Guns And Threats: A Thought Experiment

[DSeid]

@Bone

… What kind of Scotsman would be considered a gun nut then? Has anyone on this board espoused such positions? This seems like a convenient way to disparage a group while retaining some deniability.

Well I do not endorse use of the term, well either term. In my experience most of the gun enthusiasts here are not gun nuts. There have been many very well reasoned and rational arguments made. Enough that my position has changed substantially over time. (Still think that Florida is full of fukkin firearm fascists though. :)) A few positions taken over the years by a few have been what I would characterize as fringe ones but no I do not care to name names or provide cites, especially in a GD thread. If anything there are, IMHO, a larger fraction of gun control advocates who fit “muggles” than gun enthusiasts who fit “nuts” here.

YMMV.

[Habeed]

@Bone

By ‘must be licensed’ do you mean banned? Because that seems to be the idea you’re going for. In what way would a regular person be able to obtain a license that allows them to carry? People who obtain CCW permits are already licensed, and depending on the state, undergo varying levels of safety training.

What I’m saying is that for everyone in the whole country, having a gun in public is illegal unless there is an actual incident being responded to. It’s sort of how modern, safer factory equipment keeps blades and other dangerous pieces of equipment behind guards and safety switches. You’d still have the constitutional right to form a militia - there might be some minimum size, maybe not - and the militia would have to own private property not in a city and the guns would have to remain within the limits of that property all of the time unless there is an incident being responded to.

[Bone]

@Habeed

What I’m saying is that for everyone in the whole country, having a gun in public is illegal unless there is an actual incident being responded to.

So yes - you would like to ban carry. That’s not a license you are proposing - it’s a ban. It’s not like CCW holders are out there, committing a large number of crimes. It’s a bit like bombing Iraq because 19 people from Saudi Arabia destroyed the World Trade Center.

[Habeed]

@Bone

So yes - you would like to ban carry. That’s not a license you are proposing - it’s a ban. It’s not like CCW holders are out there, committing a large number of crimes. It’s a bit like bombing Iraq because 19 people from Saudi Arabia destroyed the World Trade Center.

Please don’t lump me into “those people”. I’m just trying to think aloud about what modern thoughts on safety for other fields would say about firearms. The problem with people carrying weapons around and looking at everyone around them with suspicion is that you’ve created a fundamentally unsafe situation that statistically **will **result in incidents.

[Bone]

@Habeed

Please don’t lump me into “those people”. I’m just trying to think aloud about what modern thoughts on safety for other fields would say about firearms. The problem with people carrying weapons around and looking at everyone around them with suspicion is that you’ve created a fundamentally unsafe situation that statistically **will **result in incidents.

Think out loud all you’d like. What you’ve suggested is a ban on carry. It’s easier to be straightforward about what you are after if you actually want a discussion. If it’s not a ban on carry, how would an ordinary person exercise their right to carry?

I lump you in with the crowd of folks who want to ban carry. Is that inaccurate? If you want to compare to other fields, be sure to only engage in comparisons to other items which are enumerated fundamental constitutional rights. Here is what SCOTUS had to say:

The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g ., Hudson v. Michigan , 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon , 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984) , which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large”); Barker v. Wingo , 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id. , at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that the Court’s rule “*n some unknown number of cases … will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets … to repeat his crime”); Mapp , 367 U. S., at 659. Municipal respondents cite no case in which we have refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding on the States on the ground that the right at issue has disputed public safety implications.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Habeed

The problem with people carrying weapons around and looking at everyone around them with suspicion is that you’ve created a fundamentally unsafe situation that statistically **will **result in incidents.

CCWs are sometimes used to stop crimes in progress and sometimes used to commit crimes. I’m of the opinion that it’s more of the former and few of the latter. You might be of the opposite opinion, but let’s not pretend that there are no positive outcomes to CCW laws.

[SigMan]

What an interesting scenario. I would say he’s guilty of murder. Why? As a conceal carry he should know the laws that includes the 2A rights.

Pardon the pun but he jumped the gun without really assessing the situation.

I’m a conceal carry and I stay updated on the laws of my state. IMHO I think it’s silly to open carry a rifle into a restaurant (or any other places) and put people ill at ease.

[Lumpy]

@Lumpy

Here’s my take on the scenario:

JERRY is a stupid jerkass. If he insists on carrying a long gun in public, it should be in some kind of case or scabbard, or at a minimum slung on his back with a muzzle cap. IMHO, he did the equivalent of walking into the McDonalds holding a pistol in his hand. Maybe not actually pointed at anyone but action-ready.

TOM would be not only justified but prudent in reaching into his jacket, unsnapping his holster, taking any manual safety off his gun and taking his gun in hand, being ready to draw and fire. That said, he was NOT justified in firing without any further indication of threat. The whole point of carry laws is that MWAG != inherent threat

@Flyer

Just because you disapprove of a certain method of carry does not make that method equivalent to brandishing.

Here are the rules for carry at my local gun shop/range: Except on the firing line, all guns stay either holstered or cased. Open carry is fine, provided it’s holstered open carry. If someone walked in the door with a long gun in ready position, every employee and three-quarters of the customers in the shop would reach for their guns.

With all due respect to the Texas open carry movement, which iirc was a protest against the fact that handguns couldn’t be open-carried but long guns could, I think it’s reasonable to hold long guns to the same carry standard as handguns.

[SigMan]

^^^ All that change in Jan 2016 when open carry become effective.

[marshmallow]

Tom shouldn’t have freaked out from seeing a rando walking around with a rifle. That may be understandable in more civilized parts of the world, but in America the psychology of citizens should be more like some third world nations where seeing guys wandering down the sidewalk with AK47s is just an everyday thing.

That’s partially why some of these groups do it in the first place. People freak out, call the police, and see nothing happens. They’re supposed to be desensitized over time so it’s not a big deal and they stop overreacting.

[pkbites]

@Lumpy

Here are the rules for carry at my local gun shop/range:

Irrelevant.

Private land & business owners are free to set the rules of conduct as they see fit on their property. It’s not the same as to what is constitutionally and/or statutorily protected on public lands and it’s not the same process to develop those policies on private property. The rules I set for my home may not be legal for a government entity to set for public property and the means for setting those rules are vastly different.

Nowhere in the OP did it mention that the restaurant had posted any special rules or prohibitions.

[Clothahump]

@Master_Wang-Ka

First of all, I don’t wanna argue about gun control. I am not anti-gun. I’m anti-idiot. Regrettably, the process of legally restricting and controlling idiots has historically run into problems due to our bad habit of electing them to Congress.

But I have a thought experiment involving various events and factors from recent history, and I wanna throw it out there and see what folks think. I am interested in your input, so feel free to rant away.

THE EXPERIMENT:

We will begin with two white adult men. TOM and JERRY.

TOM is sitting in a public venue, legally minding his own business. For purposes of this example, I will put him in a McDonalds restaurant, eating a hamburger. Tom also has a concealed carry permit, and a legally owned and licensed handgun, which he has holstered under his windbreaker.

JERRY is a gun enthusiast, although he and TOM have never met. JERRY has a legally obtained and licensed AR-15 rifle, which is now slung across his chest, easily accessible. And because he is a big Second Amendment advocate, he is walking into that same McDonalds, ostensibly to buy and eat some Chicken McNuggets while showing everyone that he advocates and enjoys his Second Amendment rights.

As JERRY is walking into the restaurant, TOM glances up from his Big Mac and sees a man armed with an assault rifle walking into the store. He draws and fires his handgun once, hitting JERRY in the forehead, killing him instantly.

Tom’s gonna go to the slammer. His shooting is not defensible.

Jerry did NOT have the weapon in his hands; it was slung across his chest. He showed no indication of aggressive behavior at all. Tom is in deep shit.