Guns in court again.

[Plane]

Connecticut

Dennis Henigan, former director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the lawsuit would test the limits of the negligent-entrustment legal theory.

“The issue in this case will be whether courts are willing to construe the doctrine of negligent entrustment so broadly as to encompass a theory of liability that is based on the sale of a particular gun to the general public instead of to a potentially particular dangerous individual,”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/sandy-hook-families-file-lawsuit-against-gun-manufacturer/ar-BBgPrZ2


and Texas

Texas is not a traditional open carry state. They also do not allow open carry, or even printing, by those who have a concealed carry permit

http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=304

Q: Can I Open Carry in Texas (in Public)?

A: You can openly carry rifles and shotguns, but not handguns. A CHL is not needed to do this. However, you must do so in a manner not "calculated" to cause alarm; meaning you are carrying the rifle to purposely intimidate or scare people.

Q: Other States allow Open Carry, Why Doesn't Texas?

A: It's a long story, but the public has only recently been able to carry handguns thanks to the passage of CHL laws in the 1990s, but there has been a large effort to get open carry passed. A bill was drafted two sessions ago that would allow CHL holders to carry openly. It passed committee but did not get any farther due to time. It was reintroduced this session, but has not progressed any further, yet.

For those of you wondering what open carry refers to it's the act of carrying a handgun (generally) that is in plain view in a holster. There is no concealment garment such as a t-shirt or vest that is covering the firearm. This type of personal carry is highly debated in the gun community and carries with it a unique series of pros and cons. Pros for open carry include, greater comfort, easier to access, and offers more choice in firearms (larger frames). Cons would include the giving up the moment of surprise, being disarmed potentially, and the general awareness that you are armed possibly making you a first target for an active shooter. A lot of this is conjecture and "what-ifs" but there's some logic behind them. Contra to some opinions the act of carrying openly can also prevent an unknown number of crimes due to a show of force, and there are holsters and tactics to grealy limit the chance of someone disarming you.

http://www.texasgunlaws.org/texas-open-carry.htm

[Xavier_Onassis]

It certainly is wonderful to know that one can carry their gun to church with them. There have been so many attacks in churches and all.

Whether someone is carrying a rife in an intimidating manner seems to me to be a matter of opinion. I have seen people that look so scary that there is no way they could not carry a rifle without not looking threatening.

[Plane]

........................... I have seen people that look so scary that there is no way they could not carry a rifle without not looking threatening.

  That should qualify as a handicap.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So a guy with a swastika neck tattoo, or perhaps one of those Mara Salvatrucha facial tattoos should be given a special treatment because their tattoos are a handicap?
Yeah, sure.

[Plane]

  That would be an actual handicap.  I have never even seen anyone hired as a waiter with a swastika tattoo on his face.


    Perhaps a special parking for gang tattoo sufferers.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Such a tattooed person carrying a gun would probably look threatening to most people.

[Plane]

Such a tattooed person carrying a gun would probably look threatening to most people.

It is the tattoo?

That is how a tattoo gives its wearer his moneys worth.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Facial and neck tattoos are legal, but socially unacceptable.
They are the artistic equivalent of obscene rap music and the "n word".

Of course, they are also more permanent, and probably most people who get these will rue getting them eventually.

[Plane]

Some people are not ugly enough by nature and need to embellish the perceived threat.

I am quite fortunate and have always been quite ugly enough naturally for every purpose I have ever needed it for.

I have never yet threatened anyone with a weapon, but I hope that if that occasion does arise that I can project enough threat to prevent a fight .

Even with my unimproved visage.

I think that the image of the weapon makes a difference too.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Everyone understands that ugliness is not normally a deliberate product of anyone.

Deliberately unsavory tattoos are generally intentional. I had an uncle that had a Marine Ball, Chain and Anchor thing on his upper arm. He hated the thing, and blamed it on his buddies getting him drunk in San Diego once. But he got it in 1945 and it was neither unusual or threatening to anyone. Just sort of amateurish and ugly.

[Plane]

http://www.eviltattoo.com/

http://www.ralphmag.org/

http://kotiro.petermichaud.com/


The ancient Greeks and the recent Maori would often start their battles with some showmanship, why fight if a demonstration of ferocity and commitment wows the opponent?

Display counts, this is why Lions roar and display their size and teeth.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Less amateurish, but more ugly.

The Maori had no firearms and had to depend on  knives and clubs made of stones and broken shells and pointy sticks. So terrifying the opposition was developed to sort of a fine art.

The Maori were also noted for serious wife beating, which still seems to be a problem.