I think this is absolutely clear for private homes, but most businesses are public accommodations and as such have to watch the law a bit more closely.
For instance, whatever his feelings about guns, I don’t think a landlord here in Virginia has the right to make his tenants not keep any in their apartments, so long as they can legally keep them.
Also, businesses may ban guns from their premises, but many states are carving out an exception for the cars in the parking lot. The thinking was that it is fine that the factory floor be gun free, but making sure Joe Sixpack couldn’t go target shooting after work was going too far.
That seems like a reasonable accommodation to me, as I’m pretty pro-property rights as well.
I don’t know why people just have this black and white view where “cop with gun = ok,” “civilian with gun = bad.” If you were in a coffee shop and a robbery occurred or some psycho pulled out a weapon, which of the following two customers would you rather be in that coffee shop with you:
A cop who’s a rookie, scored just high enough on the tests to get accepted, is clumsy, and rarely practices with his sidearm.
A civilian with a licensed concealed handgun who practices with his pistol at the firing range twice a week.
It’s not like a police badge immediately confers upon the wearer some kind of magical powers that make him more dependable or more trustworthy than an average law-abiding, good citizen with a concealed carry permit.
I notice you have completely forgotten the justification I provided. The one where you told me to suck it up and drive home hungry. I never said a thing about self-defense.
I also love how so many left-wingers (and I am not referring to any specific poster here, but just people who I’ve known or talked to) will relentlessly bash the police, call them racists and thugs, and talk about our “fascist” government and military, but then if you bring up the subject of the right to bear arms, whoooaaa daddy, all of a sudden, they become the most pro-police and pro-government people on earth, saying “well, it’s the job of the police and the military to have guns - regular people don’t need to have them.”
So what? People get struck by lightning too. That doesn’t mean it’s anything to seriously worry about. Plus, I am dubious that armed civilians would be able to stop something like this anyway. More bullets flying is not a salve for the situation. Amateurs need to stay out of firefights.
You said: 'Self-defense is lame excuse. What do you think you’re going to have to defend yourself against at a Starbucks or a restaurant?'
I gave you an example of something one would have to defend one’s self against in a restaurant. If you don’t like the answer you shouldn’t have asked the question.
In other words, they are bullies. They are sending the message, “Don’t argue with me or I just might kill you.”
As for criminals, don’t be silly; carrying a gun like that makes you a great target. For one thing, once they kill you they have two guns. And second, it makes it easy to get away with murdering you; just put your own gun in your hand with something that won’t leave fingerprints, and it was self defense. And no, you won’t be able to defend yourself; contrary to what people who watch too many old Westerns like to think, no one is fast enough to beat the draw of someone who starts drawing first. The criminal will always have the overwhelming advantage because he’ll open hostilities. You’ll be luck in your hand reaches the gun before you’re dead. That’s why the police are so careful about anyone whom they think has any chance of being armed and hostile; they know better than to think they are going to win some sort of quick draw contest, unless they’ve already drawn the gun.
Yes, but the odds are still statistically negligible. Like I said, people getr struck by lightning too, but that doesn’t make it rational to walk around with a lightning rod.
Dio, I like how you leave all logical methods of debate behind when you embark upon one of your posts. First you make a sweeping generalization, then an inappropriate instantiation, and then you take your unsupported assumption as the gospel truth and use it to back up every one of your points that follows. Add to that your hysterical ad hominems and you have quite a formidable arsenal. What a brilliant debating strategy. Really. You’re almost as good as Gee Dubya. :dubious:
“Flashing a piece” is very different from “carrying openly.” The first is an aggressive act, the second is not.
Hmm? And I just said that I don’t have any problem walking into a 7-11 unarmed either. What was that about fear again? It’s about taking small steps to be prepared for improbable disaster. Obviously your feelings about firearms make it seem extraordinary to you, but it seems like a simple act of preparedness to me.
I think I can understand your position: if I were afraid of firearms, or if I thought they were evil or wrong somehow, or if I were extremely unfamiliar with them, it would indeed take some level of fear (perhaps a direct personal threat) for me to obtain one and carry one. But I’m a regular shooter, and the safe handling and operation of firearms is second nature to me - packing a gun is like packing a pocketknife. Granted, carrying a gun is a much greater responsibility than carrying a knife, but accepting that responsibility is not an issue for me because I’m trained and willing to handle it.
I guess my point is that when you’re talking about “fear,” it’s all about how you emotionally evaluate the object in question. Would you accuse a woman who carries pepper spray or a taser of being paranoid? How about a family with a fire extinguisher in their house? How do you feel about the responsibility involved in driving a car?
Begging the question. Here again is your assumption that there’s no legitimate reason for a citizen to carry a gun. If you’re going to use that to underpin your debate points (if I am not taking excessive liberty in calling them that), you’d better defend it with something more than emotional arguments and ad hominem attacks.
Really? Well, good for you, assuming you’re not exaggerating your personal daring even the slightest bit. But I would call that “recklessness,” not “guts.” I don’t think you’ll find any reasonable person who will accuse someone of lacking courage for saying there are some places they won’t walk at night, armed or not. Lacking stupidity, maybe.
Who is accusing you of being fearful because you don’t carry a gun? That’s just silly, and unless I’ve missed something entirely, I haven’t seen anyone make that claim against you in this thread. If you would care to point out where somebody made that specific argument, I would definitely take your side on this point.
Not good enough. I’ve already explained to you how a person can carry openly for legitimate reasons without intent to intimidate or impress anyone. You’re the one who keeps ignoring these arguments and choosing to perpetuate your faulty assumptions.
And why does a person with a uniform have a “reason” to carry a gun, if anybody else does not? You seem to be implying that it’s okay for cops to carry guns to enforce the law, and it’s okay for armored car drivers to carry guns to protect their clients’ money, and it’s okay for bodyguards to carry guns to protect politicians and celebrities, but it’s not okay for the average citizen to carry a gun to protect his life. Elitist much?
And for that matter, why would such uniformed persons carry openly, except to impress and intimidate with their authority?
Begging the question again. Show me an inappropriate setting.
You know, every person behind the wheel of a car in the vicinity of your children has the immediate ability to kill them, and in fact they’re a damn sight more likely to do so. Do you think it’s rude to brandish a car at your children?
I’m not nurturing any fantasies. I don’t think I’m at all likely to be attacked in a Starbucks, but I know that anything’s possible, especially during the walk home. Hell, I’ve had people try to rob me before, while I was walking through even fairly good parts of town at night. Don’t try to tell me that a person has no reason to think they might one day need to defend themselves.
As for Bernard Goetz; he was a complete lunatic who even admitted that he just wanted to “murder” the four guys who were trying to shake him down for five bucks. Even by his own words what he did went so far beyond legitimate self-defense it’s simply shocking. I don’t know why you’d bring him up in the debate; it certainly doesn’t help your position any.
I wouldn’t want that either. Fortunately there’s never been any indication or evidence that citizens carrying firearms have any tendency to do this in self-defense situations. And let me tell you, if given the choice of a brief firefight between an armed citizen and the prospective mass murderer, with all its possible risk of collateral damage, or said murderer being able to calmly slaughter everybody in the joint, I’d pick Joe Hero and his asshole blaster every time. I don’t really like the odds on “psychopath does everybody in the restaurant execution-style.”
No, really, pull the other one; it’s got bells on. :dubious:
I’ve seen firsthand that being a cop is no guarantee of any level of competence with a handgun. Many of them are dedicated professionals, certainly, but there are quite a few who are so clumsy or irresponsible that it’s alarming just to be around them. It’s a common saying at gun ranges: “stay the hell away from the range on police qual day.” Heck, do you remember that DEA agent who managed to shoot himself in the leg in a classroom full of children, moments after saying that he was “the only one in the room professional enough” to handle a gun?
Sure, possible. But I was in grave danger of being shot merely by being in the restaurant when he came in. How would the situation have been WORSE if I had been armed?
Dio, you jump from topic to topic and mode to mode whenever it suits you, don’t you? You said “amateurs should stay out of firefights,” and Bricker gave you an example of a 70-year old “amateur” engaging in an armed confrontation and winning. You’re just trying to pull the topic back to public carry (off of which you helped derail it in the first place) because you don’t like it when people give good answers to your rhetorical points.
Bricker was right when he observed your apparent inability to debate honestly. So far you’ve done little besides fling emotional arguments and ad hominem attacks, distort the words of other posters, make gratuitous use of logical fallacies, and generally spit upon the very concept of rational debate.
Sigh I don’t know why I waste my time. This isn’t even worth a pit thread.
Shall we total up the statements made by Diogenes that have been refuted in this thread? Note that not once has he said, “OK, good point,” or “OK, I concede my statement was overly broad.” No, he just steamrolls ahead as though the contradiction never appeared, or hand-waves it away.
It’s applicable to your line about amateurs in gunfights.
Or do you somehow contend that an amateur is able to defend himself effectively in his own home, but somehow loses that ability when he crosses his property line?