Man Arrested For Walking Into Walmart (with weapons)

[Vassenor]

Doesn't have to hurt anyone for his conduct to constitute terroristic threats.

How was it a terroristic threat?

I swear we've been over this several times.

[Estanglia]

How was it a terroristic threat?

I swear we've been over this several times.

Is it the fact that he carried a gun?
Because then every person carrying a gun would be a terrorist.

The fact that he carried a gun in that specific way?
Because then everyone who carried their gun like that would be a terrorist.

The fact that he carried a gun in a location that was recently a sight of a mass shooting (as in it's the same type of location (e.g a Walmart), not the same exact location)?
In that case, how long has to pass before people can carry in those locations again?

[Fartsniffage]

I swear we've been over this several times.

Is it the fact that he carried a gun?
Because then every person carrying a gun would be a terrorist.

The fact that he carried a gun in that specific way?
Because then everyone who carried their gun like that would be a terrorist.

The fact that he carried a gun in a location that was recently a sight of a mass shooting (as in it's the same type of location (e.g a Walmart), not the same exact location)?
In that case, how long has to pass before people can carry in those locations again?

You forgot to mention the body armour.

[Vassenor]

I swear we've been over this several times.

Is it the fact that he carried a gun?
Because then every person carrying a gun would be a terrorist.

The fact that he carried a gun in that specific way?
Because then everyone who carried their gun like that would be a terrorist.

The fact that he carried a gun in a location that was recently a sight of a mass shooting (as in it's the same type of location (e.g a Walmart), not the same exact location)?
In that case, how long has to pass before people can carry in those locations again?

So basically carrying a gun should be a magical get-out-of-jail-free card?

[Estanglia]

Is it the fact that he carried a gun?
Because then every person carrying a gun would be a terrorist.

The fact that he carried a gun in that specific way?
Because then everyone who carried their gun like that would be a terrorist.

The fact that he carried a gun in a location that was recently a sight of a mass shooting (as in it's the same type of location (e.g a Walmart), not the same exact location)?
In that case, how long has to pass before people can carry in those locations again?

So basically carrying a gun should be a magical get-out-of-jail-free card?

How far did you have to reach to get that one?

[Prydania]

The only crime to have been committed here is the arrest of a man who has plainly broken no law. If he is convicted, it will be a great and terrible victory for the eternally power-hungry apparatus of the state and a crushing blow for the natural human liberty that we all should aspire to exist in.

What about my liberty to be able to go shopping without the threat of gun violence breaking out around me?

[Estanglia]

Is it the fact that he carried a gun?
Because then every person carrying a gun would be a terrorist.

The fact that he carried a gun in that specific way?
Because then everyone who carried their gun like that would be a terrorist.

The fact that he carried a gun in a location that was recently a sight of a mass shooting (as in it's the same type of location (e.g a Walmart), not the same exact location)?
In that case, how long has to pass before people can carry in those locations again?

You forgot to mention the body armour.

So body armour is the difference between a terroristic threat and someone just carrying a gun?

Or am I just misunderstanding your post?

[Risastorstein]

And you guys really wonder why nobody outside of the US doesn't take you seriously? #NotTheOnion

[Fartsniffage]

You forgot to mention the body armour.

So body armour is the difference between a terroristic threat and someone just carrying a gun?

Or am I just misunderstanding your post?

In terms of perception, yes. He walked in looking like a mass shooter in full knowledge that he looked like a mass shooter. He is an idiot.

[Estanglia]

So body armour is the difference between a terroristic threat and someone just carrying a gun?

Or am I just misunderstanding your post?

In terms of perception, yes. He walked in looking like a mass shooter in full knowledge that he looked like a mass shooter. He is an idiot.

Agreed, but I don't think that makes it an actual terroristic threat warranting punishment, considering that him with the guns and body armour seems to have been the most threatening thing about him. The article doesn't mention him taking any other action than pushing around a shopping cart and recording.

[Necroghastia]

Bull. We've been through so many mass shootings recently, it would be stupid not to suspect something was up.

"So many" is a rediculous assertion, fearing a man with a rifle because mass shootings is like me having people with cell phones arrested because batteries can explode and cause fires.

A false equivalency for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that one generally cannot control whether or not such an event will happen.

[Prydania]

And you guys really wonder why nobody outside of the US doesn't take you seriously? #NotTheOnion

As a Canadian living in the States? It's honestly pretty normal 90% of the time. People are people, they're generally pleasant. And if you tune out the politics? It's all good.
Then stuff like this happens re: mass shooters and the idiots who try to mimic them for "social experiments" and the country's MASSIVE libertarian streak rears its ugly head.

Sorry. Chalk it up to my tragically Canadian sensibilities, but no one should be allowed to go out in public wearing full body armour and carrying weapons unless they are, in fact, the police or military. You're putting public order and safety at risk if you're just some dude. And if the law in Missouri says it's legal? The law is idiotic and needs to change.

And no, that "natural state of human liberty" bs doesn't fly with me. The social contract is basic high school-level civics material. Figure it out.

[Purpelia]

And you guys really wonder why nobody outside of the US doesn't take you seriously? #NotTheOnion

As a Canadian living in the States? It's honestly pretty normal 90% of the time. People are people, they're generally pleasant. And if you tune out the politics? It's all good.
Then stuff like this happens re: mass shooters and the idiots who try to mimic them for "social experiments" and the country's MASSIVE libertarian streak rears its ugly head.

Sorry. Chalk it up to my tragically Canadian sensibilities, but no one should be allowed to go out in public wearing full body armour and carrying weapons unless they are, in fact, the police or military. You're putting public order and safety at risk if you're just some dude. And if the law in Missouri says it's legal? The law is idiotic and needs to change.

And no, that "natural state of human liberty" bs doesn't fly with me. The social contract is basic high school-level civics material. Figure it out.

Not even regular police either. If my local police officers started walking down the street looking like a military occupation there would be hell to pay.

[Prydania]

Not even regular police either. If my local police officers started walking down the street looking like a military occupation there would be hell to pay.

Indeed. There better be a hostage situation that gets SWAT called in if the police are that armed to the teeth.

[Fartsniffage]

In terms of perception, yes. He walked in looking like a mass shooter in full knowledge that he looked like a mass shooter. He is an idiot.

Agreed, but I don't think that makes it an actual terroristic threat warranting punishment, considering that him with the guns and body armour seems to have been the most threatening thing about him. The article doesn't mention him taking any other action than pushing around a shopping cart and recording.

It says he walked into a Walmart looking just like a mass shooter. That could be enough under the terrorism laws.

[US-SSR]

It's a good thing he didn't try to buy a violent video game or he really would've been in trouble.

[Risastorstein]

Sorry. Chalk it up to my tragically Canadian sensibilities, but no one should be allowed to go out in public wearing full body armour and carrying weapons unless they are, in fact, the police or military. You're putting public order and safety at risk if you're just some dude. And if the law in Missouri says it's legal? The law is idiotic and needs to change.

I mean, how is it even a matter of discussion? More so after the recent shootings?

[Estanglia]

Agreed, but I don't think that makes it an actual terroristic threat warranting punishment, considering that him with the guns and body armour seems to have been the most threatening thing about him. The article doesn't mention him taking any other action than pushing around a shopping cart and recording.

It says he walked into a Walmart looking just like a mass shooter. That could be enough under the terrorism laws.

Potentially, especially because it took place so soon after other mass shootings.

I don't think that it would count, but it might.

Either way, this guy's an absolute idiot.

[Prydania]

Sorry. Chalk it up to my tragically Canadian sensibilities, but no one should be allowed to go out in public wearing full body armour and carrying weapons unless they are, in fact, the police or military. You're putting public order and safety at risk if you're just some dude. And if the law in Missouri says it's legal? The law is idiotic and needs to change.

I mean, how is it even a matter of discussion? More so after the recent shootings?

Because the US is the land of radical, past the point of sensible, libertarian ideology. Where whatever the craziness and whatever the potential harm to the public good you'll have someone droning on about "human liberty" or some such.
The funny (ie tragic) thing is that the Founding Fathers of the US all subscribed to John Locke's views on the social contract, which are quite clear about stating that the "natural state of liberty" is undesirable, because it's a "state of nature" where the strong prey on the weak. The social contract establishes rules for society, where people give up some basic "rights" in exchange for the state providing protections and guaranteeing greater rights.
IE you give up the right to walk into a marketplace looking like a terrorist who's about to shoot up the place and in turn the government that takes that right from you protects you from actual terrorists and guarantees your more important rights like freedom of assembly, belief, religion, and so on.

The problem is that the US couched so much of its founding language in concepts of liberty and freedom that even though the Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framers didn't intend to support libertarianism run amuck? You still have people who fully believe that a "natural state of human liberty" where anyone can threaten the public good is "ideal," and anything less than that is tyranny.

It's absurd, and probably the single most frustrating thing about living in the US. Aside from, you know, the threat of being gunned down going to the grocery store.

[Ors Might]

Dude was a bit dumb for doing this so soon after a high profile shooting but not sure how this translates to “terroristic threat”. You could argue the body armor is somewhat sketchy but I don’t think open carry is considered terrorism.

[Ors Might]

I mean, how is it even a matter of discussion? More so after the recent shootings?

Because the US is the land of radical, past the point of sensible, libertarian ideology. Where whatever the craziness and whatever the potential harm to the public good you'll have someone droning on about "human liberty" or some such.
The funny (ie tragic) thing is that the Founding Fathers of the US all subscribed to John Locke's views on the social contract, which are quite clear about stating that the "natural state of liberty" is undesirable, because it's a "state of nature" where the strong prey on the weak. The social contract establishes rules for society, where people give up some basic "rights" in exchange for the state providing protections and guaranteeing greater rights.
IE you give up the right to walk into a marketplace looking like a terrorist who's about to shoot up the place and in turn the government that takes that right from you protects you from actual terrorists and guarantees your more important rights like freedom of assembly, belief, religion, and so on.

The problem is that the US couched so much of its founding language in concepts of liberty and freedom that even though the Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framers didn't intend to support libertarianism run amuck? You still have people who fully believe that a "natural state of human liberty" where anyone can threaten the public good is "ideal," and anything less than that is tyranny.

It's absurd, and probably the single most frustrating thing about living in the US. Aside from, you know, the threat of being gunned down going to the grocery store.

Nobody I know fears going anywhere because they might potentially be gunned down. Mass shootings are fairly uncommon compared to other unfortunate events.

[Fartsniffage]

Dude was a bit dumb for doing this so soon after a high profile shooting but not sure how this translates to “terroristic threat”. You could argue the body armor is somewhat sketchy but I don’t think open carry is considered terrorism.

It's the open carry plus front sling that makes the charge a possibility. I doubt it would have gotten anywhere if he'd just had a shoulder sling and no body armour.

[Tobleste]

The only crime to have been committed here is the arrest of a man who has plainly broken no law. If he is convicted, it will be a great and terrible victory for the eternally power-hungry apparatus of the state and a crushing blow for the natural human liberty that we all should aspire to exist in.

I'm not sure if two guns and body armour is natural. It may appear like it but afaik, they're artificial.

Anyway, guns don't cause shootings, video games do so as long as he wasn't playing Pokemon Go, I don't see the problem. /s

[Fartsniffage]

The only crime to have been committed here is the arrest of a man who has plainly broken no law. If he is convicted, it will be a great and terrible victory for the eternally power-hungry apparatus of the state and a crushing blow for the natural human liberty that we all should aspire to exist in.

I'm not sure if two guns and body armour is natural. It may appear like it but afaik, they're artificial.

Anyway, guns don't cause shootings, video games do so as long as he wasn't playing Pokemon Go, I don't see the problem. /s

Guns don't kill people, dumb people do. There should be a law against being dumb. *nods*

[Tobleste]

I'm not sure if two guns and body armour is natural. It may appear like it but afaik, they're artificial.

Anyway, guns don't cause shootings, video games do so as long as he wasn't playing Pokemon Go, I don't see the problem. /s

Guns don't kill people, dumb people do. There should be a law against being dumb. *nods*

Having heard quotes from NRA spokespeople, I do also blame stupidity for these shootings.