The Pussification of the British Male

I regret to announce that I am obliged to add a new category to these blog articles:

"The Pussification of the British Male"

There have been so many articles from the British, enumerating instances of "Home Invasions" which have been resolved by the resident (and which resulted in the wounding or death of the uninvited stranger in the home ... and persecution of the defending resident) ... it becomes apparent that British Law will no longer allow a Citizen to defend hearth, health and home.

(This is not a situation endemic to The Brits: there was once a blogsite titled "The Pusification of the Ameriican Male" which seems to have been deleted ... but dealt with similar circumstances where Americans who defended themselves were subsequently persecuted.  It also relates to at least one popular George Carlin comedic routine.)

The latest incident (H/T: NeverYetMelted) involves yet another British Resident who defends himself against a Home Intruder, resulting in the serious injury or demise of  the intruder.

Pensioner, 78, arrested for murder after 'stabbing burglar to death in his home': A pensioner has been arrested after a suspected burglar was killed during a violent tussle at his home. The 78-year-old was held on suspicion of murder after the 38-year-old died of his wounds in hospital in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Police said the struggle broke out after the pensioner, named locally as  Richard Osborn-Brooks, found two men inside his home in South Park, Hither Green, south London shortly after midnight. One of the burglars, who was armed with a screwdriver, forced the homeowner into his kitchen while his accomplice went upstairs. Detectives believe a struggle then took place between "one of the males and the homeowner" and the 38-year-old intruder was stabbed in the upper body.

Further details of the invasion, and resistance by the home-owner, are not immediately available.

My personal opinion is that any "home-invader" who enters an occupied residence has already demonstrated that he has no qualms about confronting the resident with violence.  The home owner is fully justified in taking what ever actions which seem best to defend himself, if not his possessions, because nobody can know the mind of a home invader.   It seems that the best defense is one which renders the invader least capable of inflicting injury or death to the residents.

Apples and Oranges

Both European and American gun-control agencies just can't imagine why America is a much more violent country:

What no politician wants to admit about gun control - Vox:

Think about it this way. In 2013, the US had 106.4 gun deaths per million people. That same year, the UK endured 144 gun deaths total — or 2.2 gun deaths per million people. To get to UK levels, we'd need to reduce gun deaths by over 98 percent. 

Think of it this way: European countries (generally speaking) have homogeneous populations.

America is unique in it's primary identity as a "nation of emigrants": Homogeniety is limited here to everyone has an opinion and feels free to express it. 

Americans don't always get along; and those nationals who choose to leave their home country and come to "The Land of the Brave and the Home of the Free" bring their internecine biases with them. 

(Liberals think this 'dichotomy of world view'  adds to the flavor; conservatives are grumpy about "outsiders".   What would we be if we all agreed with each other ... and so this is perhaps the most perfect world view.)  ... not a quote; an opinion.

This makes it much more difficult to confiscate guns in America (Second Amendment), but not impossible; if a sufficient number of Americans can be convinced that the right to possess a gun is "not just not a good idea, but a BAD idea!", it should be relatively easy for laws to be passed which ignore the "Embarrassing Second Amendment".

(Note: reserve some private time before clicking on Sanford Levinson's uncomfortable screed on 2nd Amendment Rights: you may find it ... discomforting.)

Fortunately the NOQ REPORT has compiled a list of measures which

x
x
x

Leftist Gun Confiscation: Whatever It Takes!

Prologue:  I encourage any 2nd Amendment researcher to follow the reference links included in this article.   Many of them are new to me.

Leftists Demanding Gun Confiscation – The short List updated to March 2018:

In order to execute the necessary steps to confiscate guns, the Left must first take control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] But they need to Lie about their ultimate goal so that the people will accept this drastic intrusion into their personal lives.

Fortunately for the Leftists, their definition of "Morality" includes saying anything which advances their agenda, with no qualms about "persiflage" as a defense against any charge of "lying".

The Right, on the other hand, is held to a higher standard.
Which is not difficult to accommodate, as long as they always tell the truth.

Which nobody believes, because it's not as interesting.

(emphasis added)

This is an abbreviated list [which] shows they are openly lying when they deny their intentions, it also shows they have developed some clever euphemisms for the taking everyone’s firearms.

The Other Side of the Constitution

"What Crime Have I Committed, Officer?"

I recently posted an article in support of teenagers who were marching for Gun Control.
My thesis was, this is their Constitutional Right, and although I do not agree with all of their arguments, I admire them for standing up in public for their free exercise of the First Amendment.

Nobody interfered with their peaceful protest.

Now we have a clear issue of whether the Second Amendment should be equally as supported and BOY HOWDY! was I surprised that it didn't receive the same public support!

Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube:

Equivalent Constitutional Rights of PEACEFUL PROTESTS (First and Second amendments) are being exercised in both instances, but when the SECOND AMENDMENT is the subject, the police are all over the protesters

The protestors were openly carrying firearms (which is legal under Texas law).
Police arrested 2nd Amendment protesters, because ....

"How can I tell if you're the bad guy?

(Maybe, if they're not shooting anybody, they haven't broken a law?)

I can't find the law, I'm just telling you to obey me 

James Freeman
Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans

"You're the only one threatening people, Officer"

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube:

 8:58 Olmos Park Tx Reject Texas Constitution Open Carry Tx P and P News 31K views 15:25 Olmos Park, TX=*POLICE Dept* Attention Needed News Now Houston 64K views FLAT EARTH DEBATE | Jacob Wohl vs. Ryan Zehm The BA Experience 273 watching LIVE NOW 6:17 Olmos Park Update CJ from Open Carry Texas P and P News 19K views 40:15 City of Olmos Park TX - Makes up their own laws overriding TX Law and the Constitution SAEXTAZYPREZ 18K views 40:15 Texas open carry laws modified by the City of Olmos Park, Texas TXSHEEPDOG72 16K views 16:14 1st Amendment Audit: NJ State Division of Taxation Building, City of Trenton POLICE STATE: NEW JERSEY 36K views 5:17 Florida Cop Says I must Conceal My Spare Pistol Magazine martinrps13 28K views 9:49 Olmos Park Police Chief Phone Call ( Full Call ) BLACKLAB3L COPWATCH 10K views 14:57 BUC G VIOLENTLY ASSAULTED BY OLMOS PARK PD - TXSHEEPDOG72 ARRESTED SAEXTAZYPREZ 23K views 2:18 Beloved Olmos Park police appeals firing WOAIVideo 11K views 7:04 OLMOS PARK COP Assaults Woman for filming TXSHEEPDOG72 BLACKLAB3L COPWATCH 11K views 7:32 CJ Grisham At Olmos Park Open Carry P and P News Footage P and P News 26K views New POLICE CHIEF IN OLMOS PARK TEXAS THINKS HES ABOVE THE LAW SAEXTAZYPREZ 21K views I can't find the law, I'm just telling you to obey me James Freeman 211K views SHOW MORE Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube: OCT Founder CJ Grisham was terrorized and arrested by the Olmos Park Police Chief for Open Carrying on a public sidewalk. This comes a day after the chief told CJ that people could open carry in Olmos Park, that they would not be drawn on, and that they wouldn't be forced into the pavement. Others were arrested as well, and the extent of the violence and abuse against all victims is still unclear. The Police Department BANNED the fire/ems from attending to the victims. March 27, 2018 around 6:15pm. See the video of Monday's phone conversation with the police chief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_X21... SHOW MORE

Why give face-time to the British Glory-hunter?

This british commentator has created a career by taunting Americans who support the Second Amendment.  He deliberately publishes opinion articles designed to taunt American readers to react ... and everytime someone posts an accusatory comment, or (worse) refers to him in an article, he sleeps to the soothing sound of the cash register enhancing his readership.

Piers Morgan Displays Ignorance Over Gun Rights, Yet Again:

Piers Morgan isn’t a fan of guns. By now, any of us familiar with the television host understands that. He’s long been on a crusade to try and make American gun laws mimic those of his beloved home country of England. Yet, once again, we pesky Americans refuse to disarm because some pompous Brit demanded it of us. Yesterday on Twitter, however, Morgan illustrated just how little he understands our constitutional rights

My small comments here will only encourage him.  I hope this is the last time any blogger will pay any attention to the sassenach who espouses views unpopular to Americans in hopes of enhancing his own quasi-celebrity status.

Gun Violence Studies Biased, Used to Force Agenda | National Review

Gun Violence Studies Biased, Used to Force Agenda | National Review: So, why are gun-control advocates up in arms (rhetorically) about the CDC? Cue the 1996 Dickey Amendment, regularly renewed by Congress, even after its author, Jay Dickey, left Congress and changed his tune on the issue, according to his 2015 interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep. This amendment was attached to the funding of the CDC and provided a restriction: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” But the CDC does still collect its own empirical data, published regularly as part of its National Violent Death Reporting System.

If the Second Amendment falls, our entire Bill of Rights falls | Fox News

I grew up with a naive affection for our government: America is the fairest country in the world.

But that has all changed now.

If the Second Amendment falls, our entire Bill of Rights falls | Fox News:

The startling new proposal by 97-year-old former Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is unwise, dangerous and totally unrealistic. For 227 years, the amendment has guaranteed that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” We should not abandon it. 

I believe that the Constitution is an unique document in the history of the world; it defends the rights of "Everyman", and limits the degree to which an arbitrary government may impose restriction on our rights.

Today, we discover there is a fox eating the belly out of our Constitution.  But unlike the Spartans, Americans are not 'trained' to accept the disembowelment of our natural rights.  Instead, we are encouraged to "Cry Havoc" and protest those who would have us Go Along to Get Along.

 I don't choose to heed the  unreasoned opinions of a nonagenarian jurist whose grasp on reality seems fleeting.   It's a terrible thing, to watch an honored gentleman of the law as he espouses a path which would undermine the freedoms of his fellow Americans.

I doubt this is a path he would have chosen in the reasoned years of his youth.

OSU policies restrict firearms on campus, only of individuals affiliated with university | The Daily Barometer | orangemedianetwork.com

OSU policies restrict firearms on campus, only of individuals affiliated with university | The Daily Barometer | orangemedianetwork.com: From state and federal laws to Oregon State University policies, courts have ruled that restrictions on firearms must be balanced with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Oregon law and the State Board of Higher Education give the university authority to control its ground and buildings, including limiting firearms from handguns to rifles like the AR-15. The university’s firearms policies restrict the possession of any type of firearm on all university property, said OSU Department of Public Safety Chief Suzy Tannenbaum. “These policies are communicated to OSU students, employees, vendors, OSU contractors and members of the public, who attend paid admission events and sporting activities,” Tannenbaum said in an email. “As well, the university communicates its policy regarding firearms on the Oregon State University website and on signage on exterior doors of many university buildings.”

Hillary Clinton: Australia Gun Ban 'Worth Looking At'

We are SO HAPPY that The Hillary-Ceast was not elected President!

During the 2015 Presidential Campaign, Hillary Clinton ( in a response to a question) suggested that "The Australian Solution is worth looking at".

Hillary Clinton: Australia Gun Ban 'Worth Looking At':

The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of…weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach–more of a permitting approach.

In the actual event, although the Australian government seemed to offer "a good price", there was no good price; since the firearms (previously legal) were soon to be "no longer legal", the firearms were confiscated at a pennys-on-the-dollar price because ... they were arbitrarily "illegal", and nobody could legally buy them.    There WAS no market.

So the expectation that they were bought "at a good price" was just a politically mandated confiscation.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And this was what Hillary Rodham Clinton expected to impose on the (previously free and constitutionally protected against "confiscation without compensation" American Public.

During her 2015 campaign, "The Hillary Beast" made it a part of her political platform that firearms confiscation from legal gun owners seemed to be A Good Idea ... one which was legitimized by the Australian Confiscation.

Had hillary been elected, honest Americans who possessed firearms would have been treated like criminals.  Their property would have been confiscated, they would have been held up to public ridicule by the Liberal Press when they protested, and America would have sunk deeper into the liberal abyss.

This was an unconstitutional action which has been espoused by liberal websites, including:

The Daily KOS

The Huffington Post

 ... and every other Liberal anti-gun website which believes that the4 Second Amendment is SOoooo 19th Century!


One wonders whether the same people would be so eager to undermine the FIRST amendment, which allows them to publish unpopular essays.

(This one is a good example)
x
z

\\PS:  Yes, I'v aware that the timing of publication is inappropriate.  Sometimes something gets stuck in your craw, and it takes a while to spit it out.  That don't make it wrong.
x

Second Amendment: Individual Gun Rights Have Strong Historical Support | National Review

Second Amendment: Individual Gun Rights Have Strong Historical Support | National Review: The right to keep & bear arms has always been an individual right, not a collective one. This week, retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens wrote an op-ed in The New York Times that advocated a position most liberal pundits and activists have been incrementally working toward for a long time: repealing the Second Amendment. And while many liberal columnists argued that Stevens had only given fodder to gun advocates — because his position is unfeasible right now — not one whose piece I read argued that Stevens was wrong on the merits. Not one claimed that American citizens do, in fact, have an inherent individual right to protect themselves with firearms.

Who Runs March for Our Lives?

I recently posted an opinion boosting teenage protestors (although I disagree with them) and wondering who were the "adults" who micromanaged  The March.

The following article may provide some answers:

Sultan Knish: Who Runs March for Our Lives?:

Gun control activists wring their hands over the NRA. They claim that a special interest lobby is illegitimately thwarting the “will of the people”. Yet it’s the anti-gun groups that are invariably false fronts. It’s very clear who runs the NRA. But the latest fake anti-NRA group is a nebulous shadow. Out front are the high school students and out back are the professional activists.

Here is CNN's version.

Yes, we DO want to take your guns

Following Stevens’ ‘Repeal 2A’ Rant, Anti-Gunners Run From Truth - Liberty Park Press:

Why does everything have to be a “loophole” and why are all restrictive gun control measures “common sense?”

Read The Whole Thing.

OMG ... an "Ammunition Loophole"? What will they think of next?

If you shoot a lot, you owe it to yourself to begin loading your own ammunition.

And even if you don't ... consider buying a press (you can buy a cheap one) and dies to match every center-fire cartridge you use.

And maybe even dies for a few "common calibers" which you don't currently use; you never know.

No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Loophole Here, Loophole There, Everything's A Freaking Loophole: Sen. Richard "I served in Vietnam (not!)" Blumenthal (D-CT) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) have come up with a new loophole that MUST be closed. That is the ammunition sale loophole. To that end, they have introduced the Ammunition Background Check Act (S.2627 / HR 5383) The bill would require instant background checks for the purchase of ammunition.

You never know what's going to happen next.

Buy a reloading press set-up which accepts a change of caliber with only the replacement of heads with dies matching calibers you own; they're not inexpensive, but who knows when reloading dies will become on the "wish list" of gun-grabbers?

Use a lot of pistol cartridges?  Buy extra brass.  Also caliber-appropriate bullets; cheap by the 5,000 unit purchase.  The ,38 cartridge dies may be used for 9mm  in certain circumstances, but if you have guns in both calibers, buy dies dedicated to the specific cartridge, and pre-set them for each cartridge.

And mark them, whatever calibers you choose, so you can shoot in the guns you own.

Note that tapered cases will require a different die for straight-wall cases.  (Research in other websites to determine which dies can be used for varying calibers._)

Buy dies which are "adjustable"  .. for example, you have a .270?  Buy dies for .25-06, if you have both rifles.   And by the way ... buy chamber gauges for EVERY caliber you expect to use (the .270 vs .25-06 example is not reliable).

The Way Things Are Going:

It's difficult to predict what restrictions and legalities may be imposed as new Federal (or even state) laws are imposed. Chances are that it will be a while ... a year, maybe two ... before legislation begins to limit your rights to load your own ammunition.   

Perhaps never.

Perhaps tomorrow.

It seems a (regrettable) expectation that a government which is increasingly dominated by anti-gun influences may eventually begin to perceive that those who reload their own ammunition are not bounded by whatever laws they impose.  Best to beat them to the punch, and provide your own tools to obviate unjust laws.

Why?

If your instant background checks are not effective in preventing firearms sales to dangerous persons, why do you need the same kind of checks on ammunition purchases?   You are applying the same failed "solutions" to a similar "problem", but expecting better results?

And if your background checks are ineffective in preventing criminals from purchasing firearms, why do you suppose that the SAME checks on purchasing ammunition will be more effective?

Blumenthal and Wasserman Schultz Introduce Ammunition Background Check Act | Press Releases | United States Senator Richard Blumenthal:

Under current law, just as criminals, domestic abusers, and dangerously mentally ill individuals are prohibited from purchasing a firearm, they are also prohibited from purchasing ammunition. Unlike firearms, however, federal law does not require a background check to prevent the illegal purchase of bullets. The Ammunition Background Check Act of 2018 would close this loophole by requiring all buyers of ammunition to undergo an instant background check under the same FBI National Instant Background Check System (NICS), the same quick and easy process that applies to the purchase of firearms.

Referring to the previous statement:

Federal law does not require a background check to prevent the illegal purchase of bullets.

(By that, one assumes that the ignorant author of the article refers to "loaded ammunition", not the "bullets" themselves.  One would wish that the press would get their terminology correct to prevent misunderstandings.)

It's curious that a law is imposed to restrict the purchase of ammunition by the people who are restricted from purchasing firearms.  Do members of the Federal Government think that the laws they have already passed are likely to be disobeyed

This does not speak well to their confidence vis a vis the efficacy of their original law restricting access to firearms.

When I was a Sergeant in the Army, I was taught to "never give an order which you know will be not be obeyed".

Apparently, the Politicians who have chosen to join in this autocratic movement to ban 2nd Amendment Rights have not yet learned this lesson.   Ultimately, they may learn that it is much easier to restrict rights to own firearms... but quite a different problem to restrict rights to ammunition.

The Second Amendment has often

Want to stop gun violence now? Regulate bullets

As if we don't have enough idiotic ignorant liberals in America, now the LA TIMES is importing them from foreign countries on their Opinion Pages?

Want to stop gun violence now? Regulate bullets: Robert Muggah is a co-founder of the Igarap Institute, headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, and a co-director of the SecDev Group in Ottawa.

Here's a quick recap of his unworkable "solutions" (all of which we've seen before"):

Because bullets are so widely available, people often wonder whether ammunition can be regulated at all. The answer is yes.

"AT ALL"?   Sure.   Realistically, considering the volume?  No way!

A good place to start is the factories where bullets are manufactured. Strict control on the production and sale of unusually dangerous ammunition would be straightforward, since such sales can now be monitored digitally.

(Would you please define "unusually dangerous ammunition"?   All ammunition is dangerous ... but then, you know that.  Don't you?)

It's also cheaper than ever to mark and trace bullets with microscopic codes or serial numbers, which help law enforcement solve gun-related crimes. This data can be registered with the buyer's personal information at the time of purchase.

(Can you cite a single instance where 'serialized ammunition' has ever been used by law enforcement to solve a 'gun-related crime'?   I didn't think so)

What's more, there are far fewer producers of ammunition than there are producers of firearms, according to Small Arms Analytics, a research firm. This makes the ammunition industry easier to regulate.

Give me strength ... and a strong stomach!

(1)  The author seems to conveniently ignore the fact that ammunition ("Bullets"!) are manufactured in Bulk.  They are usually inspected by hand, for Quality Control; but they are packed automatically.   Which strongly implies that any effort to "serialize" ammunition will not result in a reliable method of tying the individual "bullet" with the  package by which they are sold.

(2)  "Serialized Ammunition" is packed in quantities of (usually) no more than 50 rounds per package.  Some are SOLD in bulk ... by the bucket-load.  So if you're going to "easily mark ... bullets with microscopic codes or serial numbers" you must ensure that the buyers' personal information is related to an unique group of "bullets".   What happens when a serialized "bullet" is packed in the wrong package ... and purchased by a person with criminal intent?  And the (cartridge case) retrieved at the scene of a crime has the 'serial number' which belongs to a 50-round package purchased by an innocent person?   In that case, your "easier to regulate" scheme has served two purposes; a criminal escapes, and an innocent is prosecuted.   Sometimes "easier" is not the same as "better".

(3) Making the "ammunition industry easier to regulate" is an effort which is not commonly considered a requirement.  Every round is marked with the manufacturers' headstamp, so if a cartridge ("bullet", in your parlance) causes an injury which leads to adjudication, it's obvious who the manufacturer may be.    Common headstamps include "WIN" (Winchester), for example, plus the caliber of the cartridge on the base of the cartridge.

 (Note that the "BULLET" is a component of the cartridge ... which a knowledgeable person would have known and would not have used the two terms interchangeably!!!)

(4) Speaking of which, I am assuming that you truly intend to "serialize ammunition" by placing an unique (or semi-unique) serial number on the base of the CARTRIDGE, not on the BULLET.

Because if you are truly not so ignorant that you don't know the difference between the Cartridge and the Bullet, then you are raising the expense of ammunition manufacture to a quantum-level of complexity.   

Mr. Muggah, I'll cut you some slack and assume ignorance on your part; but if you deliberately said that BULLETS can be serialized and administratively .... somehow .... be linked to the serial number on the package of CARTRIDGES purchased by a gun owner, then you are not only ignorant of the manufacturing process but abysmally, fatally, incomprehensibly STUPID!!!!!

Want to stop gun violence now?

Here's a plan:  Register every person who reads your L.A. Times article and nods their head as if to say: "Yep; sounds reasonable to me!"

Y'all have serious Mental Health Issues ... or else you're all just IDIOTS.

NRA Blunder?

Bloomberg was all over last weekend's anti-gun march, featuring a plethora of teenagers who were mad as heck and are just not going to take it any more.    And for lack of any other organization devoted to protecting our Constitutional Rights, they (both the marchers and Bloomberg) dumped a smelly load all over the NRA.

NRA Created the March for Our Lives That Now Threatens It - Bloomberg:

... The marches against gun violence would not have been as big without the undercurrent of rage that liberals, Democrats, good-government activists, racial minorities, ethical conservatives and others carry through daily life under President Donald Trump’s regime. And they wouldn’t have been as big without the cathartic breakthroughs of #MeToo and the Women’s March that preceded them.

(At a guess, an "ethical conservative" is a RINO.)

I was rather impressed with the determination of these young people to take on the 500 pound gorilla  (the National Rifle Association) in the room.   And even more impressed by the liberal adults who used them like a rented mule to further the Liberal Agenda.






It would have been more impressive if the marchers actually knew what an "assault weapon" was :   (H/T: MasterClass)


The reporter embarrassed a lot of teens when he asked them what an "Assault Weapon" is.

He should have asked them to define "Roofie".

They know what that is.

Protesters say ban assault weapons…whatever they are

When a second-grader pointed a gun at me, I'm glad I wasn't armed

When a second-grader pointed a gun at me, I'm glad I wasn't armed - Chicago Tribune:

(A teacher recounts the story of when a student pointed a gun at her ... and she wonders how she responded had she been armed.)

IN THE EVENT, she talked the child down and carefully removed his gun from his hand.

When I first read this story, I wondered why it was news-worthy; then I realized that the casual reader probably expected that the teacher would have over-reacted.

Teachers don't do that; and neither do armed citizens.  This is a point which many people do not expect, because they assume that the immediate reaction to presentation of a gun would be violent.

They think that anyone who presents a gun, intends to shoot it.
They think that the only valid reaction to threatened violence is real violence.

That's not true.

There are three scenarios when you may find yourself confronted with a gun:

1:  when it is someone you know personally, and you have established a relationshiop;
2: when it is someone you know personally, and there is no relationship;
3: when it is a total stranger.

(1) when it is someone you know, they may not have your death as their primary goal.  DO NOT ATTEMPT TO TAKE THE GUN AWAY FROM THEM!

They are making a statement, and your best approach is to ignore the gun.
It isn't there.  They are not threatening your life.  They don't really want to shoot you.

Ignore the gun.  Speak to them calmly, rationally, and don't talk about the threat which they have interposed in the dialogue which has not yet been identified.

They don't want to shoot you; they just want to emphasize that their interpersonal issues with you are so severe (to them), they feel the need to catch your attention.

The gun is just a tool; it is not a threat.  Listen to them; the issues they bring up may not seem significant to you ... but that may be part of the problem.   They just want you to listen to them, so listen to them!

(2) when it is someone you know, but there is no "interpersonal problem" as far as you know ... the same thing; don't try to take the gun away from them. 

They want to talk, and your best response is to listen to them.  Agree with then if you must, but do not agree that violence is a valid response.   It's not a time to enter into an argument, but it may be a time when their issues are more important to them than your life.

(3) when it is a stranger, who has a goal which you may not yet know  ... allow yourself to enter into a conversation.  Are they trying to rob you?  Give them your money; you can get more.
Do they have societal issues?   Be gentle with them; you may not agree with them, but arguing is not A Good Idea!

Instead, allow them to "vent" their frustrations.   It's not necessary for you to agree with them ... they just want to have their moment to express themselves.