It’s a little known fact of history that the issuance of concealed-carry permits was actually quite liberal in the Roman Empire, but, well…few people actually bothered to get one.
Surprise, real life is full of fucked-up dangerous people. All one has to do is look at the extremists, insane, violent, and truly stupid people on this message board to be concerned about what’s lurking behind the goofy, smiling facades you meet in everyday life.
One can choose to willfully be a victim, one can choose to run away and hide, or one can choose to go about their law-abiding business with the State-sanctioned ability to defend themselves.
Oh, please.:rolleyes: This is the flip side of “Guns are bad, mmmkay?” Not everyone who doesn’t have a gun is a willing victim or has their head in the sand. Some people make the rational decision that for them the risks of gun ownership outweigh the benefits.
I’ve idly thought about learning to use a gun, primarily as a way of challenging some of the cultural biases I mentioned above, but also for the sake of learning something new, becoming more confident, and for other personal reasons. But I have a history of depression, I’m accident prone, and shooting is an expensive hobby. Besides which, property and violent crime have been at historic lows for a very long time now, and I live in a very safe community, so there’s not much practical need.
The implication that I’m a willing victim or that I’m choosing to “run and hide” because I don’t have a gun is insulting and far below what I’ve come to expect from you in these debates, Una.
Agreed. Not choosing to exercise the right is fine.
Seeking to deprive others of it is where one would cross into indefensible territory. There are plenty of rational reasons to eschew guns, and frankly, while you have laid out excellent ones, it needn’t be anything more complicated than, “Because it doesn’t interest me.”
Nothing wrong with that.
I think the puncturing of this phrase with well-deserved derision has been done by others.
To attack it without the scorn it richly deserves, I’ll just add this: you are likely referring to the general phenomenon of alcohol and aggression. But this doesn’t address the specific combination of licensed holders allowed to carry concealed if they don’t drink, against a backdrop of the previous stat eof the law that allowed them to wear their guns openly and enter anyway.
In other words, your phrase seeks to move the debate from the specifics of the gun law debated in March 2010 ro the wide range of human history with alcohol.
I said nothing about having their head in the sand. Please understand.
Yes, you are a willing victim if you have the ability to defend yourself and choose not to. Note I’m choosing my words very carefully here. Whether they base that on their perception of “risk” is irrelevant, they are choosing to not take advantage of a lawful, effective form of self-defense. Obviously if someone lives in a country or region which denies them the basic human right of self-defense, or believes they are physically and/or mentally unable to wield a weapon, etc. then they are absolutely not being a willing victim.
See above. If you are mentally unable to use a gun safely, and you recognize that, then you’re not only not a “willing victim” but you’re being honorable and sensible.
You’ve assessed the risks and decided there is not a cost-benefit for you. I respect that.
The old saw of in effect “I expect sooooooooooo much better of you, Una” has been used quite a lot as an insult in Great Debates towards me, and you’re not the first, nor the tenth to use it. Either I’m really a terrible person, or maybe I’m talking about something which was not explained fully enough for you by myself, or was and there was nonetheless a misunderstanding.
We all have choices we can make in our lives. Learning to defend yourself, your family, and innocents is not just a matter of taking responsibility for your own safety, it’s a duty as a citizen that one be able to defend the law-abiding from those who would do harm and destruction. If you’re unable to do so that’s one thing, but if you had the ability to be part of the solution, and instead chose to not proactively be able to defend, then that’s just not the best thing for a society where people are supposed to watch our for each other.
And as safe and Pleasant Valley Sundayish as where I live is, I’ve still nonetheless been a victim of one sexual assault - OK, let’s not mince words, rape - and several batteries. I was a pacifist, until the 3rd or 4th time someone beat me. At some point you say “enough - no one is obviously going to protect me, the Smiling Policeman people tell me should always be there is never there, I’m a small, physically weak person, so there’s only one logical alternative.” I choose not to be a willing victim.
People here seem to have a view of bars that’s more out of Batman comics than real life. Bars aren’t super dangerous places where you have to be on constant guard. If they were like that, why would anyone ever go to them. Most bars are relaxing places where people go to have a few drinks and hang out with friends. I’ve had a regular joint here and there since I was of age, and I can count the number of serious bar fights I’ve seen on one hand, with fingers to spare.
There are establishments that cater to a dangerous crowd, but even there you’ll be fine as long as you know people and don’t make an ass of yourself. In any case, if the crowd at a bar is really dangerous I doubt they’re much concerned about where the law say they may or may not take their guns.
Touche. I think people may have been listening to too many Jim Croce songs.
Completely wrong. You don’t know the history of concealed carry in Minnesota. Go educate yourself.
As opposed to
- No thanks, I’m the designated driver
- No thanks, I’m working tomorrow
- No thanks, I don’t drink - but I do like to hang out with my mates
- No thanks, I wanted to join my family (who likes wine) for dinner, even though I don’t drink wine.
The change kinda makes sense -
Concealed means cannot be seen. So already the old law was unenforcable in the extreme.
The new law just makes people’s lives easier. I don’t see it as suddenly opening the floodgates to people getting drunk that wouldn’t otherwise.
I’m 37.. I have NEVER seen a barfight - even a semi serious one.
The most violent thing I have ever seen is a bouncer choking out a drunk out of his gourd guy that wouldn’t even have been able to hit the ground while falling over. While we all stood around and laughed.
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic*
In that case, there’s nothing to compare it against. As soon as CCW went into effect the signs went up. There was never a time with CCW and without the signs, so there isn’t any way to measure how the effects would be different without the signs.*
I notice Dio hasn’t argued against your post. Does this mean he has conceded your point or has he been spending this time educating himself?
My understanding is Minnesota had concealed carry for many, many years, but it was “may issue” which meant meant in most areas most people got a CCW permit when applied for, and only in a few counties was it difficult to get. It wasn’t until after the state “shall issue” that ignorant business people went ape shit and put up signs. Correct?
I’ve been to all 50 states (no lie) and Minnesota is the only one I’ve observed a large portion of no gun signs. (Dio is not wrong on this. A helluvalot of business around the entire state are posted). Yet all the other states where most businesses aren’t posted don’t seem to have a problem with folks carrying into those businesses. I’m interested in Dio’s hypothesis as to why that is.
I have had it with these mutha-****ing guns in a mutha-****ing bar!
[/obligatory reference]
I think Una has made a highly defensible choice to arm herself.
This is not a very good depiction of reality, again IMHO. Firstly women face far greater risks than males do and the statement was unqualified. Secondly, it’s by no means clear whether a firearm enhances the risk of the individual or reduces it. There’s an association between firearm ownership and enhanced incidence of violent death, but I haven’t seen causality established and there are methodological problems to consider. But given that sort of ambiguity, the case for firearm ownership is nowhere near as strong or as categorical as you suggested. The statistical correlations do not flow in the direction of arming oneself.
Though to be fair, careful and complete Una did say this:
There’s no systematic evidence that gun ownership has advanced this sort of world: after all, the US has both high gun ownership and a high murder rate. And the anecdotal evidence (available every month in the NRA magazine of your choice) is mostly of the “Wave a gun and scare a criminal” variety. That’s fine, but I’ve known of quite a few unarmed encounters where the bad guy has simply run away, but if a gun was involved I trust the NRA would imply a cause and effect relationship.
Admittedly, there’s a case to be made for having a segment of the citizenry effectively deputized. But that does not quite extend to an assertion of duty. It seems to me that one’s obligation is to be careful and sensible in one’s behavior, however that applies to individual circumstance.
Keep at it Bricker. This thread could be a solid and useful example of left-side fact resistance. I’m serious: this is interesting. (I’m not picking on Der here, the sentiments expressed are sufficiently widespread in my view.)
I wish I could say the same. I’ve seen plenty of bar and night club fights and been in a few myself. I was in the middle of a Karaoke night club in Hong Kong when it was suddenly raided and totally destroyed by triads. Imagine a stampede through narrow channels in low lighting, with a bunch of screaming tattooed thugs lashing out at everything in sight. I saw several patrons and staff get hurt. A number of the fighters were clearly drunk and I cannot describe how thankful I am that Hong Kong lacks any kind of gun culture, because the way to the exit was long.
In Manhattan some idiot picked a fight with me outside a bar over some woman. He followed me out of the bar and harassed me. When it became clear I wasn’t having any of his intimidation/strutting/pushing-around nonsense he yelled something about busting a cap (or something threatening to that effect) and reached inside his jacket. The moment that happened I completely freaked out and lost the ability to think. Unfortunately for the idiot, that meant he went from being healthy cretin one moment and a few seconds later being a bloody, drooling, orthopedics-bound mess that I strongly suspect had crapped in his pants.
As I said I do not think he had a gun, he may have just been pretending in order to scare me (it worked 100%). I do not remember feeling a gun when I was manhandling him but I was in such a state of high agitation that I may easily have missed it. Still, from my own experience I definitely do not view guns and bars as a good mix. Guns can be frightening and that may not always work to the wielder’s advantage - even assuming that all gun-slingers are law-abiding all the time.
I think the issue is that people are forgetting self selection bias.
People who apply for gun permits are, overwhelmingly, law abiding, responsible citizens. People who carry guns into bars with permits are still law abiding responsible citizens.
On the other hand, people who use guns to intimidate/harm others are not law abiding, responsible citizens, and will carry guns into bars whether the law says they can or not.
Note however that the topic at hand is about a narrow subset of gun owners, namely licensed CCW license holders. People who have gone through numerous background checks and bona fide checks, who have had written and practical examinations, and who are fingerprinted, photographed, and definitely “well regulated.” This group has not been well studied with respect to whether or not firearms carrying reduces, increases, or keeps their risk the same. My suspicion is that it’s a small net positive. But there’s a lot of selection bias at play - CCW holders, being already law-abiding and going through all the hoops to get their permit, are not likely to immediately go out and jack a car and rob liquor stores. They’re (we’re, since I’m one of them) are typically that average, quiet person who you don’t notice anything special about.
I have gone on record as being in favor of more restrictive CCW regulations, but with more rights in exchange for those regulations. Narrow the subset down even more, via demonstrable proof of worthiness, demonstrable legal and practical education, and demonstrable “good behavior.” For example, I would throw out anyone with a violent misdemeanor, and I would not expunge adolescent records for consideration of CCW status. I would also require more practical training. In exchange for eliminating most, if not all, of the last few restrictions on CCW holders (essentially, giving them almost the same carry rights as law enforcement). The net result would be a citizenry which is effectively deputized.
It is a green initiative:
Leaving a gun in a car is only an option if you travel by car. If you walk, bicycle, or take public transportation to an establishment serving alcohol, then the only legal option is to leave the gun at home.
If you walk, bicycle, or utilize public transportation you are at elevated exposure to criminal elements during your travels as compared to car drivers. There is no “ABA” (AAA for bikes) to call in the event of a mechanical problem. 911 operators are rarely able to comprehend locations that don’t involve a street address,so your access to police or ambulance assistance can be severely limited as well.
Thus those who’s choice of transportation is walking, bicycling, or public transportation are among those who’s personal safety can be most improved by concealed carry, and it has been mentioned in a recent thread about bicycle commuting, exposure to criminal elements is a frequent reason people give for avoiding more energy efficient modes of transportation.
Returning home to drop off the gun would nominally double the travel when visiting a restaurant is combined with a string of errands, so effectively insures that pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transportation can’t reasonably avail themselves of legal carry options available to the automotive drivers.
Yes, my tongue is not centered, but it is not fully in my cheek either. I know of two CC holders that I work with that have expressed interest in bicycle commuting, but having to either travel unarmed, or risk being fired is a show stopper. Opponents of this measure ask “why do you need a gun in a cafe or bar?” and completely ignore that nobody materialized inside the bar from a star-trek transporter beam. They ignore that criminals are known to prey on patrons leaving a bar in the assumption that they are intoxicated and less able to defend themselves, and know that any law abiding CCW holders, even if sober, will be unarmed. Opponents are making the same assumptions as criminals, but really, people DO go to bars and not drink…clubs hold meetings in them, Designated drivers go out with friends. Buddys meet to watch a game at a sports bar. Many bars have DD encouragement policies and do not charge for the non-alcohol drinks consumed by a tee-totaller in the company of drinkers, so it is quite economical.
But the BIG problem is that opponents assume that people likely to shoot someone in a bar are the sort of people that are likely to obey all, or any of, the laws regulating the carriage of guns. They imagine that because it is not currently legal, that there are no armed patrons in the bars now…Then turn around cite reports of shootings in bars as evidence in support of their position. The fact is that the sort of people you most need to worry about bringing a gun into a bar or restaurant are already doing so, because they don’t care about obeying the law.
Well now you won’t be able to tell if you are pissing off the person with the gun!
I doubt Dio is doing either.
Your understanding is correct. Prior to the “shall issue” law passing (2003), Minnesota was a “may issue” state and local Sheriffs had broad discretion in granting or denying permit applications. This resulted in great disparity across the state with it being nearly impossible to get a permit in some counties without a connection to law enforcement, to being almost routine in other counties assuming you passed the background test. There were no signage requirements mandated by law, and instances of “no guns allowed” postings were exceedingly rare.