This is really a question?
Assuming I’m not being wooshed… yes, one carrying a concealed firearm into a store is a threat to the other shoppers.
Let me clarify…
nobody sees the gun
Are you still a threat?
Yes. Far more of a threat than one who isn’t carrying a gun.
Again… is this a trick question?
It’s all based on the idea of whether or not you think people who are legally carrying concealed are inherently dangerous. Target does. I don’t.
Until they are.
There was that guy in Las Vegas a few weeks ago. He went to confront the cop-killer, started to draw his concealed weapon, now he is dead.
Which supports the argument that guns make you stupid. A person without a gun would have been cautious, or fled, but the guy with the gun had courage in his pocket. In that respect, even concealed-bearers are a threat. For instance, there are Target stores in Florida, one state where guns are routinely used to settle arguments: if I am running a retail establishment, I would prefer SYG incidents to occur not on my property, excluding guns helps me toward that goal.
On Tuesday, the first day that Georgia’s new open carry law was in effect, two guys with guns got into a confrontation in a convenience store. One guy was in the store packing heat when a second person, also packing heat, entered the store. The second guy drew his gun and demanded ID from the first guy. Astonishingly, the first guy did not shoot the second guy, although he likely would have been cleared of any wrongdoing under stand your ground or whatever equivalent law exists in Georgia. What he did instead was call the police, who arrested the second guy, because apparently asking someone to show you their gun permit is illegal in Georgia, even for police.
If I roll two dice and get twelve, what are the odds that at least one of them comes up one?
You’re assuming an outcome, and then using that assumption to neglect the uncertainties inherent in an event. My rolling 12 this time has no bearing on what’s going to happen next time, and the probability of rolling at least one 1 next time are still 1/3. Likewise, nobody seeing the gun THIS visit to Target doesn’t make it any less of a risk during the next visit to Target.
On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being not at all a threat and 10 being an imminent threat…
You have two customers. One doesn’t have a gun. The other has one concealed. This is all the information you have. (I.e, making suppositions about the character or motives of the customers is fruitless - all you need to know is one has a concealed gun and the other doesn’t.)
Which customer will be closer to the “1” on the scale?
Or maybe he was honestly trying to prevent harm to others as an on-the-spot responder, and was simply unlucky enough to get blindsided. Would you still call him “stupid”, and his firearm “pocket courage”, if he’d happened to be an off-duty police officer who did the same thing?
I’m going to have to ask for a cite that “gun rage” episodes have increased in FL since carry was enacted.
Honestly, where does this trope come from that people who carry are ticking time bombs waiting to go off? Most people I know of who carry report that they are less impulsive when they carry, because they’re aware that they need to stay out of trouble and not escalate.
By that reasoning, police officers are threats; no suppositions about character or motives remember.
Well, we’re talking about people who are carrying concealed legally, so we actually do have to make some suppositions about their character and motives, don’t we?
Based on the number of people carrying (millions) compared to the relatively small number of incidents, they’re both a 1.
So… a person with a firearm is an equal threat as one without? A person without a firearm has the same probability of (accidental discharge, theft of weapon, other) as one with a firearm?
Yeah… I can see the problem here. Lack of logic.
As I said, there are millions of permits out there. Unless there are hundreds of thousands of incidences out there, too, on a scale of 1 to 10, concealed carry isn’t that much of a threat.
Yes, a person who isn’t carrying a firearm can’t possibly misuse it. On the other hand, a person who isn’t carrying a firearm can’t possibly properly use it either (and remember that properly using it can include simply letting someone who’s sizing you up know that you have it).
Only the supposition that the carry of firearms by citizens has a utility approaching zero can justify the anti’s denigration of carrying.
Given that CCW holders are a self-selecting group which in most states has been through background checks, has a clean criminal record, a clean record of serious mental illness or incapacity, then the CCW holder is a 2 and the other person is a 3.
Was this supposed to be a “gotcha?”
The person without a gun is a bigger threat than the one with a gun?
What? From what, their hands?
Are you being serious?
If by threat you mean “how much harm they could hypothetically do”. I therefore propose that no one over 6’2" or 225 lbs be allowed in Target. Those big guys are a real threat!
This argument is boring me. A nervous nelly’s chances of dying in a car accident driving to the local Target are probably greater than being shot by a random CCW holder shopping at the same store. Speaking of scales from 1 to 10, I’m gonna go ahead and give a few people here a 1 in risk assessment.
Someone who expects trouble strongly enough to prepare for it is more likely to *find *it, hmm?