You are suggesting that this debate involves dancing around some legal gray-area; that simply isn’t the case. There is nothing remotely illegal in walking around one’s own property with a gun (or a tattoo of a gun).
The only real threat of actual violence in this situation came from the piggies who were called in and who showed up with a trigger-happy SWAT team ready to gun down another unarmed citizen (who happens to be an ass-hat).
I was referring to his definition of brandish in the comment prior to that one.
The perception of a thing as being real means that the fact it is not actually a weapon is irrelevant. It looks like a weapon being exhibited in an ostentatious or aggressive manner… that’s why the idiot got the tat in the first place.
But what? One British nob had another British nob hacked to death in a particularly gruesome way seven centuries ago. Said execution being so excessive that all the nobs in the north of the island decided not to have anything to do with the southern lot.
The age of chivalry was hardly very chivalrous and the knights loyalties were rather more ‘flexible’ than later supposed.
Legally, that definition is irrelevant and even for argument’s sake it seems like a pretty big reach. The three definitions all clearly state something beyond simple open possession: “To wave or swing,” “to shake,” “to exhibit”
The gun aspect of this topic seems to be eliciting some pretty strong politically-based reactions. I don’t think we’d be arguing that this dude is brandishing a sword
Is your name Percival? You should change your name to Percival.
This debate revolves around the perception of violence. In this case; someone is perceived to have a gun. It does not matter where. It does not matter if it’s real. It is a threat. Whether it’s a credible threat or not is for someone else to figure out - but the threat is there.
Look, if the guy in this story had a tattoo of Hello Kitty on his waist, you’d have a point. But he was perceived to have a gun and that’s a threat.
Seriously, how is that debatable?
I was arguing for you, suggesting that the primary argument put forth by many gun proponents is that their freedom to shoot crap trumps the freedom of others to not be shot.
Man, that’s purposefully disingenuous. Your first comments were on point but now I’d argue your own position on guns is colouring your assessment of this.
The gun silhouette is realistically-sized and could easily be mistaken for a gun at distance. People carry guns in their waistband but no one carries a mystical sword on their torso, or a mini shark in their arm.
Maybe you need to look up “exhibit”. It can just mean “show”.
I understand the meaning of “exhibit.” You’re really reaching to claim brandishing means to simply openly posses.
The shark is a joke.
Here is a more appropriate sword tattoo to illustrate my point:
& @duncancreamer:
I understand that you both may personally feel threatened by the sight of a gun. I didn’t grow up around guns and I sometimes have that reaction as well. However, keeping that in mind, one cannot call the cops on someone - in good faith and with a relatively basic understanding of US law - for witnessing someone else simply possessing a gun while on their own property.
No man. It’s not a reach. It’s expressly covered by the dictionary definition. You’re trying to redefine the situation as open possession (which is inherently neutral) when the whole time we’ve be talking about brandishing. The guy didn’t get the tat to show what a responsible gun owner he is - he got it to look threatening.
Keep looking for a more convincing image… no one, even if extremely high, would mistake that for a dagger. Even if they did, the relative danger of a person with a dagger is far less than that of a person with a gun.
I don’t feel threatened by the sight of a gun. We’ve got a lot of them here, considering how much farming goes on in Australia. Our cops, unlike the UK’s adorable bobbies, do carry firearms as part of their standard uniform. I just think US gun law is laughably loose, especially since the level of gun violence is so insanely high there.
for witnessing someone else simply possessing a gun
Again, this is you framing the situation as you see it. This isn’t about simply possessing a gun, it’s about behaving like a dick in a way that makes people feel threatened coupled with seemingly being armed. If I’m in a place that I’m legally allowed to be (as the utility workers were) and I feel like my safety is being threatened by someone, I’m within my rights to call the cops.
Since you seem to have information the rest of us don’t have, please explain the process used by the utility company to inform the property owner that workers on official business needed to LEGALLY access the part of the property where a tree was obstructing the utility line in question. What “better business practice” did they fail to engage in?
Don’t bother writing a response unless you’re actually going to answer the question.
I already did at the beginning of this thread. The article outlines the fact they don’t inform homeowners before they come out onto their property to prune/cut trees. Legally they don’t have to but they could and that would be a better business practice than showing up, unannounced and with chainsaws and heavy machinery, on your sleeping customer’s lawn.
He wasn’t brandishing anything, under the legal or dictionary definition. We’ll have to disagree on that, I suppose.
You’re saying that the simple sight of a perceived gun is brandishing, how can you simultaneously argue that you aren’t threatened by guns?
I don’t like all the US gun laws but I like the police state even less. The only person who was actually threatened in this situation is the homeowner with SWAT teams targeting him.
We can disagree, but I’m not going to let up on it…
to exhibit
in an ostentatious
or aggressive
manner.
This is exactly how the guy’s actions were perceived by an observer.
That’s a nice strawman re my point. I’m not saying displaying alone is brandishing, but doing so in an ostentatious or aggressive manner is - according to the dictionary. I like words and they mean things… There’s no sneaking one around the keeper here.
I too dislike the police state but that and US gun law are not the same subject, so why discuss them as if they are?
You will not convince me, or the US law, that the word brandish includes a hand-operated weapon that is not being held in one’s hand. That’s the legal and logical difference between brandishing and open-carry.
There is also difference between calling the police while feeling threatened and calling while being completely out of harm’s way (never having been close enough to distinguish a tattoo from an object) out of confusion or spite. The article indicates the latter.
Of course, you can dictionary-mine single words that appear in the third definition of a given word to support your claim all you please.
I think the perspective of being a lifelong resident in the country in question here is important. I cannot imagine being so argumentative while also being equally and completely ignorant of Australian law… Whatever floats your boat though, I suppose.
Of course, you can dictionary-mine single words that appear in the third definition of a given word to support your claim all you please
Now you’re just being stupid, or you’re ignorant of how definitions work. The pic I posted actually shows two definitions (see that little 1 & 2? That means there’s 2). Each definition is its own, independent clarification of the various meanings that can be ascribed to a word. I didn’t “dictionary-mine” anything. I gave you definitions for each word in the broader definition of another word because I was giving you benefit of the doubt that you actually were misunderstanding the word “brandish”. Now I can see you’re only interested in proving yourself right, despite obvious holes in your argument.
I don’t care if you’re convinced. Any rational person can see for themselves that you’re wrong.
Spite or not the utility guys were within their right to call the cops. Since you weren’t there you’re in no position to make a call as to whether they felt threatened. Only they can determine that. It’s clear from the comments in this thread that a lot of your countrymen would do the same, so you’d better learn to deal with it.
And thanks for you belittling accusation that I’m ignorant of US law… Please, all-knowing McLoud, inform me which laws were broken or not broken here? The cops came. The guy understood why. If there was an issue he could take them to court. Amazingly, it seems like a cranky neo-nazi has less of a problem with this than you do. Lifelong resident or not I am able to parse a situation in the US to determine whether it’s acceptable and legal or not. Or are you saying they issue you some sort of secret, residents-only book of law that we poor non-americans are unaware of?
PS: Your fucked gun laws mean that a lot of handguns end up in my country, so it’s not as if we’re immune from your rabid desire to posses arms.
I actually agree with 4 out of 5 of your points here. We disagree on when to involve the law is about it. Better safe than sorry is all I would add.
So there you go. Just in time for the 5 day deadline on story forums.
Well your name certainly is apropos; you’re pretty steamed and full of hot air.
So, reading through this thread it isn’t clear that you have any opinion or point - with regard to this post in particular and not just your own political agenda.
I guess you feel pretty strongly about the definition of “brandish.” You clearly feel strongly that the primary Merriam Webster’s definition of “to wave or swing” and secondary definition of “to shake or wave” are definitively trumped by the third verb they use “to exhibit”… but beyond that?
I bullet-listed my opinions regarding this blog post. Do you have something to add or are you just going to keep boiling over, my short and stout little friend?
Indeed, it is a pleasure to have a civil discussion with you, ultimately agreeing to disagree on some specifics.
I also found the “first-dumbest tattoo in America,” even if I agree with the sentiment:
Original joke there. Never heard it before. Watch out we’ve got a live one over here, people!
My political agenda? The only agenda is to make fun of gun nuts. It doesn’t really affect me tremendously if you continue with your fun little bloodbath over there. Sensible gun nuts with coherent arguments (like @Mister44), I like. Idiotic morons with nonsense arguments screaming about the police state and trigger happy SWAT guys (who didn’t even fire a shot), I will ridicule. Especially if they’re stupid enough to continue to insist my understanding of the definition of a word is wrong when it’s not.
You refer to a “primary definition” when there’s no such thing. The numbers & any order of definitions in a dictionary bear no relation to which definition is more “correct” or true. They’re independently different definitions that all clarify an accurate description of a word. I tried to explain this to you already but your continuing basic misunderstanding of how definitions work proves your ignorance on academic subjects. Maybe you should spend more time reading instead of polishing your gun?
Your bullet-listed opinions are fine. My addition to this discussion is merely demonstration of how off the mark your opinion on this matter is. It’s perfectly clear from my comments what my stance on this issue is, but considering your inability to understand the meaning of one word, I don’t have a lot of hope for your ability to remember more than a couple of sentences. I agreed with some of the things you said to begin with, but as the thread has continued along you’re making so little sense that any comments you make on any thread from now on will be coloured by our little interaction here today.
“boiling over, my short and stout little friend?”
^You probably think you’re the first person to say this as well.
Edit: @Falcor I’ll just put this here so everyone can enjoy Ian’s wonderful sense of humour.
I might be mean, but I’m not full of shit.
Did you even read the article? It listed six other specific fatal police shootings in the small state of Maine under similar situations where the cavalry was brought in. As a regular reader of BB, you no doubt saw yesterday’s post about the frequency of shootings by cops of unarmed citizens in Albuquerque. This is a serious issue in my country. Calling the police often ends in insane violence that is unnervingly disproportionate to the circumstances.
As such, the heavy-handed response of the police in this situation is relevant. Conversely, your stated agenda is to “make fun of gun nuts” - even where there don’t appear to be any present - is not exactly a value-adding proposition…
You can keep driving trollies and insulting all you like but you still haven’t articulated a opinion beyond feeling devout over the definition of brandish, “gunz R bad” and @IanMcLoud is stooopid.
any comments you make on any thread from now on will be coloured by our little interaction here
I will lose countless hours of sleep over the lack of your respect in future comment threads. Such a penalty for my insolence…
