Gun culture in US - Why?

[ExTank]

@Duhkecco

According to the company and the law, were you allowed to have guns at work? And, what specifically was the purpose of the guns? Wouldn’t a group of employees walking together have been enough to deter a would-be mugger? Or was there a gang of hoodlums menacing the neighborhood and you felt that you needed guns as deterrents? Did you think that any of the possible attackers had guns?

Being as the company was private property, the law was/is silent on that point. Company policy prohibited it, but in the absence of either law enforcement or security taking a hand to protect their own employees (even contractors) on company property, local supervisors looked the other way on the issue.

A group may have been enough, but we weren’t going to find out the hard way. We felt that an armed group (three of us most of the time) would be sufficient. The lady that was attacked reported that their were 4 or 5 assailants. We never found out if they were gang affiliated.

They may have had guns themselves; we only saw one group of skeevy looking characters occasionally hanging around a dark corner of the parking lot (they would be laughing/joking amongst themselves until we came out; then they just watched us, the way hungry lions watch a herd of zebras). We carried concealed, so there was no way for them to tell if we were armed. I don’t know if it was the same group that attacked the lady; they never approached us as a group.

@Duhkecco

After the woman was attacked, were there any policy officers patrolling the area?

Also, if the neighborhood was “not a place you wanted to be in at night”, why was the woman allowed to walk unescorted in the parking lot at night?

Based on the bare bones of the story, I don’t understand why guns were needed to protect the employees, or, if the area was so dangerous, why a telcom company would have an office there and why people would choose to work there.

The police refused to assign a regular patrol after-hours during shift change, They did offer to allow off-duty police officers to patrol as “armed security.” The company declined to pay the additional cost.

Security (another contractor company) wouldn’t patrol unarmed outside the building at night in that part of town.

It was a large lot, that would be full when we came to work at 4:00 PM in the afternoon, se we’d park wherever we could find a spot; this left those of us on night shift scattered all over the lot. So when we got off work at 1:00 AM, not always “all together,” we’d all split up and head hither-and-yon to our cars. She was in a corner of the lot and was jumped out of the shadows.

After that incident, we would try to get out to the lot around ~6:00 PM to move our cars in closer to the door.

Why guns were needed? Are you fucking retarded? Have you ever tried to physically fight off 4-5 20-something assailants, in the dark? I haven’t, and I don’t ever intend to try.

And as I stated previously, the telcom was located just off of downtown Dallas, an area that’s okay during the day due to high traffic and visibility. When the company originally started there in the '60s the neighborhood was rather nice; a couple of decades of urban decay have taken their toll.

And why people would work there is simple: it’s a fucking job that pays. Not everyone has the luxury to pick-and-choose.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@JXJohns

Again, not speaking for anyone in particular, but I would venture a guess that they would call cowards, those who choose to fear an inanimate object.

As I’ve pointed out, they fear plenty of inanimate objects (like illicit drugs, for example). And I would argue that being literally unwilling to go somewhere like Disney World where you cannot go armed is not the sign of a brave person. I think people like this make the mistake of equating bravery with some kind of aggressive or martial achievement. They don’t understand that there are other ways of being brave.

I’m not accusing you of any of this, naturally. You haven’t said anything that indicates that you subscribe to this (nor have the other gun defenders in this thread, like scumpup). And I am not personally afraid of guns–I grew up hunting.

[Declan]

@xtisme

**Are you saying that a Canadian with a gun would not defend his or her home with it if invaded?? ** They would just stand by and let the chips fall where they might and hope the police happen to come by, never even considering using the gun they have handy?-XT

It depends on the Canadian, most of the owners of firearms that I personally know are complying with various laws regarding storage , but given the right circumstances would probably keep them handy in a condition one mode.

There is not that many places in Canada were the threatcon is sufficient to worry about various sundry crime and the cops do tend to devote alot of time and energy to clamping down hard when ever home invasions crop up in the various metro areas.

One thing for people to understand is we are really not that different from Americans when it comes to second amendment rights, in polite society most Canadians would poo poo outright ownership of weapons , but in more private setting its a different story, obviously milage will vary.

We dont need guns for most reasons, thats not the same as people dont want them.

Declan

[Duhkecco]

@ExTank

Why guns were needed? Are you fucking retarded?

No, I’m not. (Or, if I am, I’m too retarded to know that I am.)

I said:

Based on the bare bones of the story, I don’t understand why guns were needed to protect the employees.

You hadn’t yet said that the woman “reported that there were 4 or 5 assailants.” Also, I had previously asked this:

Or, was there a gang of hoodlums menacing the neighborhood and you felt that you needed guns as deterrents?

In any case, why did you carry the guns concealed? Were you trying to deter or were you hoping for an attack?

A few more points:

Being as the company was private property, the law was/is silent on that point.

So, everyone who brought a handgun to work was doing it lawfully? Just wondering.

we only saw one group of skeevy looking characters occasionally hanging around a dark corner of the parking lot

Was anybody charged with attacking the woman? Did the police investigate the crime?

The company declined to pay the additional cost.

After one of their employees was brutually attacked? So, this isn’t just about gun culture.

Also, it is seems to be about vigilantes. And choices.

[ExTank]

@Duhkecco

No, I’m not. (Or, if I am, I’m too retarded to know that I am.)

I said:You hadn’t yet said that the woman “reported that there were 4 or 5 assailants.” Also, I had previously asked this:In any case, why did you carry the guns concealed? Were you trying to deter or were you hoping for an attack?

A few more points: So, everyone who brought a handgun to work was doing it lawfully? Just wondering.Was anybody charged with attacking the woman? Did the police investigate the crime?After one of their employees was brutually attacked? So, this isn’t just about gun culture.

Also, it is seems to be about vigilantes. And choices.

We carried concealed because even having firearms on company property was against policy, While we had a sort of silent approval from some supervisors, we weren’t going to blatantly advertise the fact to every single person by strapping a gun on our hip.

Again, “Law” or “Lawfully” doesn’t enter into the equation on private property. Since the woman couldn’t identify her attackers, the investigation didn’t go very far.

We never attacked/assaulted anyone with our firearms; I don’t see how vigilantism enters into the equation. We broke no laws, and only violated a company policy with the knowing consent of several members of company lower- and middle-management, who were as equally disgusted with the police and upper-management’s inability and unwillingness to protect people.

I know that moving our cars closer to the doors after 6:00 PM and leaving as a group did more to deter any more attacks, and that the firearms, of which no potential attacker(s) even knew of, were a non-issue as a deterent.

Those guns were just there. Just in case.

[elucidator]

How many such incidents had you had before? If this were the only one, I’d be inclined to think of it as one of those urban anomolies which, like shit, just “happen”. And if you didn’t make a point of openly carrying, you certainly can’t claim any deterrent value, since nobody knew you had a gun, they could hardly be “deterred”.

[ExTank]

@elucidator

How many such incidents had you had before? If this were the only one, I’d be inclined to think of it as one of those urban anomolies which, like shit, just “happen”. And if you didn’t make a point of openly carrying, you certainly can’t claim any deterrent value, since nobody knew you had a gun, they could hardly be “deterred”.

Er, yeah. That’s what I just said.

[Duhkecco]

@ExTank

Again, “Law” or “Lawfully” doesn’t enter into the equation on private property.

Do U.S. gun laws make a distinction based on public or private property?
This doesn’t seem to be the case with most laws.

[ExTank]

@Duhkecco

Do U.S. gun laws make a distinction based on public or private property?
This doesn’t seem to be the case with most laws.

The United States does not. Individual states may. Texas, to the best of my knowledge, respects the public/public access/private property divide.

[Duhkecco]

Well, I was going to ask for a cite but I found one in the Wikipedia article on Gun laws in the United States:

Texas has no laws regarding possession of handguns, shotguns, or rifles by persons 18 years or older without felony convictions.
…
A rifle, shotgun, or other long-barreled firearm may be carried openly, although there is debate as to whether doing so constitutes “disorderly conduct” (which defines an offense, in part, as “displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm”). Open carry of a handgun in public is generally illegal in Texas; exceptions include when the carrier is on property he/she owns or has lawful control over, while hunting, or while participating in some gun-related public event such as a gun show. A permit to carry concealed is thus required to carry a handgun in public.

Based on this article, it seems that you are right.

Thanks for your answers.

[ivan_astikov]

“The first state court decision resulting from the “right to bear arms” issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that “the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, …”” “This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified.”

Could someone elaborate on the significance and circumstances surrounding this ruling?

[Grumman]

@ivan_astikov

Could someone elaborate on the significance and circumstances surrounding this ruling?

From the looks of it: in 1822, Bliss was fined $100 for carrying a cane-sword, a concealed weapon, but this ruling was reversed, as the law was apparently held to be unconstitutional, as the state constitution stated “that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned.”

[ivan_astikov]

What about this line?

“This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified.”

Based on what?

[Grumman]

@ivan_astikov

What about this line?
Based on what?

Based on the constitution, because that’s what the state constitution said: that the right to bear arms for self defense would not be questioned.