Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Actually I'm not. I recognize their culpability in creating the situation, and I think they are guilty of manslaughter for the death arising from the situation that they created.

But you are refusing to recognize this woman's fear after this guy said that she wasn't going to like what he was about to do and then tried to lure her pet away from her.

That's because she didn't lack fear. Her fear was just as genuine as the fear of the jogger in Georgia.

Here are the parts where you accused her of racism for merely calling 911 when a black man said she wasn't going to like what he was about to do and then tried to lure her pet away from her:

"a racist rant by the girl."
"the white girls racist rant?"
"going on a racist rant"
"her racism"

That limited defense was nice of course. But supporting the false accusation of racism still supports the lynch mob that is using that false accusation to justify doing actual harm to her.

Gun people are taking pictures of themselves aiming weapons at their dicks. The safety is off, their finger hovers on the trigger, and the barrel of the weapon is pointed straight at their genitals. “Now these MAGA dolts are pointing guns at their dicks with the safeties off and their fingers on the trigger to own the libs,” filmmaker Dylan Park tweeted alongside three pictures of guns pointed at dicks.

But pointing a gun at your penis has nothing to do with owning the libs and everything to do with ironically mocking basic safety in gun culture. The trend is about a year old and it was born in the fires of Facebook’s gun groups. On one side are responsible gun owners, on the other is a group of men aiming a deadly weapon at their dicks to prove a point that they can only vaguely explain.

Gun enthusiasts love taking pictures of their guns. It’s common practice. America has a gun culture as robust, diverse, and complicated as comic book fans, fantasy nerds, PC gamers, or any other subculture. Like those communities, gun nerds have their own memetic language and fight among themselves. Unlike pop culture enthusiasts, the hobby of a gun nerd is based on a tool designed to kill. It’s distressing then, to the responsible gun owner, when fringe elements in their community post pictures online of them pointing guns at their dicks.

And gun nerds are distressed. “These gun owners do not represent us,” Brandon Curtis, owner of Concealed Nation—a gun blog whose tagline is "we are responsible carry"—said in a post on his site. “Just as with any other types of trolls, do not feed them. I’ve seen a rash of these posts in the Concealed Nation Extra group, and all involved received a permanent ban. It comes down to safety, and those actions break many rules.”

But this still raises the question, why are people pointing guns at their dicks and taking a picture of it? It has nothing to do with "owning the libs." It is, essentially, shitposting, and internal fighting within the gun ownership community.

Like with any other fandom, there’s levels to gun culture. In the online gun community there are "normies" and "fudds." Normies cover a range of people, anyone from a basic handgun owner to the completely uninitiated. Fudds—as in Bugs Bunny hunter Elmer Fudd—are the old heads, weirdos, and dedicated gun nuts. Some fudds hate normies and the way normies talk about guns. Even the normies who know their way around a firearm.

A chief complaint among fudds is the normie’s devotion to safety, typically manifested as knee-jerk praise of trigger discipline. For the uninitiated, watching trigger discipline refers to the act of keeping your finger off the trigger of a firearm until you’re ready to fire the weapon. It’s a safety basic, along with never pointing a gun at anyone or anything you don’t intend to harm, and always assuming a gun is loaded. Trigger and muzzle discipline will tell you a lot about a person holding a firearm. Typically, if they keep the muzzle away from the camera and their finger off the trigger—even while holding the grip—they know their way around a weapon.

Inevitably, when some idiot posts a picture of themselves with a firearm, another idiot will jump into the comments to praise or chide the idiot for their trigger discipline. Some fudds hate this.

“The uninitiated zero in on dumb **** like this because it's their entire knowledge base. It's the only thing they understand,” the moderator of the Facebook group “**** Gun Normos Say,” said in a post. “Congratulating people for keeping their finger in the right place is like congratulating somebody for not wrapping their seatbelt around their neck, or for not shitting their pants in public.”

To combat this apparent scourge of responsible gun ownership, some fudds have taken to posting pictures of themselves pointing allegedly loaded weapons at their own dicks, with their finger on the trigger. If this doesn’t make sense to you, you’re not alone. The trend is around a year old, and it’s an issue gun groups—especially those on Facebook—have been dealing with for a while.
... ... ...

Wow. First time I've seen you say that outright in such a way. Good for you (You've mentioned the manslaughter charges before, but it always seems to come with a caveat at it was the victims fault)

I'm not sure whose writing you are reading:
- She might have felt afraid initially at the vague 'threat'.

- Which of course could be viewed as threatening, as I said.......What that vague 'threat' actually meant, would be seen in the follow up actions.... If someone said what he said, then offered my dog a treat, I too would pull my dog back and tell him to f**k off.......She might have been frightened for a bit. And that fright would be justified to a degree..... That fright after he offered her dog a treat, should have alleviated quickly given the subsequent calm, non-threatening, rational, conscience free behaviours of the man, but it continued to morph into a racist rant by the girl.

There's wiggle room here. You've gone from comparing her fear to the joggers fear for his life (implying it is of the same level), to now just talking about both having fear - which there is no dispute over.

Umm...wow. You remove words from context that explains why it was racist...

...to try and put new words in my mouth?

That post explains exactly why it was racist. It most certainly was not merely for calling 911 when a black man said she wasn't going to like what he was about to do and then tried to lure her pet away from her, which sort of behaviour would be fine.

Hardly. She's not here. Marketing departments don't follow this forum (and there's no way of measuring it). It's a discussion on the rights and wrongs of a situation.

Gun owners are putting their metal where their manhoods are in a bizarre trend that sees men courting danger to prove how well they can manage a gun.

You're doing your racist thing again,

inventing scenarios to make the guilty white people the innocent victims and the innocent black people involved the real perpetrators..

That's racist

and total fabrications and you do it all the time.

No. You fabricate what you call reality all the time. It's alternate reality, i.e. not reality.

You're doing that here,

and you're coming down on the side of the racist one in the situation as you always seem to do.

I'm a little unclear how telling someone to call the cops, as he did, makes it impossible to call the cops as you contend.

She makes the call and then her case falls apart. It's on her. He wasn't threatening her.

He stayed at least ten feet away, she gets racist and vindictive and false,

which is why the Manhattan DA is looking into filing charges against her, not him.

You're condoning murder of innocents.

She felt threatened continuously until the guy went away and stopped menacing her.

The threat did not alleviate until after the guy went away and stopped menacing her. And he did not do that until after she called the police.

Calling 911 when a black man says that you are not going to like what he is about to do and then tries to lure your pet away is not racist in any way.

All four quotations are accurate.

The only thing that this woman did was call 911 when a black man said that she wasn't going to like what he was about to do and then tried to lure her pet away.

The fact that you are a very small voice in a very large lynch mob does not absolve you of moral culpability for the atrocity that the lynch mob is committing.

And of course, by "menacing" you mean "Videoing her histrionics, standing still, talking in a reasonable tone to her"

- If you can actually see anything on that video that a normal person would see as menacing, please share.

You talk so frequently about reality...but all you actually are dealing in here is your one eyed perspective.

See above + he stayed and video'd her behaviour even after she called police. He left immediately after she leashed her dog, saying thank you before immediately departing.

Your version isn't precisely accurate (but if you ignore the specific timings - sure he left after she called police. But that is what this your version does - avoids the specific timings)

I agree (my agreement with this has been said a number of times now). And nor have I said such is racist - it isn't. Perhaps your penchant for looking at things with a stringent one eyed view results in you reading very skewed versions of what is actually written.

You say this like this is under dispute - of course they are accurate.

They just don't relate to what you claim I said.

You're not dumb, so stop pretending that completely removing phrases from their actual explanation works. And stop pretending that once having removed statements from their explanation, that claiming a different explanation - in any way works. Such deteriorates further as, if we removed the context - we would both agree on your new 'interpretation' (and you've already been told we would agree, but continue to raise it).

This is not the only thing she did. She also engaged in numerous behaviours, and used words (a call is the physical act of calling a telephone number). A call to 911 itself is not the issue - it's the surrounding behaviours, words, and circumstances.

That's interesting:
- here I thought you were for freedom of speech.

- you often engage in the rights & wrongs of incidents on this forum
- but here you are objecting to me discussing the rights & wrongs of an incident

- and claiming that discussing the rights & wrongs is akin to a lynching

- you see defending her right to keep her job as irrelevant...in your view it still constitutes a lynching

- that she isn't on this forum...in your view is irrelevant...in your view it still constitutes a lynching
- this forum doesn't in any way affect her life...but to you, it's still akin to a lynching...