Eh, don’t let the username fool ya; he’s actually okay, but just gets in a twist whenever guns are mentioned.
A firearm *never * presents zero harm to the people around it. Never. There is always a risk. Learn that before it is too late.
The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that such a risk exists makes you an irresponsible gun owner by definition. You can not possibly be responsible for a firearm if you are so ignorant of the risks associated with it.
And that is one of the reasons why I stated above that I would object to someone carrying a weapon in my house. Too many people like you claim that they are responsible and claim to be aware of the risks when they clearly are not.
There are about 10 people in the whole world who I would trust to carry firearms around my family in my house. Anyone else is gonna be asked not to. Anyone who denies there is even any risk from such activity shouldn’t be allowed to carry at all as far as I am concerned.
Do you think your hosts are going to try to mug you over Thanksgiving dinner? What harm could possibly be caused by respecting someone else’s property rights?
I’m not afraid of firearms, by the way, and as much as some gun lovers seem to want to believe that, I wish that particular canard could be retired once and for all.
And yet, not one person said that you were, or even implied it.
It’s funny that so many people have been saying basically that anyone who knows them well enough to invite them over for Thanksgiving dinner should know them well enough to trust that they can handle a firearm safely. The letter that inspired this thread (see this Dear Prudence column) was from a woman who DOESN’T know the gun-owner well. He’s her boyfriends uncle. The uncle is apparently not that close to the boyfriend, and the letter-writer clearly does not like or trust him at all. She writes “He displays antisocial behavior, and truthfully, he scares me. I hate the fact that he will be in my home, possibly interacting with my family. I only accepted that he was coming out of respect to my boyfriend and his father, otherwise this is not the type of individual I would ever want to have any contact with.”
It’s not clear whether the letter-writer actually believes her boyfriend’s uncle is mentally ill or if he’s just a garden variety jerk, but there’s nothing in the letter to indicate whether he’s a responsible gun owner or even if the weapon will be kept concealed. Since the letter-writer knows that the boyfriend’s uncle “likes to carry at least one [gun] everywhere he goes” it seems likely that he’s not especially discreet about it.
Der Trihs, change “pro-gun” to “pro-fuck-common-decency” and then you’ll be correct.
(I have to admit, I find it amusing that “Smart Carry” involves sticking the gun in your pants. Teehee!!!)
As far as one’s purse, I have to say, THAT I would feel very uncomfortable with. Especially since you don’t know what kids will get up to.
jtgain, no one said you had to leave it at home – just not bring it into the house. Read the thread again.
Look, so far as guns, I’m pretty neutral, but as I can understand why people wouldn’t want them in their houses. If bringing your gun with you is more important than your hosts’ feelings, then that’s your problem, not mine.
Like I said, MY main concern would be people getting boozed up, depending on the type of party it was.
Why? Because you say so? Maybe you can’t possess a holstered gun without fucking up and killing someone, but some people aren’t incompetent. If you aren’t an idiot and you aren’t a violent thug, what is going to make that concealed gun go off?
Because it’s a fricken’ fact. I can’t believe that anyone would deny that there are risks associated with carrying firearm.
So you admit that there is a risk that decreases with competence?
How about we start with the obvious: the weapon is loaded and the safety malfunctions. Or are you saying that it is physically impossible for that to happen?
Or how about a child gets hold of the weapon. Or are you saying that this is physically impossible as well?
Because if those things aren’t physically impossible then there is a risk that they could happen. Humans aren’t infallible. Not even you. We make mistakes. It appears you believe that you are infallible, but the truth is that there is a risk of you, yes even you, making a mistake.
The fact that you refuse to even acknowlegde that it is possible for you to make a mistake is precisely the reason why I would never trust you around my family with a firearm. That attitude that you are infallible and can never make a mistake makes you an accident looking for somewhere to happen.
Shit happens, man. You can acknowledge that. A minuscule risk is still a risk, after all.
No one’s saying a refusal to allow guns is necessarily a totally rational position from a risk assessment standpoint (it’s necessarily not rational either way, due to severe lack of data). But it’s a legitimate position to take given the scarcity of data.
–Zeriel, CCW holder, avid gun rights supporter, doesn’t think his gun rights trump a person’s need to feel comfortable on their own property.
For me there are a few thoughts, but to be fair to the discussion I must first declare that I have never been mugged, robbed or similiar
- I would rather lose my wallet to a home invader than have a guest shooting said home invader in a crowded room / house
- I think that having a gun will stop some situations
- I also think that having a guest pull a gun, should something go wrong and I get a home invader will escalate the situation and cause a worse outcome
- I don’t have think to hard to come up with a situation where the guest will have his / her gun taken off them and used against the whole house
On balance, I would rather not have the gun in the house.
Does your state allow a person to get a CCW license? If so, do you realize that there is a good chance that, when you go shopping at Wal-Mart (or wherever), another shopper in the store is armed? Does this make you nervous?
I guess I don’t understood why some people are very nervous about an armed person in their house, yet think nothing of walking around in public knowing that there are armed strangers everywhere.
Can you provide actual cases where the safety malfunctions? Because in general, they don’t. That’s often an argument people afraid or ignorant of guns uses, because they really don’t understand how guns or safeties work. Unless you pull the trigger, the gun is not going to go off. Virtually every negligent discharge is indeed the owner’s fault.
Also, a child is also not going to get a hold of a properly concealed weapon, particularly one they wouldn’t even know exists. Like I said before, in the hand’s of a responsible gun owner, the risk of a gun going off is as close to 0 as you can get (much closer than the chance of a crime happening and you needing it). You saying there’s a risk for a responsible owner in that situation is much like me saying there’s a chance of winning 3 lotteries simultaneously. Sure, technically it’s a non-0 chance, but it’s so unbelievably close to 0 there are much more important issues to concern ourselves with. I really do think you’re overestimating the supposed danger of a firearm here. Gun’s just don’t go off, and kids don’t just find a gun when it’s securely and secretly attached to yourself.
Now I suppose this could shift the argument to “How do I know if the guy wanting to bring a gun is a ‘responsible’ gun owner?” but that’s another debate altogether (albeit a valid one).
“in general”
“close to zero”
That doesn’t sound like zero risk, now does it Brandon?
For a person to want to invade a crowded home on Thanksgiving, I think they have more nefarious plans than just taking some wallets.
Here’s a fun thought experiment. Would you feel safer knowing it was a police officer who has the concealed weapon rather than a friend? Why? I’ve seen just as many stories of incompetent officers with firearms as CCW holders, perhaps more so since CCW holders are already likely to be interested in guns and their proper usage while some officers aren’t all that proficient with their gun to begin with.
Again, I acknowledge that it’s the homeowner’s right to decline guns in their own home, I’m just trying to understand some of the irrational explanations of why.
The armed person in your house has a distinct advantage over you and is capable, if sufficiently angry or sufficiently drunk or sufficiently stupid, of wreaking havoc. If you don’t know which of the fifty people in the street, all strangers to you, may be armed, it’s also true they they don’t know which of the fifty people in the street (including you), strangers to them, may be armed. This mitigates things, somewhat.
:smack: I never said it was zero risk! I said it was as close to zero as one should care to get! I’d wager you have a much bigger chance in dying on the car ride over to the place rather than some crazy event take place and the concealed gun no one knows about gets snatched by a kid who blows his brains out next to the cranberry sauce. All I’m saying is in the grand scheme of things, people are blowing the dangers of concealed weapons way out of proportion. Concealed weapons are allowed in 40 or so states last I checked. How many ridiculous accidents do you hear of in the news daily? Wild west shootouts? Okay, that’s what I thought.
Sure firearm accidents do happen, but often not by the people who go out and get CCW permits since these people are already interested and knowledgeable about firearms.
Crafter Man, do you realize that there is a good chance that, when you go shopping at Wal-Mart (or wherever), another shopper in the store is a paedophile? Does this make you nervous?
I guess I don’t understood why some people are very nervous about a paedophile in their house, yet think nothing of walking around in public knowing that there are armed everywhere.
Do you realize that there is a good chance that, when you go shopping at Wal-Mart (or wherever), another shopper in the store is a carrying crack? Does this make you nervous?
I guess I don’t understood why some people are very nervous about people bringing crack into their house, yet think nothing of walking around in public knowing that there are crack carriers everywhere everywhere.
And I could go on like this all day,
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve ever heard. I assume you’re trying to say that since we can’t control the entire world, we should be comfortable with absolutely anybody bringing absolutely anything into our homes, no matter how dangerous it is.
If you can’t see how silly that argument is you’re beyond my help.
I know people who have been victims of gun violence, or who have relatives who were victims of gun violence. Regardless of the logic behind their feelings, they are uncomfortable around guns. In a public place, they’ve learned to accept that they don’t control what others do or carry, but they assert their rights to control what goes on in their home.
I have one friend who doesn’t allow alcohol in their house due to past experiences with alcohol abuse in their family. They don’t drink, and they don’t mind if people drink around them in public or in other homes (although they’re not trilled by it) but they don’t allow alcohol to enter their house.
These are valid reasons. You don’t need logical support for a reason to be valid. Emotion reasons are as valid in etiquette as logical ones, IMO. I might ask a question or two about why, but beyond that I simply decide if it’s something I can accept or not and move on.
Then why quote me when I was saying there wasn’t zero risk? It seems like you agree with me entirely: Their is a risk associated with carrying a weapon, and people who refuse to even acknowledge that any risk exists are, by definition, irresponsible.
Are you actually arguing with me on this? Because if you aren’t I have no idea why you quoted me.
No they aren’t. The vast majority of people in this thread are saying that a risk exists. Nothing more. This seems to be a point that you agree with, though I’m not sure.
If you do agree that a risk exists then how do you figure that people who agree with you are blowing the risk out of proportion?
It seems that the only people misrepresenting the risks here are people like Grumman and jtgain, who cliam there is absolutely no risk.
Look, few of simple questions Brandon so I can work out what your position is, and what you are basing it in:
-
Am I correct when I say that carrying a firearm always poses some risk?
-
Are Grumman and jtgain correct when they say that carrying a firearm poses absolutely no risk to anybody?
-
Who, specifically, do you believe has overstated the dangers of firearms in this thread, and can you provide quotes of what you think the overstatement is?
At this stage I’m unclear what your position is or what it might be based on.