FWIW, IMO not liking guns does not make one a pussy. Even being afraid of guns does not make one a pussy. It may not be logical in many contexts, but it’s not being a pussy.
I’m uncertain of the relevance of Emily Post to this conversation. “Miss Manners” doesn’t set my moral code, nor do I recall where she was elected or appointed to set it for anyone else.
So its not even about any degree of danger, its just that some people think guns (even concealed ones which they are not even going to be aware of) are icky?
Is rude for a person not to declare their sexual orientation upon entering a house, just in case the homeowner might think they’re icky?
Of course – that’s rather the point of why it’s in your sock and not concealed within your vest. You should however remove your Dirk when entering a friendly house.
I was thinking about this reading the thread, and was going to use the Sgian Dubh analogy; perhaps it would be more polite for CCWers to open carry in friendly houses. (Without knowing the legality of this).
I’ve said this before, and I’m just about to say it one more time:
The term “unethical” as used in the OP (and “ethical” as used in the title) has no or very little meaning. This is basically an IMHO thread asking whether you would be mad at somebody that carried on your property. People that attach significance to their opinion on this issue may couch their expression of their opinion in “ethics” language to try to give the legitimacy of objective truth to their opinion, but that’s all it is–a rhetorical flourish without consequence.
I am pro second amendment and against assault weapons bans. I believe open carry laws should be expanded. This being said in my opinion carrying a weapon into someone else’s house without their knowledge is in bad taste and slightly disrespectful. I will not go as far to say it is unethical. I know I would not like that fact if someone carried a loaded weapon into my house without my knowledge. This is me being pro-gun if you will. If a person is a good enough friend you should know if they carry or not and they should know your opinion on it.
My whole point is fairly simple. It’s called concealed carry. Concealed means hidden. If I tell you about it, it is no longer concealed. Therefore, if you have a problem with someone coming on your property with a concealed weapon and not telling you, you have problem the whole concept of concealed carry.
The concept is that we shouldn’t let people know we have a gun because it might scare them.
You’ve got your logic backwards. If X (an area-affecting chemical or biological agent that “fires” spontaneously upon any significant damage to its vial) is a greater threat than Y (a holstered firearm, which is unlikely to fire spontaneously, and unlikely to be pointing at someone even if it does), a refusal to allow Y suggests you should also not allow X. It doesn’t work the other way around.
No, it’s a problem with people coming into my home with a weapon, and not telling me. It’s my home, not your home and I have a fundamental right to know whether or not you are bringing a weapon into my home. To me, it has a lot more to do with homeowner’s rights than gun owner’s rights, and the expectation that my guests will respect my right to know what’s going on in my own home.
This whole thing about “it’s not concealed if I tell you” is a non-issue. You don’t have to carry a weapon. You choose to carry a weapon, you choose to get a CCW permit, choose to take the weapon into my home then act like you had no choice but to keep it a secret?
Isn’t this begging the question? The issue, surely, is whether you do have this “fundamental right”, or is it trumped by the weapon bearer’s right to privacy? You’re just arguing by assertion.
Why do you think I have any fear of this at all? I just think it’s unethical and impolite. You have a positive duty to be a good and polite citizen when carrying, Towers, and that violates it.
Now, here’s the question. Is it reasonable that a homeowner should tell everyone, “Oh, I don’t like guns in my house.”? Or maybe make a sign for, as far as they know, the extreme minority of people? I think the onus is on you to find out their rules, rather than cause a possible misunderstanding.
pkbites: So, you’re illegally bringing a gun into the store, because you don’t have the right to do it?
Oh good, this thread didn’t have enough meaningless concepts being bqandied about without anyone attempting to define what they think they mean, now we can add “fundamental right” to the mix.
Damn right, I’m asserting that I have the right to tell anyone*** that they can get out of my home (or not come in my home) anytime I want, for any reason I want, even if that reason is “you’re carrying a gun” “you’re speaking your mind” “you have a bad haircut” “you’re a race/creed/religion/any other protected status that I don’t like”, or “you refuse to submit to a strip search”. You want your right to privacy, the front door is right over there, you’re totally free to use it anytime you want.
Don’t tell me I don’t have the right to know what’s going on in my own home because the State gave you a little card that says it’s OK to carry something secretly.
***Excluding LEOs with warrants/probable cause, of course. Though, I’m sure I could tell them to GTFO, it just won’t be particularly effective.
I’m going to make the same point I made before about the word “rude,” since now you’ve used the word “polite” here. I’ll say it again: Something being “rude” or “impolite” is defined by other peoples’ reaction to it. Rudeness does not exist in a vacuum. You can’t be rude in a room all alone by yourself.An act that other people do not know happened cannot be rude. The act of doing something “rude” requires that other people witness it and know about it. If you have a small pistol in a concealed holster hidden under your sport jacket, nobody is going to see it, nobody is going to know it’s there, and nobody is going to think it’s rude.
Rudeness, politeness, impoliteness, etc - these are all concepts that are entirely contingent on other people seeing or hearing something. If they don’t know you have the gun - which is what “concealed” means - then IT IS NOT RUDE. What is so damn hard about this concept for people in this thread to understand?
The fact that we’re talking about this hypothetical in the thread means that all of us “know” about the hypothetical, non-existent people bringing guns into others’ homes in the made-up hypothetical context of this thread. But if it happened in real life, *you would not know about it. * Because that is what “concealed” means.
Say Howard Hughes was a guest in my home, and he brought his own special bar of soap, hidden in his vest pocket, to wash his hands with because he did not believe that my own bar of soap was sanitary. If Hughes was to only use his own special bar of soap in the bathroom, with the door closed and locked while nobody was watching, this would NOT BE RUDE. If Hughes was to announce at the dinner table, “I don’t trust your soap, man, so I brought my own bar of it,” THAT would be rude.
Why don’t we just have everyone with a gun wear some kind of identifying insignia on their clothing so there won’t be any doubt as whether you want to let them in your house? Like maybe… a star?
(A five-pointed silver star, like an old west sheriff badge. What else were you thinking?)
While it is true that I have authority to enforce my right to defend my property that does not mean that the right to do so is ethical. If you have a bully who stole your lunch money, it is now his and he enforces it with his fist, is what he is doing ethical? - yet the money remains his.
This is a case, IMHO, where there is no ethical obligation, but just required submission to unjust authority.
That’s a super idea. Then, when you’re done visiting, you can put the star back in your pocket, since it’s really none of my business what you do when you’re out in public.