If this happened in my neck of the woods, I’d rightly assume it was some stunt, geared to express their pseudo political and macho bullshit. If that’s the case, I have no desire to mix up my shopping experiences with a place so cavalierly endangering people. Because truly, a lot of minimum wage slaves would only be interested in carrying due to the bonuses, and not the best purveyors of safety for others. I say all this as a former CC.
Did the definition of gun not fulfill your requisite of a cite? Are you being intentionally dense? I’m not exactly sure what your “cite” is suppose to prove.
Kobe Bryant shoots until he’s made 1000 jump shots after every practice which equates to 2000 points yet he only manages to score 28 a game. By your logic that’s a cite that a jump shot’s only purpose is to score points?
Non-hypothetical response: Kelly’s Liquor in Albuquerque used to fit the OP’s description on the point of all employees openly carrying. I went back many times as the prices were low and employees knowledgable. The business changed hands twenty or so years ago, and I would not trust the high turnover frat boys they now hire with a slingshot. Also I quit drinking, so that is one less thing to be annoyed over.
No. It doesn’t meet any criteria proof. You made a statement of your opinion as if it was fact. It is not. Guns are capable of being used to maim, destroy and kill. That is not their sole purpose. Which was your claim of fact. Prove it or admit it’s just your opinion.
Do you have any idea how analogies are supposed to work?
Drug control has worked so well.
Telling people to come to this country legally has worked so well.
Collect all the guns or let most rust? Bawahahaha
There will be no smuggling because we know how & do such a good job of stopping that.
All guns means all law enforcement too. National guard. All regular military weapons must be kept out of the country to be picked up when needed.
No shotguns or rifles. Those can be cut down very small and you could make a lot of $$$ selling them to bad guys in Canada & Mexico right before they walk across the border without a care in the world due to our great border control.
If any guns are in country, they will get some into the wrong hands within the first week and since there is no magic satellite to instantly get them all, at the first sign of the gov coming for them, a lot are going to fall in the lake the day before. OOPS !!!
How many open carry public places where it is unusually done in the USA?
If you think there are that many idiots that accidental discharges, wild drunken rampages are likely to happen when it has not with concealed carry, what social model is used to determine that this is likely?
I really do not understand it because it does not scare me. Neither does flying. But some people are crazy afraid of flying, why? Car drivers, no one seems to be afraid of them and by all studies I have ever seen or heard of, are much more likely to get you killed by your own hand or the other guys hand.
I really don’t get the fear.
Mental health needs 10,000 times more work and consideration than guns & gun laws.
YMMV
You’re trying to apply quantitative measures to a qualitative measure. The fact that “purpose” is a subjective measure doesn’t mean it can’t be held as a matter of fact. It’s as if you’re asking for a cite that the sole purpose of a car is to move between two points in space.
Furthermore, if your point is that the purpose of gun isn’t in the killing but rather its use as a deterrent based on merely the THREAT of its ability to injure, maim, or kill then I believe that’s a specious argument. The value in that gun is SOLELY based on its ability to kill. If that gun can’t kill, it has no purpose.
Trying to hide that fact, ignore that fact, or squirrel your way around that fact is disingenuous.
It’s your own stupid criteria based on volume vs recorded results. I still don’t really know what you hoped to “cite” by citing the “low” number of deaths resulting from the “high” number of guns in circulation.
If you must defend yourself with a gun, do you shoot to kill, or shoot to inflict a non-fatal wound?
Now imagine giving that talk to 1,000 random people who were all armed.
Although I get regular practice with the handgun I keep bedside, I’d never claim proficiency great enough to do more than aim for the center of mass. Although it would be cool as heck to shoot an intruders hat off of his head, then have him throw his hands into the air and piss himself.
The last time I fired at something other than a target it was a fox walking around our yard. It tested positive for rabies. Before that it was a deer that a hunter had gut-shot that stumbled into our yard and laid down.
I realize that both were obviously trespassing on private property, but I assume neither was armed or acting in a threatening manner. That’s not what you told the cops though, was it?
The OP’s scenario said discreetly armed, and then after a while you notice they are such - to me this means concealed carry but printing, or their vests/jackets/cover hangs open. A little sloppy.
(Why did several think open carry? Perhaps they didn’t actually read the OP.)
As Czarcasm said upthread, knowing how to shoot and knowing when to shoot are two very different things. Both are needed, but there’s a lot more than that like how to assess the threat(s), how to coordinate fires against the threat(s) and with friendlies in the area, and also how to handle the situation when your adrenalin is pegged.
So, I consider leaving because I don’t know how well trained they are. I don’t necessarily leave, but I’m at a heightened state of alert. Poorly-trained, armed people can easily take a bad situation and make it much, much worse.
I do not assume that those who carry are sufficiently well-trained. I post this as a retired Marine and a CCW license holder from multiple states.
Exactly. you made the claim as fact.
Finally. Yes. That you THINK it’s a specious argument doesn’t make it so. I would submit to you, that most guns purchased (see my last two posts) are purchased with the purpose of protection. Most, like in the millions, of guns will never be fired. Their threat is the purpose of their purchase.
How the fuck would you know this is something I don’t really believe? Oh. Right. Because your opinions hold the weight of fact. You say it. It is so. No proof need be supplied. It just is.
I provided facts. What did you provide besides your own opinion? Oh. Right. See above.
Indeed, the rabid fox was threatening. Ever been face to face with a rabid fox? Scarey shit. Racoons tend to act drunken and uncoordinated. Foxes tend to be malevolent and totally unafraid.
An interesting real-life incent similar to what the OP asks about happened here. Five men in full compliance with the law open-carried their handguns in a Culver’s restaurant in Madison, Wisconsin in 2010. A woman in her car outside the restaurant was so weirded out that she called police to come and check things out, even though the guys weren’t doing anything with their guns. Cops came, asked all five for ID, and arrested two who refused to show ID. The charges were ultimately dropped, and the city settled a lawsuit brought by the group for $10,000.
Just out of curiosity, do they allow loaded weapons at gun shows ? I’ve never been to a show but I would think a vendor selling his wares would not want to risk someone getting injured.
So one carrier wants to decline coverage if their clients carry guns in a place where it’s typically VERY illegal for civilians to have guns (even with a CCL)?
I have air bags and insurance on my car, even tho I don’t anticipate using them. I guess that makes me irrational.:rolleyes:
I cited the OED and you’re being a pedantic ass.
Your facts have nothing to do with what you want to validate/invalidate.
Do you understand the difference between, ‘Required by Law’ and ‘Permitted by Law’?
You have airbags and insurance because you are Required by Law to have those things. They are considered to be good things by society.
You are Permitted by Law to carry a weapon in public. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea and, as it turns out more often than not, it’s actually considered to be a bad one.
What are we supposed to take from this story?