Precisely. The analogy is offered to contrast people wishing to engage in a legal activity that produces an irrational distaste in others that observe it – and whether such behavior should be considered rude.
I think we nailed the issue pretty well upthread: if done for the purpose of making people uncomfortable, it’s rude, no matter if it’s smooching your lover or packing your pistol. If it’s done with benign intention, it’s legit, even if people are upset by it.
Not to mention, the kind of crazy social conservatives who complain about gay people quite often do see such public displays of affection (and in extreme cases the very existence of homosexuality) to be a veritable threat to their way of life. So they do perceive a danger, just not one to life and limb – and they’re just as wrong as the people who think a person lawfully carrying a firearm presents any real threat to their personal safety.
Hmmmm… there does seem to be a continuum. There are societies where it is acceptable to have an AK47 on the street, and gays are put to death. There are societies where guns are somewhat tolerated in the street, and gays are somewhat tolerated as well. Then there are those societies where guns are banished from the street and gays are considered equal citizens.
Coincidence? That’s what they thought about this, but where are those skeptics now?
Oopsie:
COLUMBIA, S.C. - A 4-year-old girl shot herself in the chest Monday after snatching her grandmother’s handgun from the woman’s purse while riding in a shopping cart at a Sam’s Club store, authorities said.
from today’s AP
In my opinion, for the majority of those not in a high risk job or profession that would prudentially necessitate the immediate proximity of a personal firearm, who still wish to open carry in social situations where the real world necessity for carrying a firearm is infinitesimally small, it is quite obvious the motive behind the firearm being displayed is far more to make a political and philosophical fashion statement, than any rational need for self protection.
Now, a person may have the full legal right to do so, but from a polite society perspective it’s simply bad form. It’s like going around continuously picking your nose in front of other people. It’'s your perfect right to dig for nasal treasure, but it’s mannerless and kind of grotesque.
Not sure if I missed this, but trying once more to rise above the din and ask my possibly irrelevant question…
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’m not all that concerned about children or one lone nutcase, but say drunken guys in the mood to rumble. Again, my theory is that this could never happen with only concealed permits because, obviously, they don’t know there’s a gun even there to begin with.
Thanks to anyone who attempts to help those of us out who don’t ever dare post in GD. 
What society has guns “banished from the street?”
The answer is none. No countries have guns banished from the streets. Some countries make it illegal for an ordinary person to carry a gun. But this doesn’t mean they’re off the streets, it just means it’s illegal to have one.
Your “continuum” is meaningless.
Well, I’ll be the first to admit that my “continuum” is meaningless. I’m guessing you didn’t click the link comparing it to the graph of “Global Annual Temperature vs. Number of Pirates”, didja? The whole idea of comparing gun-packin to lip-lockin is absurd and I’d say my “continuum” treats the comparison with the seriousness it deserves.
A country where it is illegal for a citizen to have a handgun on the street would have effectively “banished guns from the streets” with regards to the OP, no? If not, why not?
In regards to this, I didn’t mention it because you asked for one example of someone having this happen. I gave you one example. You never said the example couldn’t come from someone carrying their weapon for work.
Maybe they’ve banished it in theory, but not in practice. Tell me there is nobody packing heat in Washington, DC. (Besides all of the bodyguards with guns under their jackets - bodyguards for politicians who seek to deny the common man his right to self-defense.)
Boy, are you confused. I never asked for an example of a gun being taken from anyone’s holster, period. Did I?
And if other people asked for this, the context was certainly not “from a police officer” because the constant refrain has been the discussion of civilians open carrying, not police officers.
Your failure to acknowledge that your example was an Australian police officer was disingenuous.
Sure there are people who break the law, that’s obvious. My problem is with the idea that being afraid of guns is the equivalent of being afraid of gays kissing. A far better analogy would be people who are afraid of dogs. Dogs can be dangerous, so it is not absurd for people to be afraid of dogs. It can easily be taken to absurd extremes, which happens in both the case of dogs and guns, but being somewhat concerned around dogs or guns is not an irrational phobia. Being afraid of gays kissing is always irrational, as there can be no instance where such a kiss can be dangerous. Unless there exists an example of such a kiss going horribly awry and harming bystanders.
The odds are so small as to be nearly non-existent. This answer is based on the number of times it’s happened.
Go back and read posts #160 and #161. Nobody is saying same-sex kissing is dangerous.
You’re right – although I’d say there are nuggets of truth in the kiss analoy, a far closer analogy would be claiming that it’s rude to have a pit bull on a leash with you.
Are Diogenes the Cynic and ElvisL1ves the same person?
Well, I think you’ve gone too far the other way limiting the breed to pitbull, but the analogy is better in my view. From the statistics you’ve provided, I’d say a holstered gun is far safer than a leashed dog, and likely a lot more useful in case of trouble. As far as manners go, I’m so far from being an expert as to have no opinion. Thanks for listening.
I confess I’ve only read the first two pages of the thread so far, so I apologize if this has already been answered. Bricker, you have me somewhat confused.
(bolding mine)
First you seem to say we shouldn’t fear people openly carrying guns because they are permit holders, and permit holders are unlikely to commit crimes. But then you say they don’t actually need a permit. So are you basically just saying we shouldn’t fear people carrying guns openly because they’re carrying guns openly?
Anyway, regardless of what most people who openly carry firearms do, is it really irrational for me to think that someone who would do something as unusual as carry a gun to, say, a child’s soccer game might not be the sort of person who I should trust to have a gun around my (hypothetical) kid? My point is: Sure enough, most people who exercise open carry may be unlikely to commit a crime. But most people who exercise open carry also probably don’t routinely have openly displayed guns at their kid’s soccer games. (At least not in, say, Arlington VA). So why should I assume the guy who has the gun at this hypothetical soccer game is as safe as the typical gun-carrier?
As an analogy: I think it likely that people wearing clown costumes are statistically far less likely to commit violent crimes than the general population. Even if someone furnished statistics to this effect, should that make me even the least bit reassured that a guy who showed up at, say, my Grandpa’s funeral wearing a clown costume and holding a gun is probably a safe person to be around? My answer is no: because unlike most people in clown costumes, that particular person would already be doing something suspicious.
Likewise, if you show up at a kids soccer game with a gun you’re already doing something weird, which officially makes you a weirdo with a gun.
(At least this would be weird behavior in a place like Arlington VA, which I choose as a common reference point since I grew up there and you apparently live in northern VA)
I disagree with your last assertion. As someone who has never fired a real firearm and is a transplant to Arizona (an OC state), I’m finding this thread persuasive and informative.
To clarify: I don’t like handguns. I’ve never been around them, and I’ve never fired the few rifles I’ve held. I’ve generally been nervous around holstered handguns, such as those carried by the police officers on the high school campus I teach at; however, the information provided in this thread, especially the link explaining how LEO holsters work, have made me start to realize that maybe I shouldn’t have that nervousness.
Now, the question remains: Would I be nervous if the guy behind me at the liquor store had a pistol strapped to his hip? Honestly, I probably would. Bricker’s figures help to alleviate that a little bit, but I would still find that behavior to be odd.
OTOH, I remember being at a guy’s house back in Harrison Township, Michigan when I worked for a cable company. He was carrying a Desert Eagle openly (totally legal; it’s his property). I thought it was a Airsoft/paintball gun at first (paint-splattered targets were nailed to a tree) and asked him about it. He pulled out the clip and showed me the bullets (HUGE!) and explained that he was a contractor and frequently had stuff stolen from job sites in Detroit by armed crackheads. I told him that I understood, but it still made me uncomfortable to have a guy watching me work while carrying a freaking hand cannon (What if I mis-drill!). He laughed and told me he’d just go back in the house while I worked in his garage, then. That worked out for both of us!
The short version of my second point is this:
**Even if most people who openly carry guns are safe, why should that make me reassured that someone who is doing something extremely unusual like openly carrying a gun to a child’s soccer game is safe?
To me, someone exhibiting highly unusual behavior while carrying a deadly weapon is a cause for concern.**
