Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#16

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:43 am

Tex1961 wrote:
Interblog wrote:Quote the linked story: “I figured I might get some comments or looks,” Johnston said.

If Johnston didn't want to go to Chicago, then why did he get on that train? He fully knew that he was getting on the train - he said so himself!

Johnston wearing that shirt is analogous to the young woman with the perky little bottom wearing the short skirt discussed in a thread gone by. In that other thread, most of this forum's commenters acknowledged that, if the woman wears the skirt, then she has to accept the consequences that it brings her. We have to conclude that the very same principle of responsibility applies for a male wearing a provocative piece of clothing as it does for a female, or else we run the risk of endorsing a blatant double standard.

In other words, I see Sailor's point on this one. Yes, Johnston had every right to do what he did. He had every right to bait that woman just as young women have every right to bait men by wiggling their short-skirted bottoms in front of them. But Johnston is engaging in a form of showboating. That, to me, does not embody the humility and the respectful presence that should be projected by gun owners. Johnston erodes the image of gun owners just as Ms. Short Skirt erodes the image of us women.
:iagree:
I respectfully disagree with both of y'all.

Women do not deserve to be assaulted (physically or verbally) just because they aren't wearing a Burkha. Most men learned to control themselves sometime around high school. Some haven't learned that yet. The fact is, even if a woman is walking down the street completely naked, you still need to control yourself and not attack her. Some people can't control their impulses and would attack her. And those people belong in prison.

In this case, a guy was just hanging out at the park with his kids. He wasn't doing anything "in your face". If you want to analogize to a woman's choice of clothing, this wasn't even a short skirt. That would be more similar to what OCT does. This was more like wearing a summer dress.

Am I being "in your face" when I drive my BMW into a poor neighborhood? Do I deserve what I get for being so provocative? What about an older man who is presenting a tempting target to criminals? Does he deserve what he gets? After all, he made the choice to go to the store instead of asking someone to go for him.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

OldCurlyWolf
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#17

Post by OldCurlyWolf » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:44 am

ScottDLS wrote:Well just as long as he didn't have a MAGA ball cap. It's like the women that dress provocatively. It's their fault if they get assaulted, just like this guy open carrying in the park. We shouldn't even have open carry it's just another reason why CJ Grisham will get our 2nd amendment permission slips taken away. I for one like to wear my LTC on a lanyard around my neck when concealed carrying, and I generally leave when there are children present. We need to be the good guys who care about people's feelings or the Legislature will get annoyed at us and punish us. As long as I can take my over and under 20ga to the skeet range (broken down, in the trunk, and separate from the ammo of course). And when my .22 revolver isn't at the range, it's locked up in my gun safe with the ammo in a different safe and a trigger lock. :rules:
You forgot your sarcasm font. :evil2:
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.

User avatar

SewTexas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3100
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: San Antonio area

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#18

Post by SewTexas » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:45 am

Interblog wrote:Quote the linked story: “I figured I might get some comments or looks,” Johnston said.

If Johnston didn't want to go to Chicago, then why did he get on that train? He fully knew that he was getting on the train - he said so himself!

Johnston wearing that shirt is analogous to the young woman with the perky little bottom wearing the short skirt discussed in a thread gone by. In that other thread, most of this forum's commenters acknowledged that, if the woman wears the skirt, then she has to accept the consequences that it brings her. We have to conclude that the very same principle of responsibility applies for a male wearing a provocative piece of clothing as it does for a female, or else we run the risk of endorsing a blatant double standard.

In other words, I see Sailor's point on this one. Yes, Johnston had every right to do what he did. He had every right to bait that woman just as young women have every right to bait men by wiggling their short-skirted bottoms in front of them. But Johnston is engaging in a form of showboating. That, to me, does not embody the humility and the respectful presence that should be projected by gun owners. Johnston erodes the image of gun owners just as Ms. Short Skirt erodes the image of us women.

I just can't even respond to this today.......
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir


Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7933
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#19

Post by Abraham » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:00 am

Much ado about nothing.


bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3585
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#20

Post by bblhd672 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:07 am

The crazed woman probably would have called the police if the man was concealed carrying under a plain shirt that rode up where she could see his legally carried self defense handgun.
Crazy (translate: progressive socialist low IQ voter) doesn't care about anything but their agenda.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 8279
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#21

Post by mojo84 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:24 am

Interblog wrote: Johnston wearing that shirt is analogous to the young woman with the perky little bottom wearing the short skirt discussed in a thread gone by. In that other thread, most of this forum's commenters acknowledged that, if the woman wears the skirt, then she has to accept the consequences that it brings her. We have to conclude that the very same principle of responsibility applies for a male wearing a provocative piece of clothing as it does for a female, or else we run the risk of endorsing a blatant double standard.

In other words, I see Sailor's point on this one. Yes, Johnston had every right to do what he did. He had every right to bait that woman just as young women have every right to bait men by wiggling their short-skirted bottoms in front of them. But Johnston is engaging in a form of showboating. That, to me, does not embody the humility and the respectful presence that should be projected by gun owners. Johnston erodes the image of gun owners just as Ms. Short Skirt erodes the image of us women.

I completely disagree with your analogy and premise. If this guy was just standing around seeking attention and baiting people into an argument or confrontation, that would may be different. However, he was going about his business and was not openly enticing a conflict or confrontation. People need to learn to consider the motivation and agenda of a person or group of people. Someone going about their day to day business and not actively drawing attention to themselves is totally different than someone that is.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 8279
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#22

Post by mojo84 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:26 am

bblhd672 wrote:The crazed woman probably would have called the police if the man was concealed carrying under a plain shirt that rode up where she could see his legally carried self defense handgun.
Crazy (translate: progressive socialist low IQ voter) doesn't care about anything but their agenda.
It wouldn't surprise me if a person like her called the cops just because he was a man in the park with little kids around when most of the other adults were women. Why in the world would a man want to play in a park with little kids and women around if he wasn't a perv?

/sarcasm/

User avatar

LDB415
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:01 am
Location: Houston south suburb

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#23

Post by LDB415 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:45 am

It can be argued, at least partially accurately, that open carry is "in your face" just by it's existence. I'm not arguing against it, or for it for that matter, just pointing out that openly carrying a firearm is an "in your face" action, at least to those who are anti-gun. I don't play poker with my cards laying face up on the table. I don't open carry. Either of those options is fine for anyone else who chooses to exercise them. I'll stand with the hand I have.
NRA Life Member, TSRA Life Member, GSSF Member
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.
Common sense is only right wing if you are too far to the left.
A pistol without a round chambered is an expensive paper weight.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#24

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:47 am

mojo84 wrote:
bblhd672 wrote:The crazed woman probably would have called the police if the man was concealed carrying under a plain shirt that rode up where she could see his legally carried self defense handgun.
Crazy (translate: progressive socialist low IQ voter) doesn't care about anything but their agenda.
It wouldn't surprise me if a person like her called the cops just because he was a man in the park with little kids around when most of the other adults were women. Why in the world would a man want to play in a park with little kids and women around if he wasn't a perv?

/sarcasm/
As a parent, my alert condition increases anytime that I see a single man in a place where there are a lot of kids. That's just basic threat profiling. This would be much more of an alert situation if the setting was something like a Chuck-E-Cheese, though, because unlike a park, there are very few adult men who would want to go to Chuck-E's without kids. Same situation at the latest Cartoon movie, etc. It also depends on what exactly the guy was doing. Is he playing with his dog? Is he relaxing on a bench and enjoying the sun? Or is he walking up to kids and trying to engage them in conversation? But even in the most extreme situation, it would just be a heightened alert on my part. Not a case of calling the police or harassing the guy. Maybe a "hi, how are you" if he is talking to my kid, but still no harassment.

BTW, I would actually feel better if the guy was OC'ing, as I believe most perverts would try to blend in and not draw attention to themselves.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 8279
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#25

Post by mojo84 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:51 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
bblhd672 wrote:The crazed woman probably would have called the police if the man was concealed carrying under a plain shirt that rode up where she could see his legally carried self defense handgun.
Crazy (translate: progressive socialist low IQ voter) doesn't care about anything but their agenda.
It wouldn't surprise me if a person like her called the cops just because he was a man in the park with little kids around when most of the other adults were women. Why in the world would a man want to play in a park with little kids and women around if he wasn't a perv?

/sarcasm/
As a parent, my alert condition increases anytime that I see a single man in a place where there are a lot of kids. That's just basic threat profiling. This would be much more of an alert situation if the setting was something like a Chuck-E-Cheese, though, because unlike a park, there are very few adult men who would want to go to Chuck-E's without kids. Same situation at the latest Cartoon movie, etc. It also depends on what exactly the guy was doing. Is he playing with his dog? Is he relaxing on a bench and enjoying the sun? Or is he walking up to kids and trying to engage them in conversation? But even in the most extreme situation, it would just be a heightened alert on my part. Not a case of calling the police or harassing the guy. Maybe a "hi, how are you" if he is talking to my kid, but still no harassment.

BTW, I would actually feel better if the guy was OC'ing, as I believe most perverts would try to blend in and not draw attention to themselves.
Apparently you aren't a person like her.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#26

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:00 am

LDB415 wrote:It can be argued, at least partially accurately, that open carry is "in your face" just by it's existence. I'm not arguing against it, or for it for that matter, just pointing out that openly carrying a firearm is an "in your face" action, at least to those who are anti-gun. I don't play poker with my cards laying face up on the table. I don't open carry. Either of those options is fine for anyone else who chooses to exercise them. I'll stand with the hand I have.
You address two completely different things in such a short post.

First regarding offending others. Everything could be argued to be "in your face" for someone who disagrees with you. Ordering a steak is "in your face" if there is a vegan nearby. Holding a door open for a lady is "in your face" to an ardent feminist. Wearing a MAGA hat, or an "I'm with her" button is "in your face" to someone who holds strong political beliefs the other way. Driving by yourself is "in your face" to an environmentalist who thinks everyone should take mass transit. Living your life in such a way that you don't risk offending anyone will lead to a very limited existence.

Second, regarding the tactical advantages of concealed vs open carry. I think it depends on your objectives. I play poker. On rare occasions, where allowed by the house rules, I will expose my cards to my opponent when he is facing a decision. I would do this if I believe that he will make the correct call without seeing my cards, but will incorrectly fold if he knows my cards. Think AA vs KK pre-flop with a huge pot and a relatively small final bet to be called. Similarly, if I am more worried about enticing someone to not attack me, than I am with killing him and winning a gun fight, then OC may be a better choice. It's the whole thing of "the only fight you truly win is the one you avoided having in the first place". I sometimes OC, and I sometimes CC. It depends on a number of factors, including my clothing, and whether I am in a place where someone would intentionally attack me even though they know I have a gun (presence of very reckless or aggressive criminals).
Ding dong, the witch is dead


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#27

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:00 am

mojo84 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
bblhd672 wrote:The crazed woman probably would have called the police if the man was concealed carrying under a plain shirt that rode up where she could see his legally carried self defense handgun.
Crazy (translate: progressive socialist low IQ voter) doesn't care about anything but their agenda.
It wouldn't surprise me if a person like her called the cops just because he was a man in the park with little kids around when most of the other adults were women. Why in the world would a man want to play in a park with little kids and women around if he wasn't a perv?

/sarcasm/
As a parent, my alert condition increases anytime that I see a single man in a place where there are a lot of kids. That's just basic threat profiling. This would be much more of an alert situation if the setting was something like a Chuck-E-Cheese, though, because unlike a park, there are very few adult men who would want to go to Chuck-E's without kids. Same situation at the latest Cartoon movie, etc. It also depends on what exactly the guy was doing. Is he playing with his dog? Is he relaxing on a bench and enjoying the sun? Or is he walking up to kids and trying to engage them in conversation? But even in the most extreme situation, it would just be a heightened alert on my part. Not a case of calling the police or harassing the guy. Maybe a "hi, how are you" if he is talking to my kid, but still no harassment.

BTW, I would actually feel better if the guy was OC'ing, as I believe most perverts would try to blend in and not draw attention to themselves.
Apparently you aren't a person like her.
I sure hope not.

By the way, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just adding some thoughts.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#28

Post by K.Mooneyham » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:09 am

So, I am curious about this statement: “gun holstered to his chest,”.

State law (PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS) says "(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
handgun or club; and
(2) is not:
(A) on the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control; or
(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned
by the person or under the person’s control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or
watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control at any time
in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is licensed to carry a
handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and the
handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster; or


So, if the handgun was "holstered to his chest", was it being carried in a shoulder holster? Or was he using some other sort of holster like a "tanker holster", and the police considered that close enough? I know that's not the sticking point of this post, but it's the sort of thing I'm always curious about.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#29

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:14 am

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, I am curious about this statement: “gun holstered to his chest,”.

State law (PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS) says "(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
handgun or club; and
(2) is not:
(A) on the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control; or
(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned
by the person or under the person’s control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or
watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control at any time
in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is licensed to carry a
handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and the
handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster; or


So, if the handgun was "holstered to his chest", was it being carried in a shoulder holster? Or was he using some other sort of holster like a "tanker holster", and the police considered that close enough? I know that's not the sticking point of this post, but it's the sort of thing I'm always curious about.
I'm going to assume that the gun was in either a shoulder or belt holster, as required by law, since the police did not issue him a citation, but I could be wrong. Note that the phrasing apparently came from the woman who called in the complaint. I don't think that she is either unbiased or particularly knowledgeable about firearms.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4002
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

#30

Post by Jusme » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:42 am

SQLGeek wrote:If she was so scared, why did she stay in the park with her kids?
:iagree:

From reading the links, it sounds like she would have done the same thing no matter what the dad was wearing. It was the gun that bothered her. If he had just been wearing the shirt with no visible gun, she may have had her snowflake sensibilities in a wad, but by "warning" people of a man with a gun, she showed her hand as to her main agenda. JMHO
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

Locked

Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”