Once again, this is not supposed to be a legal debate. I am not trying to argue that anything should be illegal. This is just about ettiquette and perceptions, an as a matter of pure ettiquette, I don’t apprecriate people displaying guns around my children. Around myself alone, I couldn’t care less.
That’s because you seem to ignore the inconvenient examples of not only individual crimes deterred or stopped by firearms but some spree killings that were stopped by someone who was nearby and was armed.
Ignore inconvenient examples, and you can hold any irrational prejudice you want.
Once more, this is not the issue, since when I see a stranger with a gun displayed, I have no idea whether they’re carrying legally or not. The question isn’t, “Is carrying a gun openly when you’re permitted rude [since, by implication, people may reasonably know that you’re permitted and reasonably nonetheless fear that you’re going to shoot them]?” It’s, “Is carrying a gun openly when you’re permitted rude [since, by implication, people may not know whether you’re permitted and may therefore resonably fear that you’ve got less than stellar intentions]?”
To answer your previous question: a brief glimpse of someone’s concealed weapon would be less alarming to me. I’m not thrilled at all that so many people are walking around with concealed weapons; I would far prefer it to be far less common. But I know that it’s a reality, and seeing one would just be a depressing reminder of how many people are armed. Seeing someone carrying openly is so uncommon that I would be suspicious of the motives.
I trust that if you think on it, you’ll see the illogic in making something less rude by doing it more often.
Daniel
Again: since it’s perfectly legal to open carry (here in Virginia, anyway) why would you assume you don’t know if they are carrying legally? It’s presumptively legal.
Now, your second point makes some sense. Since you perceive open carry as making a statement of some kind, your worries derive from that impression.
Now, I contend that open-carry may be just a convenience with no public statement intended, or it may be a statement that’s relatively benign – for example, as you say, seeing someone carrying openly is so uncommon that you would be suspicious of the motives. There’s an organization in Virginia that seeks to combat this perception by encouraging the wearing of guns openly – in other words, to make it common and thus no reason for suspicion.
But since we’re not there yet, I agree that this perception is not entirely irrational.
Do the signs in Virginia say:
NO SHIRT
NO SHOES
NO GUN
NO SERVICE?
(Okay, I know that’s not what you meant, but I got a giggle out of your phrasing.)
How do you know that person is not a ex-con? How do you know the gun is not stolen? Why couldn’t a nutjob take advantage of a liberal carry law?
I find it very strange that you’d feel comfortable disregarding somebody carrying a shotgun or a rifle into a burger joint, especially if you’ve got your kids with you. That would be extremely outre behavior up here (not to mention illegal, since virtually all businesses in the Twin Cities post signs forbidding people to carry firearms onto the premises, even though CC is legal here).
As I learned with my ex-wife;
There comes a point where Logic and Reason cannot be used to counter Irrational Fears. You have to surrender the battle and leave the Insane and/or Fearful to their own devices, knowing that they cannot be convinced and that their irrationality discredits their opinions.
In other words: You can be as insane and irrational as you desire to be. It isn’t my job to make you less of a nutcase, nor is it my job to worry about what you, in your irrational fear, think about anything.
Until or unless your fears make you do something stupid in my presence. Then it’s my job to do something about it.
I have no fear of you and your big, scary gun. I just think it’s rude and socially maladapted to go around brandishing it at other people’s kids.
I also think the guys who are too askeered to go to the 7-11 without a gun have no business accusing others of harboring “irrational fear.”
Yeah, I get it.
I don’t recall seeing any signage in Virginia. The only places I ever recall seeing any signs regarding any form of carry were in Arizona at places like the dog track, the entrance to every Gander Mountain I’ve been to (actually those are pro-carry signs), and every freaking business in Minnesota. I’m sure Diogenes believes this is why Minnesota is the safest state in the union (it isn’t). We all know that people with evil intent obey rules posted on a piece of paper. :rolleyes:
For folks who are allowed to carry it is. I don’t ever know whether someone is carrying legally. The question is whether I can put them in the category of people who carry legally and therefore don’t commit crimes; I don’t know that I can put them in this category. The same applies to concealed folks that I see, of course, but since my worry isn’t about whether they’re in this category, but rather about whether they’re trying to make an aggro statement, the question isn’t as relevant.
Daniel
What does the word “presumptively” mean to you?
All those things could be true. But you sure apply whatever standards and approaches suit your fancy at any given time, don’t you?
I can only imagine your fury at a sheriff stopping someone from burning a flag with the explanation that he wasn’t sure if the flag was stolen, and therefore not the property of the burner. I’m sure you’d be livid at that deputy’s deciding to check everyone’s IDs to make sure they weren’t an escaped convict, or a committed mental patient. ANd I already know the fury that you reserve for the idea of checking someone’s status before they vote, to make sure they’re legally able to vote. When those issues come along, the idea of “How do you know they’re not X?” is rejected as absurd.
It’s unusual here, but not unheard of. And if you travel 45 mins west, it’d be common during hunting season to see it. Why should I worry about something that’s presumptively legal?
That’s understandable, since you’re using your personal definitions of “rude”, “socially maladapted” and “brandishing”.
Personally, I think it’s yogurt to elephant the nerfball.
You seem awfully intent on saying that, over and over, in the most angry method you can summon up. Obviously your intent is to provoke a hostile response which you can then latch onto in order to further your agenda. It is a bad debating tactic.
Very much an invented straw man. No one here has even mentioned brandishing a firearm, let alone at children. You are inventing arguments to further your hostility.
Again, a straw man. I mentioned earlier that I never carry. At no point did anyone mention fear of going to any store without a gun. It is a non issue in the discussion, but again, is an invented straw man to further your hostility.
You are throwing around this word, “brandish”, in such a way as to completely poison this debate.
Even leaving legal definitions aside, brandishing involves waving a weapon around threateningly or displaying something ostentatiously - neither of which are quite met by the simple act of carrying around a handgun in a holster.
Whatever your feeling on the subject, an open hip holster is very comfortable and practical - it is just about the ideal way to carry a handgun if you don’t need to conceal it. That is why just about every military and police force goes with this method.
Your argument is with people carrying in public, which is certainly a valid point to hold. But you can hold it without calling a holstered handgun “brandishing”. That’s a stupid argument, and beneath you.
[Junior Mod Beanie]This kind of comment is inappropriate for this forum. Take it to the Pit.[/Junior Mod Beanie]
There are very few places where it is inappropriate to discharge a firearm in legitimate self-defense. I’m having a hard time understanding your point.
No, usually their “intent” is just that they’d prefer not to conceal, for example because it’s uncomfortable to wear a jacket all the time. The associations of increased risk are all imagined, which makes the comparison to same-sex kissing spot-on.
Logical, eh? Logical like the bit where you claim peaceable carry is brandishing, defend your claim by saying that you’re allowed to make up whatever meanings for words you like, and then go on to say that carrying openly is nothing short of a death threat? Am I to assume that you also have your own fun little definition of “death threat”? :dubious:
And if we want to talk about childish accusations, why don’t we discuss your suggestions that people who carry are “too askeered to go to the 7-11 without a gun”? Or this little gem:
And it takes less courage to wear a seat belt that not to wear one. Even if you’re right, you’re dodging the issue.
But you’re not right, not even here. I would have to disagree about the guns: it does not take more courage to walk the streets unarmed. I do it quite often, without any fear whatsoever. If there’s a place I would be afraid to go unarmed, I wouldn’t go there armed either - that’s just common sense. The fact that in most circumstances I prefer to be prepared for an unlikely self-defense scenario has nothing at all to do with my personal courage or lack thereof.
Now, there’s something specific about this I want to understand. Why are you so fearful of a regular citizen carrying openly, if you’re comfortable with that citizen doing it as part of his job?
How do you know the guy next to you on the bus isn’t a suicide bomber? How do you know the man at the door isn’t a chainsaw murderer? How do you know that the barista who made your espresso this morning (I’d cut back if I were you, by the way) wasn’t really a secret ninja assassin waiting for his moment to slip a shuriken or three into your spine?
There are a lot of things you can’t know. Most of us spend our time thinking about the ones that are actually plausible.
I, on the other hand, think it is the height of un-yogurtness to elephant the nerfball. I’m astonished you would even bring this up in public. For shame, sir, for shame!
Is Bricker the same person as rickerlobby from packing.org?
I work in a c-store too and permit or no permit no non-cop is welcome in the store with a gun. Every store in our chain has the same policy. We’re not interested in their business. So far the only time this has come up was the first day of hunting season. Aren’t private businesses allowed to ban weapons from their property even if the customer is legally allowed to carry them?
You absolutely have the right to ask anyone to leave for whatever reason you want. If the person refuses, he or she is guilty of trespassing.
There are some states where private business’ “no-gun” policies are given legal weight, i.e., so long as the policy is adequately posted in a manner prescribed by statute, anybody entering the premises with a firearm would be in violation of the law. Everywhere else, the only thing you can get them on is trespassing, which wouldn’t become an issue unless you saw the gun and asked them to leave, and they subsequently refused to do so. I think that in some states a prominently posted policy might constitute sufficient notice for a trespassing offense, but IANAL.
I’m curious though: do you know why your chain has that policy?
Self-defense is lame excuse. What do you think you’re going to have to defend yourself against at a Starbucks or a restaurant? Having a a whole room full of people taking potshots at each other is no solution to anything anyway. Leave the gun at home and don’t be so fearful.
Since they have no reason to carry at all, that excuse is lame as well. If you really can’t tolerate the idea of going outside without a gun, at least have the decency not to display it. That’s just negative attention seeking.
How do I know it’s peaceable? Flashing a piece is an aggressive act, especially in a place where you would never have a reason to fire one.
What’s childish about that? You guys are the ones who say you carry them for self-defense. That implies fear. I have no problem walking into a 7-11 completely unarmed. Therefore , its ridiculous to claim that I am the fearful one.
No, I’m addressing a repeated accusation of “fearfulness” by people who are afraid to go outside without a gun. The seatbelt accusation is nonsense because that’s a safety issue. Carrying a gun is not.
Then I have more guts than you because there is NO place I wouldn’t go unarmed.,m and I have walked routinely through some of the most dangerous inner city neighborhoods in the US (and I’m not talking about Minneapolis) as well as in near-lawless third world countries.
I think the point you’re missing here is that I’m objecting to the accusation that I am somehow “fearful” if I don’t carry a gun. There is nowhere you won’t go without a gun that I won’t go unarmed, so how does it make sense to call ME “fearful?”
First off, I’m not afraid of any of them. The question was do we think it’s RUDE, not whether we’re afraid of them. Secondly, a person with a uniform has a reason to carry a gun and isn’t trying to be hostile or intimidating or laboring under the delusion that he’s impressing anybody.
Those are the questions you should be asking yourself if you see somebody displaying a firearm in an inapprpriate setting.
The answer to your question is I don’t know, but there is a difference beween not knowing anything about a random stranger and not knowing anything except that he has the immediate ability to kill my children.
There are a lot of things you can’t know. Most of us spend our time thinking about the ones that are actually plausible.
[/quote]
And you think it’s plausible you’re going to get thrown down on at a Starbucks? I’m not the one nurturing the Bernard Goetz fantasy. Don’t talk to me about “plausible.”