GUN SHOW/GUN OWNER ETIQUETTE?

D

David

New member
Kinda long, but important.

Here are two incidences that happened in the past month that I'd like your comment on. I was wondering if I over-reacted. (me?! never)

The first one was at a gun show in Dallas. I was with my 3 year old son, and as we walked up to the concession stand, I saw/heard this guy swearing like a sailor to a woman with two children a little further up in line.

The first thing I assumed was that they were married(ha), but as the "discussion" progressed, I realized this guy had a problem. He had, IMHO, crossed the line and was threatening her, and none of the macho gun-show types standing by, were doing a thing to help her. Unbelievable!

I stepped up behind him and said diplomatically that there are kids around, and could we please tone it down a bit.
Well, the little tubbymeister whipped around to tell me a few things and came up short. I'd say about 7-8" short. (Sorry, had to throw that in...) When he got over how much bigger I was than he, he started in on me.
I reminded him that he had already threatened the woman and me, and if he wanted to argue his case to an LE, I'd be glad to find one for him ASAP. He had his son with him (I think) and his son was quietly trying to to calm his dad down, but the idiot didn't get it. I later learned from witnesses, that the mother had asked him to tone it down, and the guy went nuts. With friends like him, us gun folks don't need enemies! By the way, her husband had a talk with him later at the show, and that guy was the size of a Buick! It was FUNNY.

The second situation happened at a day care center.

I went to pick up my son, and the director, knowing that I was gun literate, asked me to check on a mysterious suburban that had been parked in the lot for most of the day. Here are the particulars:
New, high-end package suburban, alarm not engaged, questionable books of a religious nature on dash, large $ check on dash, cellular phone in plain view, cocked large caliber bolt rifle with scope between front seats in plain view. It looked as if someone left the vehicle suddenly. It was not parked haphazardly, but all that stuff laying around, in the Dallas -Ft. Worth area, with no vehicle alarm set, was a little interesting.

The director had the Irving police out there twice, but, as you LEO's know, they weren't breaking any laws. I decided to be proactive,
and, calling information on the company listed on the check, the person on the other end of the line did recognize the vehicle, and said the owner was at a meeting there.

This day care is near a hotel, and I pondered the possibility of the owner engaging in a little afternoon delight next door.

I told the person on the phone, the current "status" of the vehicle, and that it was going to be towed immediately, if it was not moved. They said they would page the owner.

About 1 minute later, two men emerge from the hotel back entrance in a big hurry, and started to get into the suburban. I asked the driver why he was parking at a day care. He hemmed and hawed, and I told him it was dumb to leave a cocked rifle, in plain view, at a day care, in a crowded metropolitan area. I also told him I have nothing against guns and am an NRA life member. He said he was also, but he was from the country.(Quitman, TX) I said that I grew up near there, that no one I new from that area would do this, and since he was a life member, his actions were especially dumb. I told him he should know better. His friend looked like he was going to start something, but caught my gaze and changed his mind.

The point is, I feel that us gun fanciers are especially high profile in this day and age, and the last thing we need, are folks that brazenly enforce the negative stereotype of a careless, abrasive, loudmouthed, armed yahoo that the gun ban folks like to scare folks with. I'm no angel, but someone who is into guns, and can't control their temper or their mouth, and/or is not "socially aware" of what's going on around them, is good for nothing. These two people weren't just making an honest mistake in judgement, they were arrogant about their stupidity. Was I being too politically correct. I don't think so...
 
David, I applaud your responsibility and courage to handle things in a mature manner. Personally, I don't often have the opportunity to see another guy come up short, since I'm 5'9". ;) Nevertheless, I have spoken up a few times as well when my wife thought discretion was the better part of valor!

Especially in the current political climate, I agree we must be above reproach as much as is humanly possible.
 
You did the right thing, regardless of how big/small you are.

The only time I would've avoided such a confrontation is if I was alone with one of my children, in which case I would've left the area. Specifically, I woulod've left the area and sent a friend or LEO over to check on the situation, given the circumstances of being at a gun show, where both would probably be close at hand.

I've got a little gland in my brain that starts secreting "get mad now" juice when I see a guy treating a lady improperly. I've gotten myself into some stupid situations over it, but I is what I is.
 
David; we had a rule in the ER, where I mispent 20 years of my life :). The rule was 'FRP' this stood for the 'First Rule of Psychopaths.' And, the First Rule was: 'DON'T Get Them Excited!'

If you have a person who is obviously behaving in an aberrant manner, and is disturbing those around him, be very, very careful. That person has a personality disorder. In the situation you mentioned, it is obvious that the man had poor impulse control. He is very likely to respond to confrontation VERY violently; do NOT expect him to behave rationally.

Two cases from the ER: One, a guy is walking down the street, another guy bumps into him. The first guy says, 'Watch it.' The second guy bites the first guys ear mostly off. We sewed it back on, but it didn't take. When someone bumps into me, no matter whose fault it is, I say 'Excuse me.' Sincerely.

Another case was a man who was a deacon at a local church, with no history of violence. He got arrested for drunk driving. A church member picked him up the next day when he was released. She asked him something (she thought was) benign, such as what happened? The man pulls out a knife and cuts the woman from eyebrow to jaw.

Given the circumstances you cited, I would have contacted security, and had them handle it. There was no physical danger (until he was confronted), thus no particular hurry. Note, if you will, that his behavior was worsened by the woman who confronted him.

If you choose to confront a person who is obviously behaving incorrectly, and aggressively, do so with the understanding that this may lead to a fatal encounter. The person with poor impulse control may well attack you with a deadly weapon, forcing you to kill him in self defense. Make no mistake about it, confrontation is likely to cause an extremely violent reaction in such a person. Despite being right, expect to spend a lot of money on lawyers.

If you feel that you must confront him, the proper way is with overwhelming force. Talk to two or three husky guys in the group, then confront him together. This way, the violence is much less likely.

In your second example, I think that you acted prudently and correctly.

Your comments, questions and criticisms are welcome. Walt

PS; I re-read your post. It seems that you did feel that physical danger existed to the woman the man was threatening. If you were sure of this, then I suggest that the proper method of dealing with the situation would be to have someone go for security, recruit a few husky guys, then confront the man with overwhelming force, while you await security's arrival. Walt

[This message has been edited by Walt Welch (edited 02-05-99).]
 
David,
Of course you did the right thing... But a word of caution - No good deed goes unpunished.

Be careful and tread lightly there.
I would have treaded my size 10 1/2 boots up and down that SOB! :)

------------------
Kodiac
Kenetic Defense Institute
"Sir Heckler"
 
David , well done!!!

I get out right mad when I see someone male or female screaming and yelling at someone, have seen parents do it to their children and can't understand that at all, sure disapline the child in PRIVATE, not in public where there are alot of strangers around, once I saw a mother grab her son so volently by the arm (child was approx. 3-4 yrs. old)almost jerked the childs arm out of his socket, I calmly walked over and asked her to please take it easy and not be so rough on him.The mother proceeded to tell me to F*&^ off and get out of her face, I just grinned when I saw 2 LEO's coming up behind her, which caused her to cuss me some more. Anyway the mother was arrested when it was determined the child was being abused, had welts on his legs and back (LEO found 2 1/2 in. leather belt in her purse)My only thought was "does the father know anything about this? Never did get a summons to appear in court nor did I hear what became of the child.

------------------
Justice for one,Justice for all.
 
David-
I'll throw my 10 cents in. In debriefing situations in my life, I only *wish* I'd done everything as right as you did.

Gunshow patron or NRA Lifer...doesn't excuse bad or stupid behavior. Congratulations on having the courage in both cases.
Rich
 
David
Like so many other responders to your thread, I congratulate you on 2 jobs very well done. You seem to have addressed both in a very diplomatic (read non-threatening) manner. As Ayoob exorts so profoundly in his books, you conducted yourself in a manner in which if you had to defend your actions later in court, a bystander (witness) would have had no trouble describing your actions as totally non-threatening nor antagonistic (hopefully).

Walt:
As a clinical psychologist who responds to the ER to deal with your psychopaths, I think you did a tremendous job of discussing the very WIDE range of potential behaviors that a person displaying aberrant behavior
is capable of - and hence the reason to not assume you can control him by reason or intimidation through overwhelming force (ie 3-4 big companions). That is why I would add a clarifier to your suggestion. After initially "asking" the person to bring their conduct back into publically-acceptible standards, I would NOT personally intervene unless the risk to the potential victims is so immediate that it does not allow time for the LEO's to arrive and intervene. I have had patients in ERs and other locales become more belligerent and violent when "aggressed" by 3-4 big people. As you well pointed out, the aberrant behavior already indicates their thought processes are not currently governed by the same rationale as others. Allowing the LEO's to do the type of intervening which may escalate the situation is probably safer for all.
Again, if the immediate safety of children, women, or men does not allow for the wait, then the decision to attempt the overwhelming force intervention with a few other citizens may be applied, but be prepared for ANYTHING, and a much more difficult legal defense on the witness stand.
Any conflicted interaction with any stranger has a wide range of outcomes, the best we can do is hedge our bet with a cool head...and good prior training.

I too have intervened in a manner like David, but at 5'9 1/2 ", I doubt I have ever intimidated any of the people I have confronted. The ability to "persuade" someone into more appropriate conduct has worked almost everytime (By God's Grace), but not 100% of the time. Each time the anni had to be increased, I had made certain my upping it was well verified by bystanders as absolutely necessary, and absolutely as a last resort.

PS It's great to have a forum like this to talk about these issues. Thanks
 
I spent fifteen years as a repossessor and bill collector. Needless to say, this led to many confrontations. In my new incarnation as a registered nurse working mainly in ED's and psychiatric facilities, I have also been involved in many confrontations. Walt and Shooting1911 are dead on the money.

A childhood friend truly had "poor impulse control." You could have tried facing him down with the Hell's Angels and a Regimental Combat Team without changing his actions one iota. He died charging a shotgun seventeen years ago...
In my opinion, if the overwhelming force scenario overawes him then you are dealing with a common bully. If you are dealing with a psychotic individual or an individual with a severe personality disorder you can bring a tank without calming them down. There are also individuals with psychiatric disorders who have learned this type of behavior as a means of manipulation. They can be controlled with the show of force. The rub is figuring out who is who.
 
What an excellent thread! Some truly erudite posts! Seriously, I am quite amazed at the level with which this subject is being discussed.

I particularly enjoyed Shooting 1911's post; any fan of the 1911 is a friend of mine.

I would like to suggest a slightly different course of action to my esteemed colleague (I was a psychiatry resident). Reviewing the original post, please note that there is ALREADY someone trying to 'calm him down,' the man's son. Therefore, an attempt to 'bring his conduct back into publically-acceptable standards' (I love that phrase, 1911), had already been made. Further, that attempt was unsuccessful. An intervention on my part, trying to accomplish what the son could not, I believe would be unwise, given the above circumstances.

Also, David felt the guy had 'crossed the line,' by which David means, I presume, that he feared for the physical safety of the woman being harangued. 1911 has this to say about a hypothetical situation which I feel is essentially the same as the actual incident:

(quote)

Again, if the immediate safety of children, women, or men does not allow for the wait, then the decision to attempt the overwhelming force intervention with a few other citizens may be applied, but be prepared for ANYTHING, and a much more difficult legal defense on the witness stand.

(close quote)

I feel that the overwhelming force, with other concerned citizens helping you intervene, and ALL OF YOU CONCERNED FOR THE WOMAN'S SAFETY would be the correct approach, and much MORE, not LESS defensible in court. Consider:

'Your Honor; I was not looking for trouble, but feared for the safety of the woman involved; indeed, several other upstanding citizens involved themselves to help me come to her assistance. They hardly would have done that if they themselves had not perceived the threat as very serious.

Further, your Honor, I had sent another citizen to bring security to the scene, but the situation appeared to me so unstable that waiting for security to arrive would have been an unacceptable risk to the woman.'

With respect to 1911's observation that overwhelming force can sometimes escalate the situation, that has not been my experience, and that is not what we ER physicians are taught. My first experience with this was in 1976, while a med student doing a psych rotation. This truly psychotic violent man, had been sedated, but required more sedation. The nurses came around and asked us all to come help. This guy is naked in a padded cell. With 6 or 7 people in the room, he quietly and peacefully took his medicine.

Let me clarify: the overwhelming force which I employed was NOT aggressive, as was the force experienced by 1911. Quite the opposite. I was in the room, calmly explaining to the patient why (s)he needed to be committed, that it was for their own good, and that they would truly benefit from this experience (not being sarcastic here, the people DID benefit). This conversation would take place after the ambulance was present to take the patient to a mental hospital, so that immediately after I explained what was occuring, and answering any questions the patient had, (s)he would be taken to the ambulance and transported.

Any comments, criticisms, alternate methods, or questions welcomed. Walt Welch, Diplomate, American Board of Emergency Medicine.
 
Thanks to everyone for a helpful thread. It is a very difficult choice we face when we see this kind of behavior.

Walt (and our other health care professionals), if you haven't seen it, please check out the 'My dialogue with Bob Musil' thread in the Legal and Political section. One argument I have often heard is that citizens who do not work in health care simply don't understand how bad the 'gun problem' is. That if we were experienced in the system, and seeing all of these deaths and injuries, then we would understand that 'something must be done'.

Certainly the debate should not be limited to health care professionals, but I would find it very interesting to see pro-gun doctors / professionals debating with anti-gun doctors / professionals.



[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited 02-07-99).]
 
Jeff...

When I hear that statement:

"that citizens who do not work in (elite occupation here) simply don't
understand how bad the (particular issue problem') is"

My BS radar starts humming. When ever any side of an issue declares; by virture of its special position, knowledge, etc; that it has especial enlightened comprehension that others not a member of that elite do not have is merely indicative of a weak and flawed position on said issue or one of righteous snobbery and zealousy

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
... at the risk of setting off someone's BS meter, when one has worked for a long time in a particular setting one gets an idea for what works from seeing it work. (That doesn't mean any one has seen all possible approaches work, just that we have seen some work reliably and repeatedly). If that is special knowledge acquired by years of experience so be it. It doesn't mean that some other person who wants to spend the time studying and working in a particular area wouldn't acquire the same knowledge and perhaps come to entirely different conclusions.

That said. I must concur with Walt's description of "overwhelming force", not as a method of violence, but simply as a quiet but impressive presence. I've worked in psych settings for over 25 years as clinician and adminstrator (most recently is a secure facility for criminally charged or violent patients). With most patients the presence of a wall of flesh is very calming. But, it doesn't work well if the patient is already acting explosively. And, extrapolating similar behaviors to the person on the street is reasonable.

And by the way, good work to David for your actions at the day care and the calm approach you took at the gun show. If you are as tall as suggested, even if the loud mouth recovered from shock, you being physically imposing and responding in a quiet and controlled manner that did not accept his inappropriate behavior, you were a small part of that imposing wall of flesh yourself.

Jim in IN



------------------
-- TANSTAAFL
 
JJB...
Note I said..."sides of a particular issue"...not specialized skill or technique. Issues are by definition opinions, judgements or positions; not requiring specialized training, education or occupation. The strength and credibility of one's particular position is rendered credible by logic and reasoning and analysis.

Jeff was speaking of the relatively recent trend of various professional groups claiming especial enlightenment concerning particular political issues; not the proper treatment of psychiatric patients.
In particular, the issue of gun violence/gun control and anti-gun health care professionals dismissing or invalidating
pro-gun positions from the non medical professional unwashed masses. Further, it is a specious generalization as the majority of medical professionals have no contact with the results of gun violence. Therefore, their position on the 2nd Amendment and gun control either way is no more valid or credible than that of a bus driver, plumber or janitor, either way.

I stand by my statement

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
DC understands my point precisely.

I can think of two groups that are injuring the 2nd Amendment right now - anti-gun health care professionals, and anti-gun (for civilians, that is) police chiefs (i.e. 'managers', from what I've seen). You can probably think of others.

The premise of 'perception is reality' has always rung true to me. The public perceives these two groups as 'experts' on the issue. When anti-gun health care professionals and police chiefs tell the public we are raving lunatics / 'gun nuts', too many citizens accept their rhetoric.

The RKBA movement needs a counterbalance of people in those professions who will logically, calmly and convincingly argue for the 2nd Amendment. If that counterbalance was credible and articulate, the pendulum could swing the other way for a while.

I hope I do not see the RKBA battle lost during my lifetime. I would be ashamed for myself and my generation.
 
Thanx for the replies.

Walt, a little clarification on my part is needed. IMHO, his verbage had crossed the line, and had moved toward a possible assualt charge. (I hope)

Without giving up too many secrets in such a public forum, he "profiled out" o.k.. I was looking for random actor signage, coloration, and the other signs some of y'all know, but I can't mention and he was responding favorably to leading questions.

I've only been seriously profiling for about 2 years, so I'm no expert, and advice is appreciated.

As far as taking action, for both situations, I wasn't anticipating trouble, but I was watching the hands and etc. very, very carefully before I even walked up, and had already made the decision to do everything and anything that was legally appropriate for the situation before I did anything, if you catch my drift. (Kodiak!)

Given all that was happening, it was pretty tame. I'm not above running away from a fight that I know I can't win, if appropriate. No tombstone courage at work here!
 
Dave; you don't need to worry about me violating confidence. Because I have not the faintest idea about what you are talking about! 'Random actor signage'?? Profiling?
Coloration??

Jeez; you must know more than I do. Please fill me in (I can keep a secret).

Walt Welch dr_play_time@msn.com

I suspect that we are probabably looking for much the same things, just using different jargon. However please do fill me in. I am always willing to learn. Walt
 
Something to think about regarding health care folks.

Long ago, I did a short stint in a dialysis center and, being young and broke, my only transportation was a motorcycle.

I got free, unsolicited advice from the nurses and doctors relating horror stories on what they saw in the emergency room when you crash on a motorcycle.
I already knew at the time that Texas had the highest death rate for such things (14%), yet I asked them, "How many people that have never been injured on a motorcycle have you seen in the hospital?" Well, that brought them up short.

They had an understandable sensistivity to this particular subject, yet they fully grasped what I was saying.

I have even used this argument regarding the gun issue. "How many people/families that have never been injured by a firearm, or known someone that has been injured/killed, come into your emergency room?" If their only input is the hospital, that's all they know.

As a footnote, the young nurse that used to fuss at me the most regarding that motorcycle, was run down and killed while riding her bicycle outside Forney, Texas on a country road. Go figure....
 
In reply to DAVIDs first post...
Not only do I think your actions were appropriate, but I think we ALL need to follow this example! Now before the EMTs in the crowd get ancy regarding the threat of nutzo-violence in today's world... I recognize that meekly walking away will reduce MY chance of conflict, but y'know what? I don't care. As we turn away again and again we concede the world to those who are willing to behave irrationally and irresponsibly. And look at where it has gotten us! I believe we MUST become proactive and vocal proponents of our position that reckless, anti-social and stupid behavior is simply not tolerable.

I have lived in and around large cities most of my life (LA, Miami, WashDC) where "avoiding conflict" was preached as a rule of survival. It was one I seldom heeded, as my folks instilled in me a very serious regard for words like chivalry and social responsibility. Well talk about an eye-opener of how a town CAN work... my wife and I took a trip to Colorado, and stopped at a Dairy Queen in Empire,CO (an itty-bitty town in Tabernash Valley). We are on the raised deck when a BMW with California plates whips into the only handicap-parking spot, containing two picture-perfect "Barbi & Ken" yuppies in white tennis outfits. As Ken bounced out of the car, I politely said, "sir, you are parked in a handicap parking spot"; he just shrugged and headed towards the stairs that I stood on. Slightly miffed at his disregard, I added "I'm sure you would feel bad if you found somebody unable to get out of their car because you were in the only handicap spot". Again, he just shrugged and started up the stairs.

Well, that when the little safety fuse called "restraint" popped in my head and I shifted straight into his path and said in a slower and lower voice "Maybe I wasn't clear. I would be VERY unhappy to watch someone unable to get out because you were in the handicap spot" (My wife sees this shaping up and is quietly saying "Michael...")

All of a sudden, a man seated at a bench behind me stands up and firmly states "I wouldn't much like it either". He war a Vietnam Veteran's ballcap and used crutches to stand. Two hunters in camo stepped up from my left and chimed in, "I'd be really ticked off too", and so forth.

Well Ken saw the tide of public opinion swinging FAR away from him, and he skedaddled to the beemer and zoomed away in a cloud of dust. I was invited to sit with the veteran, who told us some wonderful stories about the region. During that time, a young kid, maybe 16, walked up with his girlfriend in hand and said "excuse me sir, I just wanted to say thanks for what you did back there; that was all right."

I just about fell out of my chair. Either I had been teleported into a Normal Rockwell painting or the Twilight Zone. But it was NICE. It was the way the world SHOULD work.

Now "Ken" could have been the Calif. State Kung-Fu champ and danced on me, or had a razor or whatever - but I can't base my life and my values on what some nutcase MIGHT do. Values remain only as long as we are willing to stand up for them at every level. (Compared to the risks taken by soldiers dn police to maintain our freedom, I took no risk at all!) We MUST stand for our beliefs, otherwise we sacrifice them without a fight, and THAT is not a life worth living.
Michael Marks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top