A 21-year-old Middleton woman was arrested Thursday night when she threatened other shoppers while waiting in line at the Toys R Us store, 7309 West Towne Way, which opened for Black Friday shopping at 10 p.m., Madison police reported.

Several hundred shoppers were in line just after 10 p.m., when the woman attempted to move to the front of the line, police said. When she was confronted by other shoppers, she made threats to retrieve a gun and shoot the shoppers.

No gun was found, and the woman, who was not named, was arrested and taken to the Dane County Jail on a tentative charge of disorderly conduct.

"She's now spending her shopping money to post bond," said Madison Police Sgt. Erik Fuhremann.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_6fdf0dc8-f955-11df-ad8e-001cc4c002e0.html

I heard she was going to get Duck Hunt for her old NES box

This is 8 miles from my house. Makes you appreciate the NRA and their efforts on behalf of half wits' 2nd amendment rights.

But her crime didn't involve a firearm. Her crime was shooting off her mouth. We have sensible gun control laws as well as gum control laws. 

For those who choose to break the law, I don't really see what good another law would do. It would have been against the law for the woman to have gone home to get a weapon and come back and brandish it or shoot the place up. Criminals don't care about the Bill of Rights. They don't worry about their rights or your rights. If they are reckless enough to shoot up a crowd of people I think it's safe to say they aren't going to let a potential misdemeanor weapons charge deter them. It's the law abiding citizens who are concerned with legal rights because they are the ones who abide by the law.
  

Hi Norse.

I don't really get the law-abiding citizen/criminal angle that always comes into this argument.  I'm a law-abiding citizen right up to the time I break a law, right?  I might be loon-brained batshit-crazy teetering-on-the-brink-of mayhem latent homocidal for ten years, but until I break a law I am a law-abiding citizen.

As it happens, this lady's a low-level outlaw, having had discussionas and appearances regarding her preference for indefinitely delaying payment for goods taken out of stores concealed in her garments, the way I hear it.  I think she would need to shoplift a gun in order to make good on her threats.

Hello Tom. Good to see you again.

Exactly right. That concept is the basis of not only our justice system, but its underlying philosophy of rational empiricism, too. We are presumed to be law abiding citizens unless we demonstrate through our actions that we are not.

Contrast this empirical principle with those proposed by various religious philosophies over the centuries: We are all born guilty as sin. We inherit guilt through our blood. We can be posessed by supernatural agents. We are judged by what we believe or to which supernatural entity we declare our allegiance, rather than what we actually do.

The presumption that the general population does not possess the degree of reason, intelligence, and responsibility necessary to maintain possession of a simple firearm carries with it far reaching implications. The danger that such people would present to themselves and others if they ever acquired a firearm would be dwarfed by the damage they could inflict upon humanity if they ever got their hands on a ballot. What argument could there ever be for such a race of deranged and reckless people governing themselves? 

I understand that argument - presumed law abiding unless demonstrating otherwise.  I want that for myself.  And I want to maintain possession of a simple firearm, too, if I take a notion. I like guns (as machines more than as weapons). It's totally reasonable to presume  a person law-abiding, but frankly in my experience a little less safe to presume them sane, long term. There ought to be some little consideration given to human emotional & mental volatility in thinking about maintaining possession of simple firearms. There has to be a balance, and I don't know how to do that, but I know it is definitely not as simple a process as asking "Are you a criminal? No? Well then, here's a gun, mind you don't shoot anyone who doesn't deserve it."

IMO, the type of gun an individual wants might be a good indicator.
If the person simply wants a regular hunting rifle, that's one thing but a handgun? or a 50 caliber sniper rifle?

It's still not clear to me exactly what your issue is with the Second Amendment. There are plenty of common sense restrictions placed on firearm ownership and use which are intended to protect public safety.

Last year approximately 11,000 people were killed in alcohol related motor vehicle accidents. The law punishes those people who have been found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, but to outlaw either cars or alcohol, or both, because a small minority of individuals MIGHT engage in criminal behavior if they have access to alcohol and motor vehicles is not a just solution to the problem. It would not be fair to those who exercise good judgment regarding the use of alcohol and motor vehicles.

It would be equally unjust to punish the overwhelming majority of gun owners who are safe and responsible for the actions of a minority of criminals.

Quote:

I'm a realist and I know that gun registration and control laws will not stop, or even slow down, the bad guys from acquiring/using guns illegally~ but it seems to me the responsible gun owners' anger should be directed at the bad guys who are clearly not responsible gun owners 

Isn't that where your anger should be directed as well? Rather than at those who clearly are responsible gun owners and who are working with the system to maintain their firearm rights.

Quote:

I also see lack of registration and control as making it that much easier for the bad guys ~

You just said that "gun registration and control laws will not stop, or even slow down, the bad guys from acquiring/using guns illegally". I believe you were right the first time. A real criminal will most likely not use a weapon registered to himself during the commission of a violent crime. He or she would use a stolen one which would not be so easily traceable to them.

Quote:

other rights require registration and compliance with laws [voting, for instance] ~ so I don't see why gun ownership shouldn't be subject to the same level of regulation/control ~

I would argue that it is.

Quote:

I also take exception to your use of the word "presumption" in your comment that "The presumption that the general population does not possess the degree of reason, intelligence, and responsibility necessary to maintain possession of a simple firearm ..." ~ I see the murder stats being in the thousands annually as being solid proof [and far surpassing any 'presumption'] of the reality that too many do "not possess the degree of reason, intelligence, and responsibility necessary to maintain possession of a simple firearm" ~

But I didn't say the presumption that many do not possess the degree of reason, intelligence, and responsibility necessary to maintain possession of a simple firearm. I said the presumtion that the general public does not possess these faculties. Is it your argument that the general public is not reasonable, intelligent, and responsible?

Quote:

I'm also curious if you view assault weapons as "simple firearms" ~ 

  
Are they something else? Is there even a consistent definition of what an "assault weapon" is? Is it weapon which has a bayonet lug? How many folks were run through with a bayonet last year? Is it a firearm which has a detachable magazine?  That's pretty much any pistol, and plenty of .22 varmint rifles, yet WWII was won with M-1s which were clip-fed into a fixed magazine.

If you are concerned about public safety it seems like registering and identifying saturated fats would be a better place to start. Hundreds of thousands more people are killed by those every year than by any "assault weapon".
  

A good indicator of what? There's not much difference between many hunting rifles and a .50 caliber sniper rifle.

Hunting is one of the least persuasive reasons for an armed populace, in my opinion.