowed to carry firearms. However, if someone suggests that we should treat everyone who is Muslim as a bad guy, such as Donald Trump’s suggestion that we should completely ban Muslim immigration into the United States, why the editors would be appalled, aghast, and hysterical.

  5. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    How will police tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun? Like they do now. Pigmentation, tattoos, behavior and clothing.

    Well, that’s true enough, but with your new sarcastic bent in your comments, I cannot be certain that you think that it is a good thing that the police are considering “(p)igmentation, tattoos, behavior and clothing.” After all, the short name for that is profiling, and most of the left are highly indignant that anyone profiles . . . even though everyone, themselves included, profiles, or take decisions and judgements based on appearance and behavior.

  6. Dana says:

    One would think that the left would support open carry, at least as a better alternative to concealed carry. With concealed carry, others do not know if a person is armed; someone carrying openly is announcing that yes, he is armed.

  7. Jeffery says:

    The good guy is the one confidently practicing their open carry capability in a holster.

    In your view is it constitutional to require keeping your constitutional right to confidently defend yourself in a holster?? Shouldn’t a confident patriot be able to carry his handgun in his hand, at the ready? Would you have the officer shoot the confident patriot with the unholstered handgun.

    Yeah, not a handgun. A rifle.

    Carrying a handgun is OK (as long as it’s holstered), but carrying a rifle is not??

    gitarcarver typed:

    So Jeffery thinks the government should tax people for the legal use of a legal product. Sorry, Jeffery, the Supreme Court has already ruled that to be unConsitutional.

    The Supreme Court ruled taxes on legal products in not constitutional?? That’s great news. No mo taxes! The Tea Party rules! But seriously, I thought that taxes are levied all the time on legal products, including guns. Can you expand on your comments? How are states able to tax and heavily regulate fully automatic firearms? Is Bass Pro violating the constitution by applying sales tax to my shotgun purchase?

    So now you want to insure a Constitutional right?

    It’s an interesting question, don’t you think? Can an organization or an individual insure themselves against the damages caused by their libelous or slanderous statements or actions, in essence insuring their 1st amendment right? States require automobile operators to carry liability insurance (but driving is not a constitutional right). Is it constitutional to require liability insurance for potential damages related to firearm ownership? If you leave your Glock on the end table and your toddler shoots and kills the neighbor kid, should your neighbor be able to sue? What responsibility do you have in that case? Manslaughter?

    Do you consider the right to firearms to be absolute or are there constitutional limits on ownership of weapons? Machine guns are not banned but are very heavily regulated. Are all firearms regulations or taxes unconstitutional in your opinion?

  8. gitarcarver says:

    The Supreme Court ruled taxes on legal products in not constitutional??

    Trouble reading Jeffery?

    Let me try this again. The Supreme Court has already ruled that taxes and fees which serve to limit a right are not legal.

    It’s an interesting question, don’t you think?

    Not unless you want to say that something like a poll tax is legal as well.

    But to answer your question, you keep talking about the “gun culture.” Studies show that allowing people to own guns either show no effect on crime or a decrease in crime. Why would anyone want to increase the crime rate?

    Why would you or anyone else want to limit the ability of a law abiding citizen to defend themselves?

  9. Jeffery says:

    Trouble typing gitarcarver?

    So Jeffery thinks the government should tax people for the legal use of a legal product.

    Sorry, Jeffery, the Supreme Court has already ruled that to be unConsitutional.

    You typed it, not me. Are you admitting that what you typed was wrong (or a lie, as you call it) and now you are correcting it (or moving the goalpost, as you call it)? Fair enough.

    Clearly, the government already taxes the sales of guns, contrary to your claim. Is this unconstitutional?

    But to answer your question

    LOL. You never answer a direct question. You only answer questions that were never asked.

    Try these:

    Are all firearms regulations or taxes unconstitutional in your opinion?

    Should I be allowed to possess RPGs to protect myself from government encroachments on my cul de sac?

  10. gitarcarver says:

    You typed it, not me. Are you admitting that what you typed was wrong (or a lie, as you call it) and now you are correcting it (or moving the goalpost, as you call it)? Fair enough.

    I clarified the position so that even a rapist like you can understand it Jeffery.

    As for being a liar, where is the proof that Teach supports Trump?

    Or are you still sitting out there in the “end zone” moving the goalposts?

    Are all firearms regulations or taxes unconstitutional in your opinion?

    Trouble reading again, Jeffery?

    Your original proposal was to tax and create fees for the “impact of the gun culture.” That’s illegal.

    There is no such thing as a unlimited right, but what you are talking about is limiting a right without any governmental interest other than to keep people from legally exercising a right by owning a weapon.

    Now, do you have proof that Teach is supporting Trump? Do you have proof that Teach is accepting money from any candidate to blog on certain positions?

    Are you against people being able to defend themselves?

  11. drowningpuppies says:

    Should I be allowed to possess RPGs to protect myself from government encroachments on my cul de sac?

    Well, yes, even if you are a little whiny bitch.

    The Second Amendment is not qualified by any specific limitations. If you really want to buy an RPG, and you have the cash for it, the Constitution isn’t standing in your way. The Federal Government is, of course, but as we know, it is hardly Constitutional.

  12. Jeffery says:

    guttercreeper, rapist of preteen boys:

    Still having trouble with reading comprehension, you lying little pedophile? You lied about what I typed, but what’s new.

    gitarsucker, a fine fellater:

    That’s all I wanted to know schlongbreath. You think any US resident should be able to possess any available weaponry.

  13. drowningpuppies says:

    Well,then again, possibly there should be an amendment to preclude little whiny bitches from possessing weapons and sharp objects.

  14. Jeffery says:

    schlongbreath,

    Too late! I have rifles, shotguns and pistols.

  15. […] William Teach on The Pirate’s Cove: NY Times: “How are cops supposed to know who the good guy or the bad guy is with the gun?” […]

  16. Dana says:

    Jeffrey exposes his hypocrisy:

    Too late! I have rifles, shotguns and pistols.

    Really? So, you are choosing to exercise your natural rights, as recognized by the Second Amendment, but you are concomitantly advocating that other people, other law-abiding people, should have their rights under the Second Amendment restricted?

  17. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    I will willingly abide by any law or policy that applies to us all. If our legislators levy a tax or fee on guns or ammo I will pay it. If I’m required to purchase liability insurance I will.

    Except for 3 displayed muzzle loaders, all my firearms and ammo are locked away. We use them for hunting and also have a few collectibles, e.g., Colt revolver, Model 94 30-30s, 16g double barrel etc.

    The far-right 2nd Amendment fetishists need to understand who their allies are. I deer/dove/squirrel hunt with 5-10 (depends on year and season) liberal Dems all who understand that they have a right to hunt and to protect their families. An attempt by any government body to limit their hunting rifles or shotguns or their personal pistols will be met with outrage. Any politician advocating confiscation or elimination of firearms cannot be elected here. That said, they would all likely agree to universal background checks, limits on magazines (if it takes more than 4 to kill a whitetail, you shouldn’t be hunting), insurance requirements etc.

    Anyway, rather than attack me personally, we might think constructively about how we reduce the 30,000 gun deaths each year in the US.

  18. drowningpuppies says:

    Anyway, rather than attack me personally, we might think …

    Get over yourself, hypocrite.

  19. Jeffery says:

    No one answered this question:

    Do you agree with the requirement that open carry requires the handgun be in a holster?

  20. Jeffery says:

    schlongingpuppies typed:

    Get over yourself, hypocrite.

    Nothing to say but you still have to type something? Maybe you need to get over yourself, hypocrite.

  21. drowningpuppies says:

    Oh, so sorry.
    Left out the little whiny bitch part.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5347 access attempts in the last 7 days.