I’m sorry - in a thread about “carrying guns everywhere” as you put it, you try to make a point by talking about hunting accidents?
I think you’ll get universal approval that we’d like to reduce these - but people aren’t going to be hauling 30-30 Marlins down the street. Much as you think this is Old West shit, it ain’t The Rifleman.
Let’s stick to the topic at hand.
There was a guy here in Minnesota juts last month who shot his 8-year-old son because he thought he was a turkey.
I never understand how things like that can happen. How the fuck can a little boy look like a turkey?
My in-laws own a lot of forested land around their farm, and they constantly have to worry about deer poachers. I’ve gone out to help tear down deer stands sometimes when I’m visiting. The chances that a stray bullet could hit somebody in the yards around the house are not out of the question, and there are often a few children (sometimes my own) playing outside in those yards or near those woods. The worry that some Dick Cheney might mistake a child for a grizzly bear is always at the back of my mind out there.
I’m not sure what you mean by “carrying remaining concealed.” Again, in Virginia, open carry is legal, and requires no permit; concealed carry is legal only with a permit.
Other places have other rules, of course.
But I think you’re asking something which is, in logic or debate, called an “argument from ignorance.” That’s not intended as an insult; it’s a technical rhetorical term.
An argument from ignorance says, in effect, “This premise is true because we haven’t proven it false.” I think you might be hinting at this here.
You asked: “What are the odds of a group (2 - 3 people, I suppose) taking away someone’s open carry weapon due to the conditions (too crowded / loud / whatever, like at a ballpark)?”
I said they were small, that it’s never, so far as I could find, happened.
You ask now: wouldn’t the reason it’s happened on so few occasions in modern times possibly be due to carrying remaining concealed?
Maybe. But maybe it’s due to the fact that even a crowd recognizes the danger of attacking someone who obviously is armed. Maybe it’s due to the fact that open-carry folk tend to avoid large, drunken crowds.
I don’t have any way of proving the case, one way or another.
When I wondered aloud earlier why I bother?
This post is exactly why I bother. Diogenes is …well… Diogenes, impervious. But there are people reading, willing to listen and learn, and this discussion helps those folks flesh out their own views.
What if he were fit and well-muscled? Or kind of sinewy, but with a quiet air of competence?
Uh huh.
You know, just yesterday, up where my brother lives, a toddler drowned in a swimming pool. Here’s the link.
Now, I know accidents happen, but they certainly happen to some things more than others, and you really have to take safety into account. Especially with children.
That’s why it might be a good idea to ban backyard swimming pools.
You’re right, I should have been clearer as to how the story relates to open carry in my opinion.
The linked story and the one that related to it were both cases of accidental shootings by hunters of people who were, if not in their homes at least not outside their yards … one woman was on her back porch, another was on her driveway. Both were accidentally shot (that we know of) by assholes hunting deer near residential properties. The point is, the proximity of guns to human habitations is dangerous. With open carry you greatly increase the chance that innocent people will be shot by accident. (I’m not addressing the issue of how easy guns make murdering people, because of course that’s a given). In fact, it’s just about certain that if open carry becomes common practice, more innocent people will die of gunshot wounds. I understand that many don’t care at all about that, just thought I’d bring it up.
Okay. Thanks for the explanation.
I feel they are entirely separate issues, myself, for the reason that people carrying in public, concealed or not, do not intend to shoot their weapons, while hunters do indeed intend to shoot theirs. So from a standpoint of lead flying around that can hurt people, it makes sense to prioritize the hunting issue, which I think we all can agree is a problem.
Increased game enforcement, hunter safety education, posting areas as off limits to hunting and opening areas previously off limits but restricting them to bow hunting or shotgun hunting are all useful solutions - and hunters and communities alike would be advised to pursue them all.
I have always wondered, for instance, why there was no bow hunting permitted in, say, Rock Creek Park in Washington DC - this wouldn’t present any safety problems that couldn’t be managed and could go a long way toward curbing the exploding deer population there.
Fair enough.
Do you have any comment on my second point in that post?
To reiterate:
Your overall point above seemed to be that statistics show that those who legally openly carry firearms are unlikely to commit crimes, and thus it is irrational to be fearful of them.
My point was that while most people who openly carry firearms aren’t dangerous, most such people are probably also highly unlikely to bring a firearm to a child’s sporting event or birthday party (the situations mentioned in the OP). So I’m not sure those statistics are relevant in assessing those particular situations.
If I see someone with a firearm at my (hypothetical) kid’s soccer game, I’d be concerned, not merely because of the presence of the weapon but because the person holding the weapon is behaving extremely unusually by bringing it to such an event. (At least I’d consider it exteremly unusual compared to normal behavior in my home town of Arlington, VA, which I mention as a common reference point since you live in northern VA.) Yes, they might have a legitimate reason for having it, or they might actually expect that they’ll have to use this weapon while standing next to a soccer field in an affluent low-crime suburb on a Saturday morning. I have no way to know.
Do you contend that I’m irrational to fear a deadly weapon in the possession of someone who is engaging in highly unusual behavior (in bringing the gun to such a setting)?
For comparison, I wouldn’t be worried if I passed someone on the street wearing a visible firearm, unless they were doing something to attract suspicion. But a firearm while walking down the street and a firearm at a kids soccer game or birthday party are two very different situations.
Frankly, if it is something that hasn’t been shown to be a real threat (and I think that has been shown) then it boils down to a question of etiquette and prejudice.
I should point out also that these go hand in hand at times - and since they do, if a prejudice is shown to have no real justification, it will fade, and manners will shift to allow that previously banned socially.
Those guys openly carrying are indeed pushing the envelope of what polite society allows. That seems to be their point.
Wouldn’t need a gun then, would he?
I’m not sure if this is in response to my above comment, but I’ll reply anyway:
In the case of the situation described above, I think we have an ability to say more than “this hasn’t been shown to be a threat”. We can say “Firearms are generally quite safe in the hands of responsible, rational people. Firearms are generally quite dangerous in the hands of people who are irresponsible or irrational.” Then the question becomes: How confident am I that someone who would bring a firearm to a child’s soccer game or birthday party is rational and responsible?
Also, how much of a chance that they aren’t rational and responsible am I willing to tolerate. I’d say if I think there’s even a 5% chance that someone poses a mortal danger to me or my child, that’s reason enough to be concerned. Probably even if it’s somewhat less than 5%.
Why should anyone take the point of view of “I’ll wait until it’s shown to be a threat” when the consequences of underestimating the threat are so severe and the consequences of overestimating the threat are relatively minimal?
EDIT: I just noticed where you said “I think that has been shown”. I’ll reiterate my point – it’s been shown that people openly carrying firearms are usually not dangerous. It has not (so far as I know) been shown that people openly carrying firearms to events such as those described in the OP (children’s birthdays and sporting events) are not dangerous. I’m not going to ignore their unusual choice of where to take their gun in assessing the risk they pose. Hence my concern of “Can I really be more than 95% confident that someone odd enough to bring a gun to a kid’s soccer game is a safe user of that gun?”
In a situation where my life is in danger, I’ll take “Tex” over pecs everytime.
Not always. I’ve explained why I personally prefer open carry, and “pushing the envelope” has nothing to do with it. In many places open carry isn’t just legal, it’s a right established under the State Constitution. A right unexercised is a right lost.
100+ years ago during the actual “wild west days” concealed carry was usually forbidden or at least frowned upon and open carry was manditory. Don’t know what my point to mentioning that is, except maybe for the irony of it compared to today.
I think this line of reasoning puts the cart before the horse.
There’s a group here in Virginia that encourages its members to carry openly everywhere they go, precisely to reduce the unusual nature of the act.
So if the purpose of carrying is to be part of a movement to legitimize open carry, by making open carry less unusual…
However, I will acknowledge that at present, there is nothing irrational about at least a heightened sense of awareness for someone you see open carrying in an unusual situation.
And I’ll state too - it was my practice for a while, and probably will be again when I find enough time, to wear openly when heading out for target practice. And part of our ritual was to go to Five Guys for lunch afterward.
Northern Virginia dopers will know of this choice, and likely approve.
Now, we kept our holsters on, ordered our burgers and took a back table. We never caused a problem by doing this - I suspect the fact that Five Guys is right next to the range makes this a not uncommon occurrence there.
Now, if you, tim314, happened by while we were having lunch - would you have an issue with it? And if so, why?
One possibility that doesn’t seem to get mentioned, or perhaps I missed it, would be that the guy was a plainclothes cop, either on his way to work after his kid’s game, or having come from work to the game.
Are you comfortable confronting someone over what might be a case of a mistaken assumption on your part?
Last winter, a couple of girls panicked at the college I used to work at when they saw a law school student taking out his concealed carry gun and locking it in his car. My screwball bosses called the cops. The cop comes out, says “He’s either a police officer, or he has a permit. There’s no crime here.” and leaves.
After the fact, I e-mailed the relevant portions of the Minnesota concealed carry laws to my bosses. They clearly state that while a University can ban guns on it’s campus, Parking Lots (anywhere, not just Universities) are very specifically excluded from any premises ban and the law even goes so far as to spell out that University Administrators cannot make rules that oppose the law (the only very specifically laid out “No, not you!” in the law). Therefore, any student could concealed carry within the parking lot and be legal all the way up to the sidewalk in front of the building. My boss announced “I don’t care! That’s still University property!” and declared her intention to find and punish the student. (I also notified a few other people of the event and the law; and the matter was quietly dropped. Which I think was one more reason for them to get rid of me.)
I don’t see anything objectionable in something like that, Mr. Moto. Upon reflection, I think what most makes me react more negatively to the scenarios described in the OP is the involvement of children (kid’s birthday party, kid’s sports game, etc.). People are understandably more wary of danger when their kids are around. (And the fact that someone would be insensitive to that would make me more likely to question their judgement.) In particular, if someone were doing what Bricker describes and choosing to exercise open carry in order to normalize the act, I don’t think a kid’s soccer game would be an appropriate place to do it. Why not get people used to the idea of open carry in other situations before needlessly scaring a bunch of parents?
I wouldn’t confront them at all. I would simply avoid them while paying attention enough to whats going on that I could alert the police or simply leave if they seemed to be acting inappropriately.
Gotcha. No offense taken. That’s why I asked, is because I’d like to learn and prefer to always at least try and make informed decisions. And just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to prove it to be anything, but rather was asking out of clarification because I honestly didn’t know one way or another. Here in Texas we only have concealed carry and I didn’t even realize it was an option elsewhere (nor had ever thought about it) until I read this thread.
Actually, I put the second portion of my question into my first post, but I’m assuming that it got lost in the shuffle due to the enormity of the thread. As a matter of fact, that was my thrust entirely because otherwise, I can’t imagine there even remotely being a factual answer until tons of statistics are available. Sorry for the confusion.
I see your opinion now. Thank you for the answer. Truly, this might perhaps be one of those things we’ll (or maybe just me 
) have to wait see about. Because I honestly think that if open carry was the norm, we’d see it plenty in the types of situations outlined above.
I think I’ll tiptoe back out of GD now. You all keep up the good fight.
I certainly haven’t advocated “confronting anyone”, at least not rudely. The OP specified “a parent who was not a Police officer”, so I assumed we somehow know that this isn’t the case (like maybe we know the parent’s occupation but little else about him). Perhaps that’s a bit of a contrived scenario.