Such antics will not gain someone any sympathy among the average non-partisan audience of such antics. I'd even wager that the non-partisans subjected to such histrionics would probably end up resenting the person who created the commotion for creating more of a commotion than the gun owner and thereby ruining their dining experience.

And, at the end of the day, such tactics are little more than a sad display meant to push public opinion. It will but not in the direction you hope.

Making an obnoxious spectacle of one's self is never a winning strategy.

And, really, it's all just an act; little more than a childish tantrum because -- as the OP notes -- if gun owners are the threat they are portrayed to be than all the other effort to antagonize them would be foolhardy in the extreme. Either gun owners actually are very courteous and reserved and thus do not deserve such slander or the person making the conflicting claims has completely lost their mind because they're inflaming what they claim to so strongly fear.

There's no reason to continue the discussion, because gun people will not admit to the obvious:

1. Someone displaying a gun in a restaurant is behaving very inappropriately by the norms of the society most of us live in. (Obvious exemption for uniformed cops.)

2. They have a lethal weapon at their fingertips that can be used in a fraction of a second.

If you mean "brandishing" then, yes, that would be inappropriate and it is illegal. If they are carrying it properly holstered then they are within their legal and civil rights.

and we need to be as far away as we can be from their kind.

Seriously, there are over 14 million people with carry permits, not counting the states that don't require a permit.

They are carrying around you every day, but you don't know it.

Do you pretend they aren't there?

and I've seen several coffee shops and restaurants clear out when one of their kind walks in.

Try to answer the simple question I actually asked instead of one you'd rather answer.

Murdered by someone using ANY type of rifle

I misstated what I had heard.

FBI released a report in October 2015.
From 2000-2013 468 people were killed in an active shooter situation...which averages 30 people per year

In that same time period, lightning strikes killed 50/yr according to NOAA

So you are more likely to be killed by lightning than in an active shooter situation.

You're more likely to be struck by lightning than

Murdered by someone using ANY type of rifle

accidental death

Show me a citation.

They were a big tourist draw; selfies & pictures taken, tourists posing with demonstrators, off-hand interviews. I guess they were just part of the act.

Though I don't favor OC, I didn't walk my check when one came into the restaurant where I was eating.

Italian restaurant and you are there. Would you run away screaming. Even if you cannot see the .45's we are both wearing.

I guess as long as they don't see it, they can all pretend there are none around ... then go out and watch the Unicorns crapping ice cream on the sidewalk.

(.45 as daily carry here too.)

gun owners are...

Guns and their owners kill endless Americans and people SHOULD be scared of them... I wouldn't leave without paying, but if a bunch of gun nuts came into a restaurant I was in I would take my family and leave, because WHY risk it?

Sure those specific gun nuts might not accidentally shoot me or my children, but that's not good enough for me...

I's probably call over the manager, ask if they supported letting people bring guns into their restaurant, if they said yes I'd tell them they lost a customer for life, pay my bill and leave... either way though, I'd probably just pay my bill and leave... it's not worth the risk to my children...

Except I'd just leave enough money to cover the check without waiting for the manager to arrive. Then I'd be out the door as fast as I could go without attracting attention.

You could always call the manager later which is even safer still. Good point.

.....just never come back?

Finish your meal, pay, and tell the mgr you would not re-visit the establishment unless you see a no guns sign outside next time.

Businesses hate not having business.

Need to tell the manager or owner that you won't visit as long as guns are welcome!

Unless there is discrimination based on certain protected characteristics, the management is free to set the rules.

Honestly, even though I am a supporter of what I call Rural (or Woodland) Open Carry, I would go to a restaurant that did not welcome rifles.

EDIT: I would PREFER to go to such a restaurant

Rural (hunting culture) is different. I still remember gun racks in trucks in the high school parking lot.

On edit: No, no, no, no. I would not finish my meal. I would want OUT.

But the business would not get any more of my money unless they posted a "no guns" sign and made a BFD out of it.

there is at least one around here that is proud he would leave without paying.

really have internet trolls to blame for their assaults and murders? Wha?! Because people were mean to gun owners on the internet, it might make them shoot up a restaurant? So you _are_ saying that gun owners carry guns to demand respect that they wouldn't otherwise get on their own. We are supposed to tread on eggshells around gun owners and not tease them online because they are so easily provoked? Sounds like just the kind of people we might not need to have armed en masse.

and then they do leave a restaurant, that is not fraud.
There are enough "accidents" and "accidental discharges" for me to leave a restaurant where someone has guns. I'd rather be part of that spectacle than the other spectacle, the one where the gun goes off and people are screaming and bleeding, and have new holes where they didn't have holes before.

I don't make travel plans on holidays where people tend to drink too much. Or at the hours when the most inebriated are likely to think themselves capable of driving home.

Do you imagine an absolute prohibition on guns will solve violence?

I trust people with cars as much as I trust people with guns, that is, not at all, which is why I watch out for people acting queerly, like swerving and looking at their phones, or open carrying at a family restaurant. That is queer behavior, and you won't ever be able to "normalize" it.

Some of them post pictures to the internet and call gun owners mean names.

Those actions, according to you, are inflammatory to some gun owners. And you are proven right about the fact that it inflames gun owners by the actions of some of the assholes out there like the ones who felt the need to point a bunch of weapons at a mother's group at Starbucks.

Your correct assertion that these actions are inflammatory to some gun owners proves that the people are quite right to try to keep gun nuts with guns out of communal spaces.

It just goes to show that those who advocate for creating spectacles are little more than frauds.

pointing weapons at a bunch of mothers at Starbucks. To make the point that their rights trump everyone else's.

And I am sure you are a perfectly good judge of character, but your assertion that everyone you know who owns a gun is good natured does not change the absolutely crazy statistics in this country about gun violence, gun deaths, children getting their hands on guns and shooting themselves and others, increased suicide rates with gun ownership, etc.

that no dumb looking man-boys pointed guns at some group protesting guns.

Well, that's nice, but it doesn't really change anything.

If you're referring to the group of counter demonstrators outside the restaurant where Shannon Watts' "Moms Demand Action" group (Bloomberg's astroturf group) was meeting then no one had a gun pointed at them.

If you're referring to another incident you will have to provide more than an assertion.

You are making all the same old circular arguments that you always make, but you can't argue with the fact that the number of gun deaths in this country is unnecessary and insane.

And yet, I feel sure you WILL argue that fact... again...

You claimed that guns were pointed at an anti-gun group by some counter-protesters. That would have been a crime and immediately actionable. But there is no indication that it actually happened. There isn't even an eyewitness claim to that effect, much less any photos or video.

And now you're hauling the goalposts away. Don't they get heavy after a while?

You guys always get upset when people don't argue the way you like, but really, tough.

You can pick and nit and nit and pick and feel put upon and make grotesque attempts at humor, all of which has happened in this thread.

And you can high five each other and feel you have made some kind of victory when someone doesn't feel like doing your research for you AGAIN, and doesn't feel like engaging in your circular arguments AGAIN.

But you know, and so does everyone else, that this is just more bullshit.

There is only one goal post: the number of gun deaths in this country is insane and unnecessary. The insanity needs to stop, no matter how much you like your hobby.

In summary, you think that any kind of misrepresentation, unsubstantiated claim, or non sequitur must be accepted if it advances your particular agenda and approach to a social problem.

Sorry. That's not the way this works.

For everyone who commits a gun crime? With no chance of parole. Does that sound good?

Sadly, in gun control states when felons are arrested in possession of a firearm...the gun charges are usually the first to be dropped.

If a felon is caught in possession, give them life with a mandatory minimum of 20 years...and repeal the Brady Act. A large portion of the murders in DC and Baltimore are committed by individuals with gun priors.

self defense is not a hobby

and intelligent reply

nephew does the exact same thing, my usual response , you're a silly little boy.

I know it is uncomfortable to be actually called out on your bull****

Gun deaths in this country are insanely common and unnecessary. What are gun owners willing to do to stop that?

not banning bayonet lugs and 30 round magazines.

No weapons were pointed at anyone and to say that is to push a lie. Let's see a little proof of your charge.

made a show of armed force against a bunch of mothers because the mothers said things they didn't like.

They were heavily armed assholes, acting like assholes. Adding proof to the concerns of normal people that gun nuts are dangerous imbeciles.

And you want to defend them.

but I have fought in service to this country for 30 years to protect the free speech rights of ALL, even the ones I do not agree with. They were not doing anything ILLEGAL, it was a protest. The poster was not telling the truth about them pointing weapons at Bloomberg's AstroTurf moms group. I feel it is correct to point out some facts and cut down on the outright lies posted by some that are not well informed on the incident.

for all we know MDA might have taken the photo from the side, or ripped it off from Facebook to make a false claim. There is no evidence that it was taken at the same place and time, assuming this meeting actually took place. Demonetization is a standard propaganda technique in any culture war. Watts and Bloomberg have a strong habit of making shit up. That is why I always take such claims with more than a grain of salt. FWIW, when it comes to racism and sexism, Mikey is just as bad as Trump. Just not as loud.
Did these "mothers" make it public that they were going to have a lunch there? If not, how would OCT know? If only four showed up, I doubt it was a serious meeting. But then, all of the real members are Bloomberg's paid employees, including Watts. He also provides her with chauffeured limo and armed guards. Of course, that doesn't count "rentals" like K street lobbiests who are paid to be various "officials".
https://www.linkedin.com/in/shannontroughton

Could someone here write a post as if people out there had no idea what you are referring to?

Such as me.

If someone posts a photo, a little context would be nice.

I'm trying to figure out what is going on in the photo where the guys with AKs are in the parking lot.

It's not easy to search for 'guy with red t-shirt and guys behind a Dodge Durango' and not get 2,000,000,000 results.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with whoever made the claim; if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in a 2003 Slate article, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Now please excuse me; I'm going to go find an adult to have a conversation, dear.

"....is an....."

Or about the fourth word of your definition.

Not due to lack of intelligence, no...

....but due to the inability to use non-emotion based logic.

There isn't any logic at all in their emotion based screeds. They bounce from point-to-point more than the rabbits in my yard.

I do enjoy the irony about how they will accept the word of any random person on the internet and assert fact without the tiniest shred of proof. Yet when presented with peer reviewed data produced by the experts in the field or government agencies such as the Center for Disease Control or FBI, they will dismiss such out of hand because it does not fit their prejudice. Yet if you go over to GD you will see the same people making fun of climate change deniers for failing to accept the same sort of science.

agencies such as the Center for Disease Control or FBI, they will dismiss such out of hand because it does not fit their prejudice."

Yep -- people who read the science might change their minds. I'm one of them.

Guns don't belong in the public square. What you do on your property is one thing but the public square is a different story. Guns can and do discharge when drop and have injured and kill innocent people. I own guns but my father taught me better than to needlessly endanger others. My Father taught real guns safety not the make believe BS the NRA teaches today. If you feel the need to carry in public I suggest you seek help for your fear based problems. Guns do not belong every place and your disregard for the right of other is obvious. No ones right to own a gun should override another person right to live. And open carry and public carry both endanger others. There are many very irresponsible and anger driven gun owner in America today and the open carry advocates are some of the biggest ones. And guns don't make you safer period.

No, they don't.

A quick search reveals that in 2011, there were 15,266 unintentional firearms injuries in the US. Some percentage of these are self-inflicted. 591 of these were fatal.

You claimed weapons discharge from merely being dropped. There were not 15,266 injuries from weapons being dropped.

and a bullet comes out? Accidental discharge is accidental discharge. I don't care if the gun owner accidentally grew an alien appendage and it pulled the trigger. I'm not moving the goal posts. My goal is still, always has been and always will be, not to be shot, either accidentally or on purpose.

the media and most of the population use "accidental discharge" interchangeably with "negligent discharge", to refer to all shootings that didn't seem to have homicidal intent.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rifle-accidentally-discharges-killing-wife-of-former-eagles-bassist/