There was that guy in Los Angeles who was beaten to death by two other “fans.” (Murdering hoodlums.) If he’d had a gun…and been able to access it…and was able to shoot…both guys…who were pounding on him at the time…
I suppose some kind of magical gun might have made a difference. In reality, no.
One of the problems with banning from certain venues weapons that people use for personal protection (e.g., before and after the game) is it compels them to remove them before entering the venue, or not carrying at all. For some, this will mean placing the weapon in their car (hopefully in a gun safe) where it can be rather easily stolen. Seattle’s Chief of Police had his pistol stolen from his car a while back. The more venues that prohibit carry just make it more confusing for people and makes it easier for more people to get arrested and lose their right to carry due to simple mistakes, as opposed to criminal intent. I’m not at all opposed to private businesses and property owners from prohibiting weapons on their property.
In the is case of this proposed law, there’s no need to worry. It will never pass.
This exact scenario happened to me in the early 90’s. 2 guys jumped me in the alley behind a post office I was mailing a letter at. One of them had a lead pipe and damn near busted my skull with it. I was a DAAT instructor at the time yet everything I hit them with failed to take them out. Had I not pulled my pistol they would have at least beaten me unconscious. Had they not fled I most certainly would have been able to shoot both of them even though I was severely injured (fractured sinus cavity, broken nose, concussion). Unless you can show some kind of expertise in armed defense perhaps you shouldn’t make such idiotic posts.
Don’t have to, I’m not wrong. Your scenarios is the same as saying you don’t need a fire extinguisher because you’ve never had a fire. People who carry tend to carry all the time. Making them change their routine because of your irrational doomsday fears is unreasonable. Every you go into a Walmart, the grocery store, a restaurant etc. there are people carrying weapons and it hasn’t hurt you one bit. Grow up!
First, I haven’t expressed any fears, irrational or otherwise.
Second, we’re not talking about Walmart or grocery stores in this thread.
You brought up the question of whether people opposing this new law would, should it come to pass, accept empirical evidence that their fears were unfounded. I’m asking if you accept empirical evidence that a need for guns in stadiums is unfounded.
For that matter, the people predicting that this law would make stadiums less safe have a pretty low bar to get over. It would only take one shooting in the next few decades to make that case. Someone could oppose this law on practical grounds without saying “the sky is falling” or proclaiming “blood would flow in the streets”.
This is utterly misplaced as an argument.
The fire marshal should be aware that he can easily point to changes in fire codes and corresponding reductions in both residential and commercial fires. So he (or she) is not wrong: the historical changes in fire codes have contributed measurably to fire prevention.
But pkbites’s example was correct. When changes to concealed carry laws have been debated, the opposition to broadening concealed carry rights has offered up predictions of mayhem that have not come to pass.
In this 2010 thread, the OP said:
A debate ensued, which all are welcome to read, but involved those opposed offering dire predictions about wild-west style drunken rednecks shooting at each other under the conditions the relaxed laws would offer.
A year and a half later, I revived the thread to post an article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch:
The response from the OP?
Others in the thread speculated the police and newspaper were falsifying data to hide the violence that must have occurred, or refused to acknowledge the data. One person admitted error, which was very honest considering he had not posted prior to the year’s passage:
I bumped the thread again in 2014 to say:
And others in the thread finally came forward to…
… castigate me for remembering the thread and returning to it. “Slow day at work?” and speculations about an alarm set on my phone calendar were offered up.
Forgive me for sounding smug, but when a man is right, a man is right!!!
And **I **have been right every time!
I’ve been a law man since 1982 in a major metropolitan area. Public safety is my life and mission. I wouldn’t let my personal poltics endanger the public I’m committed to protect. But the chicken littles have never, ever, been proven right. Their doomsday predictions have never ever happened. EVER!
Yet, every time something like this comes up, they drag out the same old arguments!
And, when time proves them wrong, they fail to admit they were wrong! And, again, drag out the same old tired arguments during the next fight.
**Spectacularly **bad idea.
I am not really concerned about someone going crazy and shooting the place up. That is the concern of the people that want to bring in guns.
I am concerned about accidents.
I am concerned about people dropping their guns and them going off and hurting someone, I am concerned about children getting a hold of these guns, and hurting someone while playing with them. I am a little concerned about drunken fights escalating to lethal force, but that is a minor concern compared to accidents.
Now, I can in fact show you that other countries with less lenient gun laws have less gun violence and accidents.
I can show you that places that allow guns in public have gun accidents.
As in my fire marshal example, if they lessened the restrictions on extension cords, I am sure that there would probably be many years before any building in my fire marshal district burned down because of them, if it ever happened at all. I doubt he can show me a single example of an extension cord burning a place down within his district.
Tell you what, if one kid gets a hold of a gun in one of these stadiums, and hurts himself or another, if one person drops his gun, or otherwise accidentally discharges it, hurting himself or others, if one person gets into a fight at the stadium, and decides to end it by brandishing or even using their gun, will you come back here and apologize for being wrong?
And if one person comes in to shoot the place up, and is stopped by a “good guy with a gun (not counting the armed security that is already there)” I will come back here and apologize to you.
But, seriously, why is it that the people who look at statistics, and say that increasing the number of guns in public places will likely increase the number of gun accidents and violence are called chicken littles, but the people who think something terrible will happen if they do not get to bring their gun into public places are the reasonable ones?
Fortunately, since 1982, there has not been a single instance of anyone being injured or killed by accidental or intentional discharge of a fire arm.
If there had been, then every single example of such would prove you wrong.
Whenever something is done that increases the handling of a firearm (holstering/unholstering, loading/unloading, chambering/unchambering of a round, frisking/confiscating), and storing a firearm in an easily accessible and unsupervised location (e.g., car), the chances of accidents occurring and danger to the public is also increased.
I have no issue with firearms and have a CCP/CWP myself and often wear a sidearm.
I come down as “bad idea”. Around here, at least during football season, fans of other teams are regularly beaten to death near the stadium and a fair number simply assaulted to the level of needing medical treatment at a hospital - at least one a season or so dies. Add guns to the mix and I can see something bad happening sooner than later.
The general point OK, but really? If so I’m glad I don’t live there. 
Personally would feel safer if everyone had a gun than if there was a general ban on gun carry. As far as alcohol is concerned people with ccws are notoriously law abiding. In fact I can’t imagine you could find a more law abiding group of people in the country. They know how easy it would be for their rights to be suspended. Most won’t even carry inside an establishment that serves alcohol.
And you can show that these things are happening at an alarming rate all over the country? People are dropping their guns in the grocery store, in restaurants, at the library? Children are routinely getting guns out of their parents holsters when they are at the movies?
Because everyday, in most areas of the United States, wherever you go, it is highly likely that someone around you is legally carrying a handgun.
None of the ridiculous things you listed are happening on a routine basis, yet you drag out these tired old doomsday fears.
This took less than 5 seconds to google.
Another 2 seconds or so of googling turns up this.
As it actually take me longer to paste these stories into this window for your perusal than it does for me to find them, I would appreciate it, if you are actually unaware of this, that you do a touch of research on your own.
If the google machine does not work for you, let me know what other types of cites you need to prove that yes, in fact, guns do in fact kill people.
I am not anti-gun. I do not own one, but that is because I am not paranoid enough to think that one will ever actually come in useful to me for its intended purpose. Many of my friends are gun owners, and I enjoy going to the range with them from time to time. (My biggest objection to those outings is the cost, usually blow over $100 in ammo.) I have had some terse discussions with some of my acquaintances about not bringing loaded guns into my home. I see no reason for it, and only increases the chances of something unpleasant happening. I have no objection to them bringing a gun. I have no objection to having the ammo in a clip and ready to go. I do have an objection to actually having the clip in the gun, and a round chambered when you are sitting around my table playing games. There is no reason for that.
So, I ask you, what is an alarming rate? How many people killed through accident or intent do you consider to be an acceptable sacrifice in order for you to feel safe by carrying your gun with you at all time, in all circumstances?
If after a month of this stadium ban being lifted, some toddler gets killed, will you consider that an acceptable sacrifice? If a toddler is killed once a month, is that to much yet? What if it’s just a toddler a year, plus maybe a couple of injuries, and one or two instances of fights ending with guns being utilized?
I mean, I don’t know the answer to this, you are the only one with those answers. This is a matter of opinion. As there has not been a single case in a stadium where things would have gone down better should the general populace have been armed, then every single thing that happens as an accident is an unnecessary tragedy to me. Your opinion on weighing things may be different.
I am curious as to how high of a butcher’s bill do your find acceptable?
Nor am I super pro-gun. I do have a gun, it’s not a hand gun and there’s no way for non-celebrity/connected people to get a hand gun carry permit in my state.
But, the discussion is about where people could carry guns. I couldn’t read first the first link (free WAPO stories used up for the month ) but second one is about gun accidents in general, not from people carrying.
You present yourself as reasonable non-rabid anti about guns but let’s do a test. Do you think there’s any way guns could go from common to rare in people’s homes in the US? The obvious reasonable answer is: ‘no way, no how’. It’s just not within the realm of political reality. ‘Well in the UK…’ that’s terrific for them (or not, according to one’s opinion) but irrelevant: not gonna happen in the US.
So on the real question of people legally carrying guns, or being allowed to carry them to a few more places, leading to a ‘butcher’s bill’, it doesn’t seem you’ve provided evidence of that. There will be more accidents from legally carried guns compared to if (as in my state) there’s practically no such thing as a legally carried gun. That follows logically. However a significant difference doesn’t, and I doubt there’s evidence of that except from statistics crying out in agony as they are tortured, which is generally the evidence pro and anti* gun people have IME when they try to prove the measures actually at issue would have a significant impact on public safety either way.
I’d reiterate I don’t have a big problem with prohibiting guns at closed venues where there’s an actually reasonable effort to detect and screen them from coming in, whereas ‘gun free zones’ in open areas (college campuses etc) in states/locales where there are lots of gun permits, are stupid IMO.
*you’re anti AFAICT, whether you admit it or not, ‘butchers bill’ appeal to emotion, jeez need some violins too . There’s nothing wrong with being anti-gun, don’t know why you feel a need to pretend otherwise but up to you of course.
As we are talking about closed venues where there are armed guards and it would not be difficult to make a reasonable effort to detect and screen them coming in, then you are agreeing with me?
If not owning one, and not really thinking it is necessary to carry one every day and every place in order to feel safe makes me anti-gun, then I guess by your definition, I am.
I am pro-gun where it comes to responsibly owning, keeping, and safely using guns, which I think is a much more useful and less emotionally charged definition.
The reason I use the term “butcher’s bill” in the context of the stadiums is because I do not see a use for them. Can you cite one single instance where a “good guy with a gun” (that was not part of a paid armed security force) did anything at all beneficial in a stadium? Can you cite a situation where, had a good guy with a gun been around, things would have been better off? If not, then any and every instance of accident or other mishap is unnecessary, and is a price paid only to give people a false sense of security.
The point is, if you have guns, you are going to have accidents and other sorts of incidents where people get hurt. If this is in defense of a greater good, then it is maybe a necessary thing. If you can’t actually point to the good that will be done, then it is an unnecessary risk, IMHO.
If you never drive yourself, always take public transportation, I withdraw my question.
If you do drive, can you say you never do anything dangerous, even accidentally? If you so claim, or not, may I put cameras on you for 24 hours on a day of my choosing that you will not know except that it is a day you go to some gathering of the public that is not essential?
Now, it the cameras show that what you do could cause the death of a family of 5 and that you would claim is an accident, you will stop driving? You will never go to that kind of place again? That anyone who does not take public transport to this kind of event is just asking to kill a family of 1 to 5 sooner or later?
Your driving is a matter of an individual ‘right?’
Having and carrying a weapon is not even if it does have a whole section in the Constitution?
So I ask, how many of my, or even better, your family are you OK with being the part of the citizens who die? I know a lot of people who I would let my grand kids be around in a bar while they are armed who I would never let be in a vehicle that they were driving.
Don’t think we will need to look very hard to find numbers way greater than the ones you brought up to show the danger of my story than yours.
Aside: What mammal is the most dangerous to me? Another human. That is what hand guns are for … I think everyone should have one at all times.
Aside #2: With dash cams, why can’t I or why should I not be able to sent it into the authorities and you get a ticket or your driving privileges revoked for up to a year with the video proof? I fear your driving. You can use public transport or something other to get around.
I moved to within 3/4 of a mile of my work and rode a bike to & from. Very doable. People driving vehicles tried even harder to kill me. Folks with guns never tried to or accidentally came close to shooting me. Drivers on the other hand…
I do look like I need killing. Bawahahaha
Your analogy would be somewhat related if cars were invented for the purpose of harming people, and had no other intended purpose.
Or it may be related if you could use your gun as transportation to or from work.
Your analogy would be even more relevant if they would allow me to take my car into the stadium, and drive it around there.
As it is, I really do not see how your analogy relates in any way, shape or form to the act of bringing potentially lethal devices into a crowded environment for the purposes of making yourself feel safe.
Why don’t you post a cite about the price of tea in China? Because those 2 post have nothing to do with people carrying guns in public.
Show me significant numbers of people dropping their gun on the floor at Kroger. Show me stories about kids getting daddys gun out of his holster and shooting someone at Walmart. Show me data on guns jumping out of it’s owners pockets and killing 40 people on it’s own (I’m certain you believe that could happen based on the other stupid shit you have posted).
All of the nonsense you are afraid of has been shown not to happen over decades of concealed carry laws. Yet you’ll return here with more meaningless cites and hyperbole rooted in your irrational fears based on your imagination.