Is carrying an exposed gun to everyday shopping & social events OK manners wise?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
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.
[/quote]

It’s one and the same act.

Hmm? And I just said that I don’t have any problem walking into a 7-11 unarmed either.

Then why bring one?

What was that about fear again? It’s about taking small steps to be prepared for improbable disaster.

If you really fear such a disaster, then youir fear is irrational.

Obviously your feelings about firearms make it seem extraordinary to you, but it seems like a simple act of preparedness to me.

You don’t know anything about my feelings on firearms.

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.

This is exactly the kind of bullshit I’m talking about. I’m not afraid of guns, nor do I think they’re evil, nor am I unfamiliar with them. I support gun rights, and I actually enjoy the occasional bit of target shooting out in the country. Just because somebody diasgrees with you about a matter of ettiquette doesn’t mean they’re “afraid” of anything.

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.

It’s more responsible just to leave the fucking thing at home, Clint Eastwood.

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?

No, no and no. Those are all reasonable measures aginats plasible threats. Going into a 7-11 strapped is not.

Begging the question. Here again is your assumption that there’s no legitimate reason for a citizen to carry a gun.

What I said was that it is inappropriate to carry a gun into any setting where it would not be appropriate to fire one.

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.

You’re missing the point again. What I’m saying is that no one who carries a gun has the right to call me a coward for not carrying one.

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.

You just did it in this very post. What was all that crap about “if I was afraid of guns?” I’m not afraid of guns, buddy, I just don’t feel the need to carry them to grocery store with me.

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.

I disagree that yoiu’ve explained that. All I’ve seen are contrived excuses to do it.

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?

Protect his life from what? There are no threats to his life. Why is he so fearful?

And for that matter, why would such uniformed persons carry openly, except to impress and intimidate with their authority?

No other reason is needed for those in uniform.

Begging the question again. Show me an inappropriate setting.

You really can’t think of a setting where it would be inappropriate to fire a gun? Ok, how about a church.

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?

At times, you’re damn right I do, but at least that’s nnot the purpose of a car.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
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.
[/QUOTE]

And how many times has this scenario actually happened? (Inside your head, of course, does not count).

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

And I just said that I don’t have any problem walking into a 7-11 unarmed either.

Then why bring one?
[/quote]

Again ignoring my point about driving home from the shooting range, and being a bit hungry or thirsty, and not wanting to wait another 45 minutes to get home before I am permitted to stop and buy a soda and a Hostess apple pie.

That’s the answer to ‘why.’

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Again ignoring my point about driving home from the shooting range, and being a bit hungry or thirsty, and not wanting to wait another 45 minutes to get home before I am permitted to stop and buy a soda and a Hostess apple pie.

That’s the answer to ‘why.’
[/QUOTE]

Leave it in the trunk of the car.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Note that not once has [Diogenes] 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.
[/quote]

Why, Dio wouldn’t be Dio otherwise.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
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?
[/QUOTE]

Not really, but at least in his own home, there’s less chance of collateral damage.

By the way, there are also plenty of anecdotal stories about people shooting their own family members because they mistake them for intruders. Anecdotes aren’t really worth much.

[Argent_Towers]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Protect his life from what? There are no threats to his life. Why is he so fearful?
[/QUOTE]

Don’t, like, thousands of people get killed every year in America by criminals?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Don’t, like, thousands of people get killed every year in America by criminals?
[/QUOTE]

Most murders are related either to domestic violence or some sort of organized crime/gang violence. It is the exception for the average Joe just to get murdered willy nilly at the local Baskin-Robbins. Carrying a gun is not going to help most of them anyway. Displaying a gun is just a neon sign saying “shoot me first.”

[Polerius]

[QUOTE=astro]
Referencing this story in the LA Times where this man and wife with carry permits make a point of having their guns strapped to their hips when out and about shopping, dining etc. I’m not asking a legal question, but one regarding social manners.
[/QUOTE]

The guy in the picture in the link you provided looks like a big fucking loser.

Anyone who wants to openly carry a gun while drinking coffee at Starbucks or having a milkshake at Dairy Queen is a moron. This is not the Wild West anymore. You are not Wyatt Earp.

“Dude, 1865 called, and it wants its holster back from your pasty white latte-sipping ass”

[Chimera]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Not really sure why I even bother.
[/QUOTE]

See post #107.

[Quint]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
It’s not a death threat in any legal sense. In your own mind, as a result of your irrational prejudices, it’s a threat. But the numbers don’t bear you out.

Can you point to even one shooting crime committed by someone who was practicing open, legal public carrying at the time? Even one?
[/QUOTE]

Well, I mostly want to leave you fellows to enjoy your gunfight amongst yourselves, but I think this comparison of public gay kissing to wearing a gun is absurd. Guns have been used for generations to kill people. Gay kissing has never been used to kill people. Here is an example where a gun was taken from someone else’s holster and used to commit murder. I hope that puts to rest the idea that guns are just as safe as two gay people kissing on the street. Unless you have an example (just one needed) of a gay kiss being used to kill someone, ever in the history of humanity, kindly drop the comparison. You may now resume your pissing contest.

[msmith537]

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
Ever hear of Luby’s Cafeteria?
[/QUOTE]

Actually…no.

@Bricker

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?

I’ll answer that. Yes. His ability to defend himself effectively and appropriately is diminished outside of his home. And here’s why:

Inside your home, you know the layout. You know who should and should not be in there. You are also inside your house which is more likely to contain errant shots. And generally, if you decide to stay and fight it out instead of beating a tactical withdrawel, you (and your family I suppose) are the only ones who are at risk.

Contrast that to an unknown situation on the street. You have only moments to assess the tactical situation. You have to determine who is the threat and who isn’t and you better make damn sure your rounds go towards the right one. Which isn’t so easy when there are potentially dozens of paniced people running around you. Policemen and soldiers go through extensive tactical training for such situations and still accidents and less than desireable outcomes happen. We’re supposed to trust the judgement and skill of the average guy on the street with no combat training?

[Stealth_Potato]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It’s one and the same act.
[/quote]
So, we’re using Dio language for this one again, right? The one where carrying is the same as brandishing, possession is equivalent to a death threat, and having a gun on your hip is exactly the same act as exposing a concealed gun with intent to intimidate.

You don’t know anything about my feelings on firearms.

No, I’m not so sure that I misunderstand you at all, Dio. For someone who claims to have no problem with firearms, you sure seem to have a lot of fear regarding people carrying them in public. Why else would you persist in your hysterical opposition to the practice, and your relentless characterization of everyone who disagrees with you as a cowboy wannabe or a dangerous psychopath?

Can you answer me with some cold, hard statistics indicating that people who lawfully carry concealed handguns are a menace to society?

It’s more responsible just to leave the fucking thing at home, Clint Eastwood.

See above. This is what you seem to be assuming. Why?

No, no and no. Those are all reasonable measures aginats plasible threats. Going into a 7-11 strapped is not.

Elaborate, please. If you accept that a taser is a measure against a plausible threat, why is it not also acceptable to carry something more reliable than a taser?

What I said was that it is inappropriate to carry a gun into any setting where it would not be appropriate to fire one.

And again and again, I and others have tried to point out that it is possible to have a legitimate reason to fire a gun in almost any setting. You are assuming that it is not, therefore supporting your conclusion that there are no appropriate places to carry a gun. This is called “begging the question.”

You’re missing the point again. What I’m saying is that no one who carries a gun has the right to call me a coward for not carrying one.

And I agreed with you. Your point?

You just did it in this very post. What was all that crap about “if I was afraid of guns?” I’m not afraid of guns, buddy, I just don’t feel the need to carry them to grocery store with me.

Ahhh, nope. Sorry, read it again. I was responding to your suggestion that my choice to carry a gun comes from fear. I never made any suggestion that your choice not to carry a gun was made through fear, or that the act of not carrying a gun indicated cowardice.

No other reason is needed for those in uniform.

…What? Are you saying that it’s okay for the uniformed to intimidate people by carrying openly, simply because they’re in uniform? Please explain your response here; I really cannot understand how this is even a reply to my question.

You really can’t think of a setting where it would be inappropriate to fire a gun? Ok, how about a church.

Oh. Right. A church. You mean like the New Life Church shooting in Colorado last year, where a churchgoer volunteering as a security guard brought down the gunman with her own handgun before he could do any more harm? Is that the kind of situation you mean where it’s inappropriate to discharge a gun in a church?

At times, you’re damn right I do, but at least that’s nnot the purpose of a car.

Yes. Because the purpose of a gun is to be brandished at children. Good show, sir, good show. :dubious:

[Stealth_Potato]

[QUOTE=Polerius]
The guy in the picture in the link you provided looks like a big fucking loser.

Anyone who wants to openly carry a gun while drinking coffee at Starbucks or having a milkshake at Dairy Queen is a moron. This is not the Wild West anymore. You are not Wyatt Earp.

“Dude, 1865 called, and it wants its holster back from your pasty white latte-sipping ass”
[/QUOTE]

So, let’s see. Your arguments against open carry are as follows:

1. Bill White looks like a big fucking loser. (Not sure this is objective. Personal opinion?)

2. Anyone who wants to openly carry a gun while consuming coffee or dairy-based beverages is a moron. (Assertion? I’m sure we can find some supporting facts.)

3. This is not the Wild West anymore. (Use of popular term - might need definition.)

4. You are not Wyatt Earp. (Vacuously true - original Wyatt Earp died in 1929. Also, fails to account for possibility of other individuals named Wyatt Earp.)

5. 1865 apparently called, demanding the return of a holster from someone with a pasty white ass. (Verify this: I think it’s more likely 1865 would send a telegraph.)

Well, at least you had the good sense to couch your argument in terms that weren’t senselessly rude or abusive, especially considering that this was ostensibly a thread about etiquette.

</tongue-in-cheek>

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Quint]
Well, I mostly want to leave you fellows to enjoy your gunfight amongst yourselves, but I think this comparison of public gay kissing to wearing a gun is absurd. Guns have been used for generations to kill people. Gay kissing has never been used to kill people. Here is an example where a gun was taken from someone else’s holster and used to commit murder. I hope that puts to rest the idea that guns are just as safe as two gay people kissing on the street. Unless you have an example (just one needed) of a gay kiss being used to kill someone, ever in the history of humanity, kindly drop the comparison. You may now resume your pissing contest.
[/QUOTE]

That was a police officer’s gun, which I see you didn’t mention. So I’d say that doesn’t much help your point, since everyone in the thread on your side of the argument seems to be saying that they’re not at all worried about police with guns.

Why didn’t you mention it was a police officer’s gun?

[Quint]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
That was a police officer’s gun, which I see you didn’t mention. So I’d say that doesn’t much help your point, since everyone in the thread on your side of the argument seems to be saying that they’re not at all worried about police with guns.

Why didn’t you mention it was a police officer’s gun?
[/QUOTE]

My side of the argument? What side is that? I don’t give a shit if someone wants to wear a firearm in the street. I’ve only seen it once myself, in Arizona, and at that time I thought it was pretty cool. My beef here is your bizarre assertion that a person carrying a gun in public is no more dangerous than a gay couple kissing in public. Guns can be used to kill, gay kissing cannot. Even in a holster, a gun is still far more potentially dangerous than a kiss. To claim otherwise is weak.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Not really, but at least in his own home, there’s less chance of collateral damage.

By the way, there are also plenty of anecdotal stories about people shooting their own family members because they mistake them for intruders. Anecdotes aren’t really worth much.
[/QUOTE]

OK, how about data? As I mentioned upthread, Virginia has 152,267 active carry permits.

Not one crime from any of those people. Not one. That’s not anecdotal. That’s data.

[Argent_Towers]

Well don’t count on the anti-gun people to acknowledge it as such. If there’s one thing that they’re good at, it’s blatantly ignoring the evidence against them.

[Bricker]

Ran out of edit time because the board timed out, so I want to be crystal clear:

Not one gun crime from any of those people while carrying. Not one. That’s not anecdotal. That’s data.

It’s certainly possible that one of the 152,000 folks cheated on their income tax or caught fish without a valid license. But not one gun crime.

[Johnny_L.A]

[QUOTE=Quint]
My beef here is your bizarre assertion that a person carrying a gun in public is no more dangerous than a gay couple kissing in public.
[/QUOTE]

If I may presume to speak for Bricker here, I don’t think the question is whether same-sex kissing is dangerous. Rather, the question is whether it is offensive or socially unacceptable.